You've failed to read my post, if anything you exclaim further my point. First of all I didn't even use the word 'Google' once in my post.
Apple is about hardware, the hardware they chose, the hardware they want you to use, the apps they approve, the apps they want you to use.
The industry has always been about whats flexible, cheap hardware, operating systems that can have drivers easily added and applications that everyone can use and create.
Apple (except for their servers and some of their desktops) creates custom cases which limit your ability to upgrade, they limit what you can plug into their motherboards, they even stop you from plugging devices into their iGadgets. Everything about them is "if you use my product, you can only do this, this or this". Heck, the flash issue with the lock down of their acceleration API is yet another example of their "closed" behavior, why close it? its not security, its lack of software support for their graphics devices end of story.
I'm not saying which way is better, I'm of the mind that both concepts have their ups and downs.
As for your comment about Apple making the very best. The iPad is a Joke, really its an expensive Joke. I played with one today and if this is them building the very best piece of "hardware+software" as you say they have fallen massively short. In actual fact, I went to buy one going off the media hype, magazine reviews and slashdot talk, that was _UNTIL_ i used one. I have an iPhone already and the iPad isn't worth it if you already have an iPhone, IMHO the iPad complete waste of time / money, Apple could of done so much better.
If you just purchased this company for $750 million expecting it too tap into a $600 million a year revenue stream, expecting to go into the billions subsequent years. All of a sudden a competing company deliberately closed the potency of that market, I would be pretty upset (kind of like some punk letting the tyres down on your brand new car)
If Google can prove that it was deliberate they could win. All I'm saying is that Google is really like everyone else, they aren't angels that "do no evil" and for Apple the chain reaction would be very bad for Apple, it wouldn't be just one loss but many thereafter.
I might add, Google is also getting direct access to this "public domain" data.
The "public" gets single keyword query access to it.
That alone demonstrates a conflict of interest because it enables Google to draw analytical data from the database that noone else in the world could possibly generate (except for maybe UPSTO)
Okay, here it is, I've never worked for UPSTO so I can't be 100% certain but I have worked for government organizations and understand the concept of process.
Public information is the result. I.E Patent Pending, approved, rejected, whatever... That's the result.
Business names are public domain, Trademarks a public domain. Does that mean we see the 10 page application form leading up to the "resulted" public domain information or as the public do we simply get to the see the cliff notes?
Google has basically put their hand up to CRM a massive database of very valuable information, which goes beyond the scope of what the public will see. To think otherwise is plain nieve.
Yes and no... Computing has become worse than politics these days, so it's hard to have a definitive answer.
What Apple is doing with this closed environment is re-teaching the IT industry on "how it was supposed to be" (including Microsoft).
We built and progressed our technology unthinkingly about the problems it might cause. Security / Cybercrime is the main thing I'm talking about here. Technology's growth has resulted in a rugged internet, a broken internet, and list full of operating systems built in a swiss cheese factory.
Now this is where we have the political understanding. Do we keep going down the liberal technology model? cop the exploitation of its free nature or do we go down the road of a dictatorship and jump on this new controllable concept that Apple has shown us?
Unfortunately, big business loves the dictatorship concept because inherently every CEO wants to take over the world (just as much as fish enjoy swimming) so getting everyone away from this concept is going to be hard.
The downfall is that for every company that wants to take over the world there's another one that wants to bite it's head off.
Neither model favors the customer because eitherway we have to pay for it. The dictatorship model means we are forced to stick with limited options and pay what they tell us to pay. The liberal model means we are exposed and have to buy security apps and still have our netbank account details stolen.
First, The perception of the Google "do no evil" is simply a fantasy. If you hit parts of the market which affect Google, I could imagine them being as nasty as Microsoft. Second, when we had the browser wars it was Netscape vs Microsoft, it was one smaller company vs a giant brand. They weren't afraid to pull out the big guns (lawyers) and let it all fly. Why would Google or Apple have a problem doing it?
The issue I see is say hypothetically _if_ Google did win in this stage, Apple would have to kiss the App store goodbye. Everyone from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal and every other company from here to the EU would want to take Apple down. Being a market leader usually means you make some fairly nasty enemies in the business space, I'd expect everyone to try and chop the Apple tree down (fondly enough the only business that wouldn't be is Microsoft, those two seem to be getting along atm)
P.S Mictosoft sits in the background now, everyone is starting to not care about them as much cause the focus is on the Apple blitz now. My prediction is in a few years when SaaS and Cloud make a strong impact in the world (more than what it's doing today) they'll be back on the war path suing the bejesus out of everyone and holding back the industry yet again, but for today, today is not a good day to fight.
I'm not too sure what to make of this, if its just a blind defense at Apple but Microsoft and Oracle own most of the patents to cloud based database solutions.
Microsoft owns client-side SQL syncing.... so.... A bunch of Opensrc projects promoting HTML 5 isn't going really stop Microsoft if they really wanted to be bastards.
Thanks to HTML5 offline support, designers can build web applications that store themselves on your computer, where you have immediate access to them. Along with the application, web developers can also choose to store the application’s data on your system, so you always have the information you need. Applications and data can be stored in a traditional SQL-like database serving as an application cache or as a “super cookie,” which stores data in the familiar cookie format.
When is Microsoft going to come crashing down with their patient infringement on this...
Safari gives you even more search options with built-in Bing search, in addition to Google and Yahoo! Search. Just choose Bing in the Smart Search Field, start typing, and get search suggestions that help you find what you’re looking for fast.
Its about time someone built a browser that complies with Bing's shoddy development standards but if I was Apple wouldn't be bragging about it though:)
I'd say the in spirit of things what Apple's is doing is a little Microsofty. Considering that Nokia, Microsoft (yes Microsoft) and naturally Google contribute to the WebKit.
Apple's website promotes web compliant solutions with the use of HTML5 but blocks all other browsers inferring that Safari is the only compliant solution.
Kind of petty considering they are drinking from the same stream as Google but I've come to expect this sort of crap when it comes to Apple, they are such a "microsoft-wannabe" when they want too... and If they just quit the shit and got on with things I probably would hold them in a higher regard.
I believe so, the value of commandeering a mobile phone and then using it for illegitimate financial gain is there, the possibilities are the same as Trojan on a PC, perhaps even more.
A mobile Botnet being able to DoS targets with smartphones and it wouldn't be limited to just internet, it could be done with the phone/sms aspect as well.
As a web developer i don't care. The definition of a font would _have_ to be unrastered, in the web world we are limited to like what... 5 different fonts? and they are all fairly "emotionless" at best.
I wouldn't expect it too be too expensive, when it comes to the cost of UAV's it usually comes down to specific type of weaponry mounted on it which increases the cost.
Things like missile fail-safes, ai based being more expensive and the very different forms of targeting and guidance systems out there, things like direct and top attack, etc...
This one seems pretty simple, shoot in a straight line and deploy a parachute.
I'm sorry, I have 2 x Windows 7 Laptops and an XP desktop. Windows 7 is significantly better than Vista and it never crashes. Its easy-to-use and has never been slow in my POV. Plus my Toshiba (multi) touchscreen works brilliantly with Windows 7, just like using an iPhone but with the added option of being able to use a pen if i need it.
In fact the only 'computer' i own that has needed a restore in the past 12 months was my iPhone 3GS, which mysteriously stopped booting one day and i need to restore it. Not to mention on a few occasions, the Mail App has frozen where only a reboot solves it.
If I was to move off Windows, it would be Ubuntu and it would be my Windows XP system.
Apple was in the right position with the iPod creating an easy-to-use tool to eliminate walkmans and diskmans (men?). This worked out great for Apple, with the technological backing they were able to value add and make millions (billions?).
The issue with mobile computing is that Apple isn't playing in an arena it is "untapped". The Android is a perfect example of this, because people want more, even so the Android has put an equilibrium in the industry to countering Apples dominance.
The same will happen with the iPad and the rest of Apples product offerings from now on. The *Boom* Apple had will never happen again, this is simply a certainty.
Apple is dealing with stiff competition now, with the iPod era now behind them the struggle to replicate that tidal have has gone. The competition didn't see it coming before, but when in comes to round 2 and round 3 Apple wont be so lucky (one word! iTampon!).
P.S A big "fuck you" too all the apple fags that modded me down, you guys are just brainwashed losers with no intellectual grasp on the situation. I hope you enjoying sucking Steve Jobs tiny cock!
They don't just re-brand it. They steal it, polish it up, and releases it in a stream-lined and user-friendly product with all the bugs worked out. And as we all know, copying ideas and improving on them is Good(tm). And some of Apple's ideas are original, like multi-touch.
I guess the single button mouse was another one of those brilliant ideas?
On another note, Come'on we are talking about reebok vs nike here, PC/Mac, their differences these days are SFA except for the OS, and the OS is limited on the Mac because it's designed to be simple and not flexible.
Marketing isn't everything. Having the right idea, the right people and the right corporate culture at the right time and place counts for a lot.
Microsoft could have made Windows as user-friendly as Mac a long time ago, with all their money and their foothold on the market, but yet they fail in that department again and again.
Interesting, though it could look as if your being a little redundant. I'd like to take your Marketing + Ideas concept a little further.
Back in the day when Apple and MS were at it, Microsoft had the marketing message "here we are cheap, flexible and adaptable". Apple's was "I'm an artsy freak who likes to show up at fashion shows and I also like to sell these things we call computers".
Oddly enough, the marketing message back then failed for Apple. Whats even more interesting is the fact that now in current days that exact same marketing message seems to work. Microsoft's still pretty much stays the same, your not going to be shifting them anytime soon, but Apple has tapped into this new faucet of business.
Selling the idea that the Mimbos and Bimbos of the world can now use computers so they can send photos of themselves with their spray-on-tan via Facebook has certainly worked out for old Apple in current days. There is endless combination of simpletons that need to use a computer, and that single button clicker and that metro-sexual sales identity has been bringing them in by the hordes.
Now, Virgin a brand that sells their products blatantly through the innuendos of sex (hetero-sexual mind you) with re-banded PC's (like Macs are really any different) Virgin could stand to do the same, I would go so far in saying it could cause an upset in Mac's market-place if done correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
You've failed to read my post, if anything you exclaim further my point. First of all I didn't even use the word 'Google' once in my post.
Apple is about hardware, the hardware they chose, the hardware they want you to use, the apps they approve, the apps they want you to use.
The industry has always been about whats flexible, cheap hardware, operating systems that can have drivers easily added and applications that everyone can use and create.
Apple (except for their servers and some of their desktops) creates custom cases which limit your ability to upgrade, they limit what you can plug into their motherboards, they even stop you from plugging devices into their iGadgets. Everything about them is "if you use my product, you can only do this, this or this". Heck, the flash issue with the lock down of their acceleration API is yet another example of their "closed" behavior, why close it? its not security, its lack of software support for their graphics devices end of story.
I'm not saying which way is better, I'm of the mind that both concepts have their ups and downs.
As for your comment about Apple making the very best. The iPad is a Joke, really its an expensive Joke. I played with one today and if this is them building the very best piece of "hardware+software" as you say they have fallen massively short. In actual fact, I went to buy one going off the media hype, magazine reviews and slashdot talk, that was _UNTIL_ i used one. I have an iPhone already and the iPad isn't worth it if you already have an iPhone, IMHO the iPad complete waste of time / money, Apple could of done so much better.
I'm actually on Google's side here but I simply don't share the sentiment that Google is the exception to these other companies.
I think Google hasn't had any real threats to their revenue and had the need to put up a fight therfore never gets perceived as "evil".
When the day beckons I don't think they would simply let it slide, I think they'd be like everyone else.
If you just purchased this company for $750 million expecting it too tap into a $600 million a year revenue stream, expecting to go into the billions subsequent years. All of a sudden a competing company deliberately closed the potency of that market, I would be pretty upset (kind of like some punk letting the tyres down on your brand new car)
If Google can prove that it was deliberate they could win. All I'm saying is that Google is really like everyone else, they aren't angels that "do no evil" and for Apple the chain reaction would be very bad for Apple, it wouldn't be just one loss but many thereafter.
I might add, Google is also getting direct access to this "public domain" data.
The "public" gets single keyword query access to it.
That alone demonstrates a conflict of interest because it enables Google to draw analytical data from the database that noone else in the world could possibly generate (except for maybe UPSTO)
Okay, here it is, I've never worked for UPSTO so I can't be 100% certain but I have worked for government organizations and understand the concept of process.
Public information is the result. I.E Patent Pending, approved, rejected, whatever ... That's the result.
Business names are public domain, Trademarks a public domain. Does that mean we see the 10 page application form leading up to the "resulted" public domain information or as the public do we simply get to the see the cliff notes?
Google has basically put their hand up to CRM a massive database of very valuable information, which goes beyond the scope of what the public will see. To think otherwise is plain nieve.
Gee i donno, a big fucken database given to a big fucken advertising firm ...
Welp, firstly you said was complaining no I didn't complain I was saying "If I was Google I'd do it".
Second, your telling me that there is nothing confidential about USPTO? Right, okay .... Next please!
Yes and no ... Computing has become worse than politics these days, so it's hard to have a definitive answer.
What Apple is doing with this closed environment is re-teaching the IT industry on "how it was supposed to be" (including Microsoft).
We built and progressed our technology unthinkingly about the problems it might cause. Security / Cybercrime is the main thing I'm talking about here. Technology's growth has resulted in a rugged internet, a broken internet, and list full of operating systems built in a swiss cheese factory.
Now this is where we have the political understanding. Do we keep going down the liberal technology model? cop the exploitation of its free nature or do we go down the road of a dictatorship and jump on this new controllable concept that Apple has shown us?
Unfortunately, big business loves the dictatorship concept because inherently every CEO wants to take over the world (just as much as fish enjoy swimming) so getting everyone away from this concept is going to be hard.
The downfall is that for every company that wants to take over the world there's another one that wants to bite it's head off.
Neither model favors the customer because eitherway we have to pay for it. The dictatorship model means we are forced to stick with limited options and pay what they tell us to pay. The liberal model means we are exposed and have to buy security apps and still have our netbank account details stolen.
ROFL and the sci-fi references in my comment don't help my plea much either, do they :) ?
Maybe it means I should probably get out more
... wait I'm on /. let me rephrase that ...
Maybe we should ALL probably get out more.
Its kind of impossible to circumvent a conflict of interest here.
If I was Google I'd do it for free as well. The data they'll be a privy too, whilst 'creating' the system would be invaluable.
Sounds like win win situation.
I'm with you on this for two main reasons ...
First, The perception of the Google "do no evil" is simply a fantasy. If you hit parts of the market which affect Google, I could imagine them being as nasty as Microsoft. Second, when we had the browser wars it was Netscape vs Microsoft, it was one smaller company vs a giant brand. They weren't afraid to pull out the big guns (lawyers) and let it all fly. Why would Google or Apple have a problem doing it?
The issue I see is say hypothetically _if_ Google did win in this stage, Apple would have to kiss the App store goodbye. Everyone from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal and every other company from here to the EU would want to take Apple down. Being a market leader usually means you make some fairly nasty enemies in the business space, I'd expect everyone to try and chop the Apple tree down (fondly enough the only business that wouldn't be is Microsoft, those two seem to be getting along atm)
P.S Mictosoft sits in the background now, everyone is starting to not care about them as much cause the focus is on the Apple blitz now. My prediction is in a few years when SaaS and Cloud make a strong impact in the world (more than what it's doing today) they'll be back on the war path suing the bejesus out of everyone and holding back the industry yet again, but for today, today is not a good day to fight.
I'm not too sure what to make of this, if its just a blind defense at Apple but Microsoft and Oracle own most of the patents to cloud based database solutions.
Microsoft owns client-side SQL syncing .... so .... A bunch of Opensrc projects promoting HTML 5 isn't going really stop Microsoft if they really wanted to be bastards.
A few things worth noting -
Thanks to HTML5 offline support, designers can build web applications that store themselves on your computer, where you have immediate access to them. Along with the application, web developers can also choose to store the application’s data on your system, so you always have the information you need. Applications and data can be stored in a traditional SQL-like database serving as an application cache or as a “super cookie,” which stores data in the familiar cookie format.
When is Microsoft going to come crashing down with their patient infringement on this ...
Safari gives you even more search options with built-in Bing search, in addition to Google and Yahoo! Search. Just choose Bing in the Smart Search Field, start typing, and get search suggestions that help you find what you’re looking for fast.
Its about time someone built a browser that complies with Bing's shoddy development standards but if I was Apple wouldn't be bragging about it though :)
While its true that Apple were the ones that originally started turning the wheels for WebKit, its also true that was well before the days of HTML5.
Currently with the creation of Chrome, I'd safely say there are more Google Committers to the WebKit then what Apple has now.
http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit%20Team
I'd say the in spirit of things what Apple's is doing is a little Microsofty. Considering that Nokia, Microsoft (yes Microsoft) and naturally Google contribute to the WebKit.
Apple's website promotes web compliant solutions with the use of HTML5 but blocks all other browsers inferring that Safari is the only compliant solution.
Kind of petty considering they are drinking from the same stream as Google but I've come to expect this sort of crap when it comes to Apple, they are such a "microsoft-wannabe" when they want too ... and If they just quit the shit and got on with things I probably would hold them in a higher regard.
I believe so, the value of commandeering a mobile phone and then using it for illegitimate financial gain is there, the possibilities are the same as Trojan on a PC, perhaps even more.
A mobile Botnet being able to DoS targets with smartphones and it wouldn't be limited to just internet, it could be done with the phone/sms aspect as well.
As a web developer i don't care. The definition of a font would _have_ to be unrastered, in the web world we are limited to like what ... 5 different fonts? and they are all fairly "emotionless" at best.
What makes them even cheaper is they've been able to hack Minesweeper to be its control interface ...
Samzenpus prolly thought he was submitting an article about Apple.
Thinking Jobs was releasing a new product that would clear all 3rd world countries of Windows based PC's.
Sorry I meant to say UGV ... got my acronyms wrong :)
I wouldn't expect it too be too expensive, when it comes to the cost of UAV's it usually comes down to specific type of weaponry mounted on it which increases the cost.
Things like missile fail-safes, ai based being more expensive and the very different forms of targeting and guidance systems out there, things like direct and top attack, etc ...
This one seems pretty simple, shoot in a straight line and deploy a parachute.
I'm sorry, I have 2 x Windows 7 Laptops and an XP desktop. Windows 7 is significantly better than Vista and it never crashes. Its easy-to-use and has never been slow in my POV. Plus my Toshiba (multi) touchscreen works brilliantly with Windows 7, just like using an iPhone but with the added option of being able to use a pen if i need it.
In fact the only 'computer' i own that has needed a restore in the past 12 months was my iPhone 3GS, which mysteriously stopped booting one day and i need to restore it. Not to mention on a few occasions, the Mail App has frozen where only a reboot solves it.
If I was to move off Windows, it would be Ubuntu and it would be my Windows XP system.
After reading the amount of attention invested in debating big birds breed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bird#Breed
I can safely say it isn't me that gone mad, but its clearly the rest of the world!
This is the problem right here ...
Apple was in the right position with the iPod creating an easy-to-use tool to eliminate walkmans and diskmans (men?). This worked out great for Apple, with the technological backing they were able to value add and make millions (billions?).
The issue with mobile computing is that Apple isn't playing in an arena it is "untapped". The Android is a perfect example of this, because people want more, even so the Android has put an equilibrium in the industry to countering Apples dominance.
The same will happen with the iPad and the rest of Apples product offerings from now on. The *Boom* Apple had will never happen again, this is simply a certainty.
Apple is dealing with stiff competition now, with the iPod era now behind them the struggle to replicate that tidal have has gone. The competition didn't see it coming before, but when in comes to round 2 and round 3 Apple wont be so lucky (one word! iTampon!).
P.S A big "fuck you" too all the apple fags that modded me down, you guys are just brainwashed losers with no intellectual grasp on the situation. I hope you enjoying sucking Steve Jobs tiny cock!
They don't just re-brand it. They steal it, polish it up, and releases it in a stream-lined and user-friendly product with all the bugs worked out. And as we all know, copying ideas and improving on them is Good(tm). And some of Apple's ideas are original, like multi-touch.
I guess the single button mouse was another one of those brilliant ideas?
On another note, Come'on we are talking about reebok vs nike here, PC/Mac, their differences these days are SFA except for the OS, and the OS is limited on the Mac because it's designed to be simple and not flexible.
Marketing isn't everything. Having the right idea, the right people and the right corporate culture at the right time and place counts for a lot.
Microsoft could have made Windows as user-friendly as Mac a long time ago, with all their money and their foothold on the market, but yet they fail in that department again and again.
Interesting, though it could look as if your being a little redundant. I'd like to take your Marketing + Ideas concept a little further.
Back in the day when Apple and MS were at it, Microsoft had the marketing message "here we are cheap, flexible and adaptable". Apple's was "I'm an artsy freak who likes to show up at fashion shows and I also like to sell these things we call computers".
Oddly enough, the marketing message back then failed for Apple. Whats even more interesting is the fact that now in current days that exact same marketing message seems to work. Microsoft's still pretty much stays the same, your not going to be shifting them anytime soon, but Apple has tapped into this new faucet of business.
Selling the idea that the Mimbos and Bimbos of the world can now use computers so they can send photos of themselves with their spray-on-tan via Facebook has certainly worked out for old Apple in current days. There is endless combination of simpletons that need to use a computer, and that single button clicker and that metro-sexual sales identity has been bringing them in by the hordes.
Now, Virgin a brand that sells their products blatantly through the innuendos of sex (hetero-sexual mind you) with re-banded PC's (like Macs are really any different) Virgin could stand to do the same, I would go so far in saying it could cause an upset in Mac's market-place if done correctly.
Whats the conversion of a buttload in imperial?