Stop using it. They didn't indemnify anyone else who uses it so Google is only on the hook for "damages" caused by its usage in YouTube or Chrome. Anyone else who used the codec is on their own.
After that they can work around any of the patents that they were found to violate and release a new standard.
Just out of curiosity, what else were they going to do? Their current strategy of trying to rely on Symbian while transitioning to MeeGo is what got them into this trouble. Who knows when MeeGo will actually be ready or comparably polished to iOS and Android. Symbian isn't going to magically get much better than it is now, and where's it's at now has taken a lot of development.
The only other move was to use Android, but that caries its own set of risks. They mentioned the possibility of commoditization, which doesn't ring true to me, but is a possibility. Worse is the ongoing legal dispute over Android with Oracle. Google doesn't indemnify anyone, so if things go in Oracle's favor it may be the manufacturers having to foot the bill. Another "big if", but it's not something a company can outright dismiss.
It seems like almost everyone around here is heralding this is a horrible move. Does anyone actually have a suggestion for what Nokia should have done instead? A suggestion that doesn't include making different decision several years ago, magically making Symbian as good as Android or iOS, or somehow ignoring the mythical man month and getting MeeGo out the door in a reasonable time frame. It's easy to say a particular decision is crap when you're not expected to come up with a workable one yourself.
Nokia's strategy was doing nothing be hemorrhaging market share and money for the past several years. They were pretty much screwed on the road they were heading down so moving over to another that may seem just as precarious doesn't leave them much worse off, especially if it works out in the long run.
Here's an analysis of this along with some nice charts that show how iOS and Android have really eaten Nokia's lunch over the past few years. Their stock has dropped from around $40 per share in 2007 to $10 in 2011. The only people who had faith that they were doing the right thing were the/. crowd.
MeeGo has already been plagued by serious delays and there was no indication that when it did ship everything would magically work. It's easy to point to this new deal and say that MeeGo got axed, but couldn't it be the other way around? It's just as possible that MeeGo was behind schedule and wouldn't be ready for a release for a few more quarters and even then would still need a lot of work to get it up to snuff. The/. crowd might have put up with that, but the mass market consumers would have hated it.
I don't know whether this move will pan out for Nokia. From my point of view it's more beneficial to Microsoft. However, Nokia needed to do something because they were watching the rest of the market move past and weren't able to respond. Maybe this deal ends up killing them, but they were probably dead either way.
Easy, point the default search at Bing and grow their market share in search without having to improve their search.
That's the reason that makes the most business sense. I have a feeling that the real reason is, like you alluded to, because Balmer thinks they need to have a browser.
You could probably get away with China. There's still a lot of subsistence farming going on even though a lot of people are starting to get factory jobs. Really depends on how you want to interpret "letting citizens starve." If this bill passes, you could even say that it's true of the U.S. as there are still a few people who starve every year in the country.
Generally a nation that has a high rate of starvation and can't afford to keep its people fed isn't going to be able to afford high speed rails either and probably has little real use for such a system. The whole argument is rather silly if you stop to think about it.
Current sales of WebOS devices, which is really just limited to phones, is probably quite anemic. The original Pre didn't sell as well as hoped, which is why today there was an HP event instead of a Palm event. Millions of people still buy an iPhone during Q1 and Q2, despite the fact that Apple releases a new one every year. This will have about as much impact on sales of the Pre, which is to say it will have some, but their sales are already so low that it likely doesn't matter.
They have almost nothing to lose right now, and by announcing their product and features, they might have actually swayed a few consumers to hold off buying an Android tablet or iPad until the TouchPad comes out. It also restores some faith in the WebOS platform considering that HP has been fairly quiet about it since acquiring Palm. Developers at least know that new hardware is coming and have a general idea about the specs. If nothing else they know how large the tablet screen is going to be, which should help them adapt their applications for it ahead of time.
WebOS already died an unhappy death once over a year ago when it failed to gain significant traction. This event was a good way to breathe some life back into the platform and get the word out. HP has left out just enough details that they can hold another media event in the future to talk price and release date to garner another wave good press. I would say that they're far from clueless.
It's not just about the hardware; it's about the software the runs on that hardware as well. By limiting the selection of hardware that they use, even if it's not top end, they can optimize the software to squeeze out every last bit of performance from it, whether in terms of raw performance or battery life. Apple has also decided that device aesthetics are important. When was the last time an Apple product was made out of cheap plastic? There's more to a product than just a spec sheet and feature checklist.
If you went back to the car analogy, it's like using a L6 engine rather than a V12, but tuning the hell out of that engine to provide the best experience for that vehicle. Just like you can find a well designed notebook that has a much better processor, but you generally can't find one that has the same small form factor, good design, great battery life, and price range.
If it does fill a niche role it's a pretty damned large niche and an even better one to fill. There isn't one other phone manufacturer that wouldn't trade places with Apple at the drop of a hat. Even if you account for some of their success due to their rabid^H^H^H^H^Hloyal fanbase, they're selling more phones and tablets than they ever have Macs. There are a lot of consumers who are saying that despite any limitations the platform may have, it actually suits their needs very well and that they'd like to purchase said devices.
I don't think there's any worry that Iran will nuke the United States. That would just be completely stupid on their part.
The worry is that some of their nuclear technology might fall into the hands of some extremist group that would have no qualms about setting off a nuke in the middle of a city just to send a message. When someone blows themselves up using a regular bomb there's enough debris left over to have a good idea of who might have done it. Even a small nuclear device would cause enough destruction that there's going to be nothing left of the person, vehicle used for delivery, and ground zero to have any real clue. We'd have to base everything around the intelligence that's been gathered and that's not always very accurate. It can help corroborate an explanation, but you've seen what happens when we take action based solely on intelligence reports. It might not happen, but it's semi-plausible. It's probably even more likely to happen to Israel.
Otherwise your post is spot on. Of course we really don't want to admit that for the last several decades we've been dicks to the rest of the world to serve our own interests. It clashes heavily with the vision of ourselves that we like to portray: leading by example, bringing democracy to the rest of the world, etc. We'll probably stop messing around with their governments, politics, and country just as soon as they run out of oil. Unless they become the next China and have a lot of western companies conducting business in their country, there wouldn't be much reason for us to stick around after that.
Some interference may not be a bad thing. If I'm using Skype, I wouldn't mind if the ISP gave my packets priority over someone's email. Realtime audio and video is a lot more time sensitive and if someone has to wait a few extra milliseconds for their email, I don't think that they would notice or even care.
I don't think there's anything wrong with prioritizing certain types of traffic, especially if it would improve service quality for most of the end users. Where I would draw the line is when they start to differentiate based on who's providing the packets or where they're going. For example, you can prioritize streaming video, but you can't prioritize YouTube ahead of Netflix.
Depending how interference is defined, what's permissible under net neutrality could vary widely.
Not to be sexist, but does it really matter? Is there some reason that having a larger percentage of women contributors would make Wikipedia a better place? If not, there's no reason to go out of the way to increase the contributions from women, especially if it degrades the quality of Wikipedia in the process.
If it's a problem of members being sexist or misogynistic, take steps to fix that. Trying to force some quota probably isn't the best solution to this problem, if it even is a problem.
Not sure about "owning the iPad". There's a lot of things to dislike about Apple - i'm certainly no fanboi - but the user interface response of the iPad isn't one of them. I was looking at Android tablets just yesterday, tried out a Galaxy Tab in the flesh and it seemed clunky and slow compared to my iPad. This is before I'd read any reviews that basically also slammed the performance. With my iPad, it responds instantly to swipes and taps, the Galaxy seemed to be having serious problems responding to events - especially in its web browser. Yes, it's a cheaper device, but the specs are not far from the ones in the iPad.
From what I've heard this is due to differences in the way the two operating systems work. iOS takes an approach that the UI should always be responsive and fluid at the expense of other things. Load a/. article and have it display hundreds of comments and start scrolling like mad towards the top. It'll scroll smoothly, but eventually you'll hit a point where it hasn't rendered that part of the page so you don't actually see anything there until it renders it (usually a second or so). Android on the other hand will load the entire page and render it, but trying to scroll through all of it will cause things to appear choppy. Things get even worse if there are a lot of Flash elements on the page. The device prioritizes those over UI touch events so it starts to feel clunky at times. Comes down to different design philosophies.
The OP is probably referring to phones. Here's an analysis of how long it's taken the various manufacturers to release updates. Samsung has taken roughly three times as long as either Motorola or HTC to get Froyo out. They've also been accused of withholding updates unless carriers paid them for it, but no one was able to confirm that for a certainty.
Based on their past history, I have a feeling that they won't be upgrading the Galaxy Tab to Honeycomb, but that's just my opinion. Sorry, but the data supports the OP's point of view. He may have an axe to grind, but he has plenty of justification.
Engadget has a much better and more detailed review of the device. They disliked the poor screen resolution and really dinged it for the abysmal battery life. The most they could get out of it was 6 hours if their usage was light.
Battery life with screen at 65% brightness, WiFi on, playing standard definition video.
That doesn't stop them from behaving moronically. It's just as likely that they may be far more interested in short term profits than the long term health of the company. I'd put more faith in Steve and the senior leadership of Apple than their shareholders to do well by the company.
I'm quite sure that they have plans in place and have had them for several years considering there was a time when no one was really sure if Steve was going to live. Publicly disclosing those plans could cause problems for the company.
They get a cut of the sales most likely and with traditional newspapers having a lot of financial problems, people are looking for new ways to repackage news and information and make money off of it. If this venture is successful it's likely that others will offer various organs through the App Store, making even more money for Apple.
Also, News Corp has been one of the few companies to actually try different revenue streams. They'll eventually get one right and then the rest of the papers, magazines, etc. that have been sitting around waiting to die might be able to copy whatever model that is to stay afloat. Say what you want about their content, but they've been one of the few companies to actually try and adapt with the times.
Unless they were making at least enough money to cover the lawsuit costs for the plaintiff, there is no reason to sue. Usually they wait until business picks up to the extent that they have something worth suing over or a pile of cash that they can easily pay. Google has deep pockets so I imagine once they've got a full roll-out that's in heavy use they're going to get hit with a lawsuit whether it has merit or not. The opportunity is just too good to pass up.
It's pretty similar to the Oracle lawsuit. They've seen how much Android has taken off, and if they can get a few dollars for every unit sold, it more than makes up for the millions that will be spent on the lawsuit. Hell, it even makes the Sun acquisition pay for itself.
Just curious what field you're degree was in. I'd say a large portion of/. is computer science, information technology, or some kind of engineering degree. I've never known people with those degrees to have problems getting jobs. While I was an undergraduate, a few of our CS professors left because they got offered six figures to work in industry related to their research areas.
On another note, if Bing were smart, they'd mix Google's results in with theirs, shift the position on the page around and see if that affects clicks or if people will still go for the Google results even if they're towards the bottom. They might learn some things in order to provide better results that way.
On the other side of the coin, so long as Apple's competitors keep discarding experience instead of building better products, Apple keeps winning. Apple might drive themselves forward in some ways, but I don't think that they'd be as far as they are today if Google wasn't putting a lot of pressure on them. Outside of WebOS (Which didn't do so hot the first time around.) and Windows Phone 7 (Which isn't doing so hot right now.) the only competition Apple has had in the last several years has been from Google with Android.
And Google has done a good job with it. The big problem are the handset manufacturers who muck things up with their custom UIs that aren't as good. After that, the carriers get to have a go at the device and disable features (e.g. side-loading) or install crapware that can't be removed by the user. Even though Android is much more open from a theoretical point of view, for several phones it's not much more open than any iOS device.
From the developers point of view, things are worse on Google's side of the fence. Even after all of this time, there are still several countries where developers are unable to charge for their app, even if they wanted to do so. Until recently there were a lot of problems with people downloading an app (most especially games) and returning it before the 24-hour evaluation period was up. There are also some hardware fragmentation issues (The exist, but they're not as serious as some make them sound.) that require additional testing to sort out.
Apple can keep people discarding principles because no one else has made as elegant of a solution as they have yet. If everything else were equal, the market would gravitate towards the more open solution.
On a side note, I don't think they've ever dictated that open source isn't welcome. They use and contribute a lot of WebKit. Are you referring to the issues with the GPL conflicting with their app store rules?
Plenty of reasons to hate DRM/TPM for their own sake. No need to attribute a chipset defect to either of these without any actual proof. Seems that it only affects the 3 Gbps ports and not the 6 Gbps ports so that claim seems somewhat unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop using it. They didn't indemnify anyone else who uses it so Google is only on the hook for "damages" caused by its usage in YouTube or Chrome. Anyone else who used the codec is on their own.
After that they can work around any of the patents that they were found to violate and release a new standard.
Just out of curiosity, what else were they going to do? Their current strategy of trying to rely on Symbian while transitioning to MeeGo is what got them into this trouble. Who knows when MeeGo will actually be ready or comparably polished to iOS and Android. Symbian isn't going to magically get much better than it is now, and where's it's at now has taken a lot of development.
The only other move was to use Android, but that caries its own set of risks. They mentioned the possibility of commoditization, which doesn't ring true to me, but is a possibility. Worse is the ongoing legal dispute over Android with Oracle. Google doesn't indemnify anyone, so if things go in Oracle's favor it may be the manufacturers having to foot the bill. Another "big if", but it's not something a company can outright dismiss.
It seems like almost everyone around here is heralding this is a horrible move. Does anyone actually have a suggestion for what Nokia should have done instead? A suggestion that doesn't include making different decision several years ago, magically making Symbian as good as Android or iOS, or somehow ignoring the mythical man month and getting MeeGo out the door in a reasonable time frame. It's easy to say a particular decision is crap when you're not expected to come up with a workable one yourself.
Well, they say everybody's a critic.
FTFY
Nokia's strategy was doing nothing be hemorrhaging market share and money for the past several years. They were pretty much screwed on the road they were heading down so moving over to another that may seem just as precarious doesn't leave them much worse off, especially if it works out in the long run.
/. crowd.
/. crowd might have put up with that, but the mass market consumers would have hated it.
Here's an analysis of this along with some nice charts that show how iOS and Android have really eaten Nokia's lunch over the past few years. Their stock has dropped from around $40 per share in 2007 to $10 in 2011. The only people who had faith that they were doing the right thing were the
MeeGo has already been plagued by serious delays and there was no indication that when it did ship everything would magically work. It's easy to point to this new deal and say that MeeGo got axed, but couldn't it be the other way around? It's just as possible that MeeGo was behind schedule and wouldn't be ready for a release for a few more quarters and even then would still need a lot of work to get it up to snuff. The
I don't know whether this move will pan out for Nokia. From my point of view it's more beneficial to Microsoft. However, Nokia needed to do something because they were watching the rest of the market move past and weren't able to respond. Maybe this deal ends up killing them, but they were probably dead either way.
Easy, point the default search at Bing and grow their market share in search without having to improve their search.
That's the reason that makes the most business sense. I have a feeling that the real reason is, like you alluded to, because Balmer thinks they need to have a browser.
You could probably get away with China. There's still a lot of subsistence farming going on even though a lot of people are starting to get factory jobs. Really depends on how you want to interpret "letting citizens starve." If this bill passes, you could even say that it's true of the U.S. as there are still a few people who starve every year in the country.
Generally a nation that has a high rate of starvation and can't afford to keep its people fed isn't going to be able to afford high speed rails either and probably has little real use for such a system. The whole argument is rather silly if you stop to think about it.
Current sales of WebOS devices, which is really just limited to phones, is probably quite anemic. The original Pre didn't sell as well as hoped, which is why today there was an HP event instead of a Palm event. Millions of people still buy an iPhone during Q1 and Q2, despite the fact that Apple releases a new one every year. This will have about as much impact on sales of the Pre, which is to say it will have some, but their sales are already so low that it likely doesn't matter.
They have almost nothing to lose right now, and by announcing their product and features, they might have actually swayed a few consumers to hold off buying an Android tablet or iPad until the TouchPad comes out. It also restores some faith in the WebOS platform considering that HP has been fairly quiet about it since acquiring Palm. Developers at least know that new hardware is coming and have a general idea about the specs. If nothing else they know how large the tablet screen is going to be, which should help them adapt their applications for it ahead of time.
WebOS already died an unhappy death once over a year ago when it failed to gain significant traction. This event was a good way to breathe some life back into the platform and get the word out. HP has left out just enough details that they can hold another media event in the future to talk price and release date to garner another wave good press. I would say that they're far from clueless.
It's not just about the hardware; it's about the software the runs on that hardware as well. By limiting the selection of hardware that they use, even if it's not top end, they can optimize the software to squeeze out every last bit of performance from it, whether in terms of raw performance or battery life. Apple has also decided that device aesthetics are important. When was the last time an Apple product was made out of cheap plastic? There's more to a product than just a spec sheet and feature checklist.
If you went back to the car analogy, it's like using a L6 engine rather than a V12, but tuning the hell out of that engine to provide the best experience for that vehicle. Just like you can find a well designed notebook that has a much better processor, but you generally can't find one that has the same small form factor, good design, great battery life, and price range.
If it does fill a niche role it's a pretty damned large niche and an even better one to fill. There isn't one other phone manufacturer that wouldn't trade places with Apple at the drop of a hat. Even if you account for some of their success due to their rabid^H^H^H^H^Hloyal fanbase, they're selling more phones and tablets than they ever have Macs. There are a lot of consumers who are saying that despite any limitations the platform may have, it actually suits their needs very well and that they'd like to purchase said devices.
What the hell do you need a donkey for anyhow?
I don't think there's any worry that Iran will nuke the United States. That would just be completely stupid on their part.
The worry is that some of their nuclear technology might fall into the hands of some extremist group that would have no qualms about setting off a nuke in the middle of a city just to send a message. When someone blows themselves up using a regular bomb there's enough debris left over to have a good idea of who might have done it. Even a small nuclear device would cause enough destruction that there's going to be nothing left of the person, vehicle used for delivery, and ground zero to have any real clue. We'd have to base everything around the intelligence that's been gathered and that's not always very accurate. It can help corroborate an explanation, but you've seen what happens when we take action based solely on intelligence reports. It might not happen, but it's semi-plausible. It's probably even more likely to happen to Israel.
Otherwise your post is spot on. Of course we really don't want to admit that for the last several decades we've been dicks to the rest of the world to serve our own interests. It clashes heavily with the vision of ourselves that we like to portray: leading by example, bringing democracy to the rest of the world, etc. We'll probably stop messing around with their governments, politics, and country just as soon as they run out of oil. Unless they become the next China and have a lot of western companies conducting business in their country, there wouldn't be much reason for us to stick around after that.
I'm surprised that anyone would think the Huffington Post was worth $315 million. I'm even more surprised AOL still has that kind of money.
/rimshot
Some interference may not be a bad thing. If I'm using Skype, I wouldn't mind if the ISP gave my packets priority over someone's email. Realtime audio and video is a lot more time sensitive and if someone has to wait a few extra milliseconds for their email, I don't think that they would notice or even care.
I don't think there's anything wrong with prioritizing certain types of traffic, especially if it would improve service quality for most of the end users. Where I would draw the line is when they start to differentiate based on who's providing the packets or where they're going. For example, you can prioritize streaming video, but you can't prioritize YouTube ahead of Netflix.
Depending how interference is defined, what's permissible under net neutrality could vary widely.
Not to be sexist, but does it really matter? Is there some reason that having a larger percentage of women contributors would make Wikipedia a better place? If not, there's no reason to go out of the way to increase the contributions from women, especially if it degrades the quality of Wikipedia in the process.
If it's a problem of members being sexist or misogynistic, take steps to fix that. Trying to force some quota probably isn't the best solution to this problem, if it even is a problem.
Not sure about "owning the iPad". There's a lot of things to dislike about Apple - i'm certainly no fanboi - but the user interface response of the iPad isn't one of them. I was looking at Android tablets just yesterday, tried out a Galaxy Tab in the flesh and it seemed clunky and slow compared to my iPad. This is before I'd read any reviews that basically also slammed the performance. With my iPad, it responds instantly to swipes and taps, the Galaxy seemed to be having serious problems responding to events - especially in its web browser. Yes, it's a cheaper device, but the specs are not far from the ones in the iPad.
From what I've heard this is due to differences in the way the two operating systems work. iOS takes an approach that the UI should always be responsive and fluid at the expense of other things. Load a /. article and have it display hundreds of comments and start scrolling like mad towards the top. It'll scroll smoothly, but eventually you'll hit a point where it hasn't rendered that part of the page so you don't actually see anything there until it renders it (usually a second or so). Android on the other hand will load the entire page and render it, but trying to scroll through all of it will cause things to appear choppy. Things get even worse if there are a lot of Flash elements on the page. The device prioritizes those over UI touch events so it starts to feel clunky at times. Comes down to different design philosophies.
The OP is probably referring to phones. Here's an analysis of how long it's taken the various manufacturers to release updates. Samsung has taken roughly three times as long as either Motorola or HTC to get Froyo out. They've also been accused of withholding updates unless carriers paid them for it, but no one was able to confirm that for a certainty.
Based on their past history, I have a feeling that they won't be upgrading the Galaxy Tab to Honeycomb, but that's just my opinion. Sorry, but the data supports the OP's point of view. He may have an axe to grind, but he has plenty of justification.
Engadget has a much better and more detailed review of the device. They disliked the poor screen resolution and really dinged it for the abysmal battery life. The most they could get out of it was 6 hours if their usage was light.
Battery life with screen at 65% brightness, WiFi on, playing standard definition video.
Dell Streak 7: 3:26
Archos 70: 6:00
Samsung Galaxy Tab: 6:09
Archos 101: 7:20
Apple iPad : 9:33
The Galaxy Tab outclasses this thing in just about any conceivable manner.
That doesn't stop them from behaving moronically. It's just as likely that they may be far more interested in short term profits than the long term health of the company. I'd put more faith in Steve and the senior leadership of Apple than their shareholders to do well by the company.
I'm quite sure that they have plans in place and have had them for several years considering there was a time when no one was really sure if Steve was going to live. Publicly disclosing those plans could cause problems for the company.
They get a cut of the sales most likely and with traditional newspapers having a lot of financial problems, people are looking for new ways to repackage news and information and make money off of it. If this venture is successful it's likely that others will offer various organs through the App Store, making even more money for Apple.
Also, News Corp has been one of the few companies to actually try different revenue streams. They'll eventually get one right and then the rest of the papers, magazines, etc. that have been sitting around waiting to die might be able to copy whatever model that is to stay afloat. Say what you want about their content, but they've been one of the few companies to actually try and adapt with the times.
Unless they were making at least enough money to cover the lawsuit costs for the plaintiff, there is no reason to sue. Usually they wait until business picks up to the extent that they have something worth suing over or a pile of cash that they can easily pay. Google has deep pockets so I imagine once they've got a full roll-out that's in heavy use they're going to get hit with a lawsuit whether it has merit or not. The opportunity is just too good to pass up.
It's pretty similar to the Oracle lawsuit. They've seen how much Android has taken off, and if they can get a few dollars for every unit sold, it more than makes up for the millions that will be spent on the lawsuit. Hell, it even makes the Sun acquisition pay for itself.
Well there's that, the intensive CPU usage, kernel panics, and it giving you cancer.
But it's still better than Flash.
Just curious what field you're degree was in. I'd say a large portion of /. is computer science, information technology, or some kind of engineering degree. I've never known people with those degrees to have problems getting jobs. While I was an undergraduate, a few of our CS professors left because they got offered six figures to work in industry related to their research areas.
On another note, if Bing were smart, they'd mix Google's results in with theirs, shift the position on the page around and see if that affects clicks or if people will still go for the Google results even if they're towards the bottom. They might learn some things in order to provide better results that way.
What if the circle is infinitely large?
On the other side of the coin, so long as Apple's competitors keep discarding experience instead of building better products, Apple keeps winning. Apple might drive themselves forward in some ways, but I don't think that they'd be as far as they are today if Google wasn't putting a lot of pressure on them. Outside of WebOS (Which didn't do so hot the first time around.) and Windows Phone 7 (Which isn't doing so hot right now.) the only competition Apple has had in the last several years has been from Google with Android.
And Google has done a good job with it. The big problem are the handset manufacturers who muck things up with their custom UIs that aren't as good. After that, the carriers get to have a go at the device and disable features (e.g. side-loading) or install crapware that can't be removed by the user. Even though Android is much more open from a theoretical point of view, for several phones it's not much more open than any iOS device.
From the developers point of view, things are worse on Google's side of the fence. Even after all of this time, there are still several countries where developers are unable to charge for their app, even if they wanted to do so. Until recently there were a lot of problems with people downloading an app (most especially games) and returning it before the 24-hour evaluation period was up. There are also some hardware fragmentation issues (The exist, but they're not as serious as some make them sound.) that require additional testing to sort out.
Apple can keep people discarding principles because no one else has made as elegant of a solution as they have yet. If everything else were equal, the market would gravitate towards the more open solution.
On a side note, I don't think they've ever dictated that open source isn't welcome. They use and contribute a lot of WebKit. Are you referring to the issues with the GPL conflicting with their app store rules?
Plenty of reasons to hate DRM/TPM for their own sake. No need to attribute a chipset defect to either of these without any actual proof. Seems that it only affects the 3 Gbps ports and not the 6 Gbps ports so that claim seems somewhat unlikely.
Yeah, but there's always a rumor about new MacBook Pro's being released tomorrow.
If there wasn't, some rumor site is probably going to source our posts as possible evidence of a release tomorrow.