I'm not surprised by this. I have a friend whose an activist / environmentalist and he keeps telling me about how awful the world has become and how the Govt is taking away heritage listed rainforest for it's own financial desire. My response to him was clear. Go to the open forums that are held discussing the future of certain lands and ask the hard questions to the face of the people who are taking active part in the corruptive activities. See I have a theory why things are the way they are.
It isn't that world has "become" a bad place and all these shady goings on have started, oh no, the world "is" a bad place and it's because nobody knows what they are doing is wrong. Consider what the internet has done here with the whole Snowden situation. The internet is shining a light on the dark crevices on our society and we are seeing all the huddled groups of cockroaches who are used to the darkness step into the light for first time.
Isn't it better to assume that Google's employees simply followed the rules of their predecessors as their predecessors perhaps thought (being patriotic and all) that what they were doing at the time was the best thing and had the best of intentions?
What Snowden did was ask the tough questions and Google answered those tough questions with a "Golly you're right!". Don't crucify Google for having a moral sense when asked because those who are in positions of power that steal only do so because they get away with it, no one questions it and therefore "it's obviously okay to do". When they find out it's not 99% of the time they back peddle, usually without any argument.
If you're talking about sheer data size you're wrong, since the GP's statement was regarding data storage.
If you're talking about individual bits of data, it's almost impossible to measure against eachother (unlesss both companies released figures). Facebook would host a lot of data in relation to messaging services but that alone brings up more problems in gauging the size and activity of Facebook. Every time I log on to my PC Gtalk and Skype runs the background. People who use Facebook occupy Facebook for prelonged periods because of how the service is devised. I'm almost certian that if it was a desktop app that ran in the task tray FB's page duration time would falter (right now my friend is using Facebook right next to me, she's having to sit on a website to "chat" to her family overseas, she'll log off Facebook and call them via Skype later in the day to have a conversation, a conversation that will cost her real money) *.
Consider, the average size of a WMV or MPG is far larger than wall posts and resized JPGs. Further, the Play Store (which is a part of YouTube) supports distribution of movies and music and does so to SmartTV's, SmartPhones, Gaming Consoles even most new BlueRay players sport a YouTube player of some sort.
* I do realise that Facebook is upping its game regarding these forms of services, the issue is that alot of it sits on 3rd party platfroms (like Skype), in actual fact a lot of Facebooks interactive services (such as Maps / Translations services) rely on the Microsoft.
P.S I wont even go into Facebook pages, many people may have them, many people may use them. I have now setup several of the things with paid adverising surrounding them, Google Adwords still drives more relvant and better customers to business sites. FB pages get likes, FB pages dont get $$ in peoples pockets and the latest figures show that nearly 2 / 3's of advertisers do not know how affective FB pages / FB advertising is for their companies - but this is another rant for another day.
Hardly, comparing what Google does vs what Facebook does. Remember Youtube alone sports 1bn+ uniques per month. What is Facebooks entire user base again? 1bn users in total. So you take just one part of Google's kingdom and it amasses to more use and value to the internet then the entire Facebook kingdom. Infact I'd go as far to say Facebook and Youtube are comparibly similar companies, size and value wise.
Social Graph is just another unstandarised dtd and tag subset the internet can do without. We hated it when Microsoft did it but it's okay for Facebook to get away with it? I think not.
Facebook should of stayed with innovation regarding photo and photo distribution services. That's its niche and its most popular service. Instant Messaging, App development and location services are all been and done and the ones that do it, do it at an OS level, therefore there's no room for a middle man and why Facebook Home was a failure.
I have 2.0 GB of source code for Windows 8, Windows 9 alpha
Please, if you're going to steal something you should check to make sure it's of real value to someone first. Donkey Kong Junior is perhaps the biggest ticket item you've mentioned!
PRISM as a concept does not scare me, it doesn't come as much of a surprise to me, really. However... and there are a few problems where it's all heading.
a) Lets consider the value of PRISM to the NSA in the first place. Going back to the episodes of Hogan's Heroes we all know that the "enemy" would in many circumstances communicate in code to obfuscate their messages. Now, last time i checked the internet is a pretty big place. Even with some of the best code breaking software out there, there is no difference between tapping the information in and out of say Google vs tapping the information in and out of telecommunications companies. So PRISM's inherent value, to me, seems pretty minor. In fact it seems just down right lazy in the first place and pretty useless considering the amounts of data that would need sifting.
b) Precedent of accepting this as a people. There are plenty of activist groups today trying to constantly stamp out privacy concerns over the internet. They are so afraid that eventually "the other side" will win regardless. Isn't this simply a huge disregard for due process? Isn't this just a static example of no matter how hard people fight, the internet will eventually become regulated without the consent of the people? It's already monitored and sponsored by the major players if you look at the PRISM chart/timeline it's all there.
c) And now for the two headed snake and a perfect example of the Google "Do no harm" facade in play. Regulation, It currently exists in a pretty acceptable form already for the most. If I was to type any manner of profane keywords into Google the chances are that Google has already censored them to some extent. I'm almost certain that you may find the occasional nasty here or there but all in all I feel Google has a pretty good form of regulation as it is.
In summary, regulation in its ideal sense is fine, just as how society is portrayed in Star Trek as really a good way to live life as well. It's just too bad we are 200 - 300 years behind social evolution wise to live in such a common good society and we are stuck with the crap way things are today. What this PRISM thing shows is that we should, as a society, grow up a little because this childish "get away" with everything because we are above everything for the "greater good" is far more dangerous than SOPA or what any other grab at regulative control ever done. It's now a situation of take control at all costs because a small faction's "I know better" philosophies without checks and balances in place and an uncertainty of really knowing which way is up any more.
It's a demonstration of how mindless we all operate. We're not good enough for the Star Trek way of life and nor are the legislative rule benders either, even if they think they are.
I just find it amazing that no one has raised the argument that the Stop SOPA, PIPA, etc protests were a tremendous waste of time.
The PRISM program looks like the Govt has been making their own rules for some time now and with the surveillance revelations of the EAGLE program which Assange addressed in the past (but nobody really cared about because it may or may not of been speculative). I'd say with better judgement that that NSA is not the only organisation doing this.
BTW I recommend the Ghostery app for Chrome, great little tool, wont help with any of this but still an eye opener on what big business does.
However research to develop the drug will cost many millions to develop. Once developed the product can be manufactured usually for a few cents per unit. There is basically no possible way to recoup the research investment required to develop the drug if it can be freely copied once the formula is known.
I remain sceptical here because Apple isn't known for it's tremendous amounts of R&D. It is known more so for its joint R&D programs such as AIM or its works with ARM. Saying that Apple is the linchpin to the design of the iPhone "I believe" never came from R&D per say. It came from somewhere else, Steve Jobs.
All the prerequisites for an iPhone existed before Apple but no one else managed to put them all together. If there was no difficulty in doing the research to create the iPhone then someone else would have done it sooner.
They did put it together prior to the iPhone and it did work. The problem wasn't that they couldn't make it work, it was they couldn't make it consumer friendly. The mobile industry was hampered much like the car industry with incremental dosages of innovation strictly controlled to ensure that manufacturers did "the least" for "the most" which is why I revert back to the prerequisite innovation argument regarding this.
What makes Apple good at what they do is not their ability to invent. It's rather their ability to find a product which exists but is unpopular or specialised, strip out the features and components that bog down the device or make it too complex for general consumption. They package it and create a form factor that disrupts the market and appeases the masses. What Apple did was not invent something new rather what they did was keep the rest of the sharks honest. And good for them for doing so because as a result the bar has been set so high that we as consumers can now enjoy a myriad of devices that can achieve far more than what was ever considered back in the early 2000s.
The competitiveness generated from what the iPhone has done in market these days is what has keep the form factor even better than what Apple could of ever done alone. Samsung is not just competing with Apple, they are competing with 10 other Android suppliers and if one of them can gain enough traction that could cause all sorts of issues for Samsung's podium place on the Smartphone food chain.
I see this litigation process as Apple trying to bring back some sort of control over the smartphone market. Apple struggles to compete with the dozens or so manufacturers out there, they aren't keeping up with the insidious level of one-upmanship they have to contend with, which Android has placed on them, and this is so blatantly seen by the strictest type of litigation that was initiated on Apples behalf, I refer to the Judge Koh case.
I get that but for me the problem always goes back to the fact that something had to come from somewhere beforehand. The wheel dawns the horse and cart, the horse and cart, horse and cart dawns the car.
Take Kodak for instance. They kept selling film and photo developing services all the way up to bankruptcy. Sort of like selling horseshoes in today's society when they should of gone with the times and started selling rubber tyres.
Look at Nokia for example. They were a massive company before smart phones. They were on the top of the ladder and Apple was looking up at the likes of them. The tables have turned and now Nokia is at the bottom of the pecking order and have gone into submission almost.
One can speculate that Nokia's new product line differ significantly from the iPhone. Yes, this is true. I argue that Samsung really is no different, the end product Nokia or Samsung are both very good products. As all cars have inherent features which are alike.
Personal preference, I prefer the two over the iPhone myself and when there is a legal escapade against either brand I ask myself "when does ford start suing everyone else, they did after all commercialise the first car" and I know the answer as would most people.
Way back when it wasn't and issue but if move that situation into present day and they would of had the ability to do the same as Apple has. We as consumers don't shun GM or even Toyota because that competition is what has kept the car industry innovating (though I'd like to say in a very piss poor fashion).
Isn't the law in place to serve what's right and wrong about societies ills rather then be used as a form of remuneration based on legislation and "the times"?
The guy who came up with the idiotic math, then we praise the blue print making machine that made the Americans redundant and wonder what the fuck the Asians are doing.
Sorry about the simple math X-Y. I didn't proof my text before sending it.
Asian's I've found to be very philosophical when it comes to doing business. Provided both companies benefit from their transactions and you don't mistreat them they make life pretty easy.
I find it totally mind boggling that after an American organisation shows an Asian company how to create a successful product and when the Asian company actually does so the American's get pissed off? Haven't you guys learned anything from the catastrophes in the middle easy?
Not racist. I put both American and Asian's in the same basket here. The same argument can be made that a series of American companies actually sell and distribute the iPhone and that it's not all "Apple" putting their product on shelves.
But I resent being called racist, so fucking die you piece of scum sucking shit, whatever creed you may be!
I'm not saying that at all. Though I can see that if you take my 6 dot points 100% literally you could say that I am making that judgement:)
It's not as if way back when Steve Jobs had his first keynote showcasing his new iPhone creation it had a "Powered by Samsung" logo underneath the iPhone logo. Why not? I've seen plenty of PC's with "Intel Inside" stickers plastered on it.
Samsung created the IP that ensured that Apple's IP would work. I guess you could then argue that Samsung should be sued by the creator of the screwdriver that was used in the creation of creating their IP but sufficed to say here in lays the problem.
If Apple gets the rights to sue, Samsung should get equal rights to do so as well. Don't allow favouritism via product preference or country of origin allow you to be swayed.
1. Phones exist (very important logical point I believe). 2. American company asks an Asian company to make a new type of phone based on a set of blue prints that the American company provides. 3. Asian company builds a machine that makes said blue prints. 4. American company asks for X number of phones to be built. Asian company delivers X number of phones. 5. Asian company realises they can make Y number of phones which is x2 as much as X. 6. Asian company sells X-Y=Z phones which in turn pisses off the American company.
So who sues who? The guy came up with the blue prints? or the guy who came up with the blue prints to the blue-print-making-machine?
I can see some level headed justification here... Though it's historically known that Govt. services constantly get the process wrong and like to blame other parties without having a good hard look at themselves before doing so.
On one hand I see Facebook is just like any other communication service. I.E email. If I sent abusive emails to X person then the police went and placed criminal charges on the developers of Exim, that seems hardly fair. On the other hand with Facebook it's akin to an email box except that everyone whose' my friend can read what's in it (and THEN some!).
So the question is who holds the power in this kind of situation? me the account holder, Facebook itself, or local law enforcement?
I can switch off my account or delete posts on my wall at any time but that wont stop the bullying. I cannot prevent the posts within the communities established within Facebook (other walls and Facebook pages) which I can see is the same as say someone verbally abusing me on the street. I can go in my house (block the person) but it doesn't stop the person from ranting and raving out the front of my house, that is, until the police show up.
That's my justification for this and though I wouldn't like to see this issue escalate to criminal charges placed on Facebook. FaceBook is in fact preventing law enforcement to keep the peace in this situation by preventing them from doing their job.
How do we fix that? I'd say its a two sides of the coin issue myself and are we going to hire a Govt appointed 911 for Facebook over this?
Yeah, phewy to that! It's a nice concept and I hope that some will follow your sentiment but highly unlikely.
The world today is presently filled with all manner of creeds, healthy and unhealthy. To assume that your ideal will be common place and era in a new level of social acceptance, though positive and possible, it's a shot in the dark to say the least.
The only way I see it not being so far fetched is if our social constructs were to change. I.E our political design being a big one. Watched the Daily Show much?
We live in a society where today I saw a 13 year old girl dragged on TV to publicly apologise for calling a dark skinned football player an ape from a grandstand during a nationally televised football match. Now setting the whole racism aspect of this aside tell me how, as a society, we are growing away from this? Because when I was a kid growing up, going to the football and listening to the comic relief of the crowd hurling abuse at the players was the highlight of the whole evening.
We are entering a society where everything is everyone else's fault. You can be sued for stupid reasons and be thrown in front of a TV camera for doing something minor (yes even with the racism aspect included it's minor what she did, decapitating soldiers, not so much).
Take your words, flip them on it's head, Now that's real future I believe.
I beg to agree to disagree. Everyone may have it, even the people who say they don't, but from both a capitalistic and consumer perspective it doesn't help the value of Facebook.
For those who have Facebook who wish to not use it do so out of necessity E.G me. I have a Facebook account which is a complete sock puppet (yes against the Terms of Use please ban me I'm so worried) which I use as a developer to create Facebook integration services for my customers', which is hardly ever. My wife uses Facebook to communicate with friends but holds no loyalty and is waiting for the next big thing to take everyone off Facebook so she doesn't have to see any more painful ads polluting her screen.
Do either of us give value to Facebook? Maybe my wife does because she keys data into it about herself but even then she states that half of what she puts in is crap. She refuses to click on the ads so no value there and as for that 90% of the stuff she keys into Facebook you certainly cannot use that data effectively and sell it with guarantee that the information is in anyway useful and I think this statement goes for MOST Facebook users.
See, Facebook is all about socialising and everyone has a social side, likewise everyone has a personal side. Facebook's BIGGEST downfall is assuming the both are the same. People put information on Facebook that they want the rest of the world (network) to see. They do so because they want to show certain information. When Graph search came out and Facebook was expecting people to key in their dentists for example I was like "never gonna work" and it's because of this very reason.
So what is the value of Facebook.
a) It holds an unregulated metric of data which is purely dependent on the "desire" of the user, this is wholly proven by celebrities or any public figure because they wont have their Mom added to a public Facebook account which has 1,000's of fans a linked into. b) That metric of data can only be used as a significant speculative indicator for marketers. Where as Google has built quite cleverly an affective metric in the ways to gauge popularity of websites and information. In fact there is an entire industry out there called the SEO / SEM industry based on these metrics. c) Social Networking as an industry has legs but what we've found is that it's not with FaceBook. FaceBook works great for selling travel, restaurants or places of interest and even events. Not so good for retail or actual products and absolutely useless for B2B sales.
So all that's left is the mobile market and this is like Apple deciding to sell routers and server hardware, not a strong point of theirs. The mobile market is held by the device manufacturers and more particularly the SEO / SEM industry.
The only real way for FB to make any long term money is to abandon social networking and use the money they have which is kinda what they are doing. Graph was a good idea but Google Places has been there for years now and is directly built into your phone. FaceBook Home was a small half backed investment trying to take on the likes of Apple and Samsung and it really buckles chance.
Yes but let's not forget about the guys at Jabba and what they have in store in the coming years.
What I see for FaceBook's future is pretty inevitable. Consider Google+ for Droid, Skype for Windows, Apple figures something out and then there is FaceBook which simply becomes a desktop access point based on people's personal preference, as you would make your choices of search engine you'd also make your choice on what Social Media website to use and if there is an open standard for all then you're only going after the interface preference not what data resides because it all becomes the same data anyway.
If those projects for tying open communications comes to pass then what's really stopping Android from adopting a syncing facility that sends data to Facebook after uploading it to G+? or Apple doing the same? We are talking about text and photos, it isn't complex blocks of encrypted binary here it's stuff the web does every single day.
The world is gagging for a proper communication standard which trumps sms, voice and most defiantly social media. Mobilising Facebook though sounds hip to investors it's bringing it closer to it's death. The people who build mobile devices are smart enough and capable enough to build Facebook features directly into the phone as they are capable to build features into their own social media platforms. All I see the FB website will become is a desktop front-end for this open standard one day.
Of course Facebook can try all they want to lock it down but remember who's devices are they running on? and though the shit fight between device creators and Facebook hasn't started yet. I'm almost certian when FB fails to come up with the goods within the next few years there will be this exact shit fight. Though Google and Apple are used to this kind of crap I feel FB isn't because there ain't no way Apple or Google are prepared to give up market share on their Appstores to some 3rd party no matter how popular they are.
Cant agree with your boss, friend, professor whatever or how well he practised his trade or knew his stuff and believed what he believed. The problem is this.
Our socialistic views created the concept of taxing rich and "ridiculously" high thresholds, seriously, for example if I earn any profits out of my business the Govt gets to take 30 - 40% of it! LUNACY! Then I get to see that Govt take massive chunks of cash and spend it on shit, not good shit, not bad shit. SHIT SHIT.
Our fascist views created the concept of Tax Avoidance because they are sick of seeing lazy ass cock sucking politicians waste said money on shit shit. Now don't get me wrong, I believe that what is going on here is wrong, unethical and without a doubt terrible.
But it's not the case of what your friend speaks, it's a case of the entire system being not corrupt, not underhanded but just being plain obsolete, futile, broken, dumb-shit run, total dickheadedry, so on and so fourth.
Technology exposes these injustices but the irony is technology causes money to also move at a click of a button, so, technology made what's going on and technology is what is going to break it. Hopefully.
Also Julian Assange probably didn't publish these docs because he's hiding up in the Ecuadoran embassy where half the politicians protecting him are stashing cash in the BVI. A strange tinge of irony as well if this was the case hey?:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not surprised by this. I have a friend whose an activist / environmentalist and he keeps telling me about how awful the world has become and how the Govt is taking away heritage listed rainforest for it's own financial desire. My response to him was clear. Go to the open forums that are held discussing the future of certain lands and ask the hard questions to the face of the people who are taking active part in the corruptive activities. See I have a theory why things are the way they are.
It isn't that world has "become" a bad place and all these shady goings on have started, oh no, the world "is" a bad place and it's because nobody knows what they are doing is wrong. Consider what the internet has done here with the whole Snowden situation. The internet is shining a light on the dark crevices on our society and we are seeing all the huddled groups of cockroaches who are used to the darkness step into the light for first time.
Isn't it better to assume that Google's employees simply followed the rules of their predecessors as their predecessors perhaps thought (being patriotic and all) that what they were doing at the time was the best thing and had the best of intentions?
What Snowden did was ask the tough questions and Google answered those tough questions with a "Golly you're right!". Don't crucify Google for having a moral sense when asked because those who are in positions of power that steal only do so because they get away with it, no one questions it and therefore "it's obviously okay to do". When they find out it's not 99% of the time they back peddle, usually without any argument.
If you're talking about sheer data size you're wrong, since the GP's statement was regarding data storage.
If you're talking about individual bits of data, it's almost impossible to measure against eachother (unlesss both companies released figures). Facebook would host a lot of data in relation to messaging services but that alone brings up more problems in gauging the size and activity of Facebook. Every time I log on to my PC Gtalk and Skype runs the background. People who use Facebook occupy Facebook for prelonged periods because of how the service is devised. I'm almost certian that if it was a desktop app that ran in the task tray FB's page duration time would falter (right now my friend is using Facebook right next to me, she's having to sit on a website to "chat" to her family overseas, she'll log off Facebook and call them via Skype later in the day to have a conversation, a conversation that will cost her real money) *.
Consider, the average size of a WMV or MPG is far larger than wall posts and resized JPGs. Further, the Play Store (which is a part of YouTube) supports distribution of movies and music and does so to SmartTV's, SmartPhones, Gaming Consoles even most new BlueRay players sport a YouTube player of some sort.
* I do realise that Facebook is upping its game regarding these forms of services, the issue is that alot of it sits on 3rd party platfroms (like Skype), in actual fact a lot of Facebooks interactive services (such as Maps / Translations services) rely on the Microsoft.
P.S I wont even go into Facebook pages, many people may have them, many people may use them. I have now setup several of the things with paid adverising surrounding them, Google Adwords still drives more relvant and better customers to business sites. FB pages get likes, FB pages dont get $$ in peoples pockets and the latest figures show that nearly 2 / 3's of advertisers do not know how affective FB pages / FB advertising is for their companies - but this is another rant for another day.
Hardly, comparing what Google does vs what Facebook does. Remember Youtube alone sports 1bn+ uniques per month. What is Facebooks entire user base again? 1bn users in total. So you take just one part of Google's kingdom and it amasses to more use and value to the internet then the entire Facebook kingdom. Infact I'd go as far to say Facebook and Youtube are comparibly similar companies, size and value wise.
Social Graph is just another unstandarised dtd and tag subset the internet can do without. We hated it when Microsoft did it but it's okay for Facebook to get away with it? I think not.
Facebook should of stayed with innovation regarding photo and photo distribution services. That's its niche and its most popular service. Instant Messaging, App development and location services are all been and done and the ones that do it, do it at an OS level, therefore there's no room for a middle man and why Facebook Home was a failure.
I have 2.0 GB of source code for Windows 8, Windows 9 alpha
Please, if you're going to steal something you should check to make sure it's of real value to someone first. Donkey Kong Junior is perhaps the biggest ticket item you've mentioned!
PRISM as a concept does not scare me, it doesn't come as much of a surprise to me, really. However ... and there are a few problems where it's all heading.
a) Lets consider the value of PRISM to the NSA in the first place. Going back to the episodes of Hogan's Heroes we all know that the "enemy" would in many circumstances communicate in code to obfuscate their messages. Now, last time i checked the internet is a pretty big place. Even with some of the best code breaking software out there, there is no difference between tapping the information in and out of say Google vs tapping the information in and out of telecommunications companies. So PRISM's inherent value, to me, seems pretty minor. In fact it seems just down right lazy in the first place and pretty useless considering the amounts of data that would need sifting.
b) Precedent of accepting this as a people. There are plenty of activist groups today trying to constantly stamp out privacy concerns over the internet. They are so afraid that eventually "the other side" will win regardless. Isn't this simply a huge disregard for due process? Isn't this just a static example of no matter how hard people fight, the internet will eventually become regulated without the consent of the people? It's already monitored and sponsored by the major players if you look at the PRISM chart/timeline it's all there.
c) And now for the two headed snake and a perfect example of the Google "Do no harm" facade in play. Regulation, It currently exists in a pretty acceptable form already for the most. If I was to type any manner of profane keywords into Google the chances are that Google has already censored them to some extent. I'm almost certain that you may find the occasional nasty here or there but all in all I feel Google has a pretty good form of regulation as it is.
In summary, regulation in its ideal sense is fine, just as how society is portrayed in Star Trek as really a good way to live life as well. It's just too bad we are 200 - 300 years behind social evolution wise to live in such a common good society and we are stuck with the crap way things are today. What this PRISM thing shows is that we should, as a society, grow up a little because this childish "get away" with everything because we are above everything for the "greater good" is far more dangerous than SOPA or what any other grab at regulative control ever done. It's now a situation of take control at all costs because a small faction's "I know better" philosophies without checks and balances in place and an uncertainty of really knowing which way is up any more.
It's a demonstration of how mindless we all operate. We're not good enough for the Star Trek way of life and nor are the legislative rule benders either, even if they think they are.
I just find it amazing that no one has raised the argument that the Stop SOPA, PIPA, etc protests were a tremendous waste of time.
The PRISM program looks like the Govt has been making their own rules for some time now and with the surveillance revelations of the EAGLE program which Assange addressed in the past (but nobody really cared about because it may or may not of been speculative). I'd say with better judgement that that NSA is not the only organisation doing this.
BTW I recommend the Ghostery app for Chrome, great little tool, wont help with any of this but still an eye opener on what big business does.
However research to develop the drug will cost many millions to develop. Once developed the product can be manufactured usually for a few cents per unit. There is basically no possible way to recoup the research investment required to develop the drug if it can be freely copied once the formula is known.
I remain sceptical here because Apple isn't known for it's tremendous amounts of R&D. It is known more so for its joint R&D programs such as AIM or its works with ARM. Saying that Apple is the linchpin to the design of the iPhone "I believe" never came from R&D per say. It came from somewhere else, Steve Jobs.
All the prerequisites for an iPhone existed before Apple but no one else managed to put them all together. If there was no difficulty in doing the research to create the iPhone then someone else would have done it sooner.
They did put it together prior to the iPhone and it did work. The problem wasn't that they couldn't make it work, it was they couldn't make it consumer friendly. The mobile industry was hampered much like the car industry with incremental dosages of innovation strictly controlled to ensure that manufacturers did "the least" for "the most" which is why I revert back to the prerequisite innovation argument regarding this.
What makes Apple good at what they do is not their ability to invent. It's rather their ability to find a product which exists but is unpopular or specialised, strip out the features and components that bog down the device or make it too complex for general consumption. They package it and create a form factor that disrupts the market and appeases the masses. What Apple did was not invent something new rather what they did was keep the rest of the sharks honest. And good for them for doing so because as a result the bar has been set so high that we as consumers can now enjoy a myriad of devices that can achieve far more than what was ever considered back in the early 2000s.
The competitiveness generated from what the iPhone has done in market these days is what has keep the form factor even better than what Apple could of ever done alone. Samsung is not just competing with Apple, they are competing with 10 other Android suppliers and if one of them can gain enough traction that could cause all sorts of issues for Samsung's podium place on the Smartphone food chain.
I see this litigation process as Apple trying to bring back some sort of control over the smartphone market. Apple struggles to compete with the dozens or so manufacturers out there, they aren't keeping up with the insidious level of one-upmanship they have to contend with, which Android has placed on them, and this is so blatantly seen by the strictest type of litigation that was initiated on Apples behalf, I refer to the Judge Koh case.
I get that but for me the problem always goes back to the fact that something had to come from somewhere beforehand. The wheel dawns the horse and cart, the horse and cart, horse and cart dawns the car.
Take Kodak for instance. They kept selling film and photo developing services all the way up to bankruptcy. Sort of like selling horseshoes in today's society when they should of gone with the times and started selling rubber tyres.
Look at Nokia for example. They were a massive company before smart phones. They were on the top of the ladder and Apple was looking up at the likes of them. The tables have turned and now Nokia is at the bottom of the pecking order and have gone into submission almost.
One can speculate that Nokia's new product line differ significantly from the iPhone. Yes, this is true. I argue that Samsung really is no different, the end product Nokia or Samsung are both very good products. As all cars have inherent features which are alike.
Personal preference, I prefer the two over the iPhone myself and when there is a legal escapade against either brand I ask myself "when does ford start suing everyone else, they did after all commercialise the first car" and I know the answer as would most people.
Way back when it wasn't and issue but if move that situation into present day and they would of had the ability to do the same as Apple has. We as consumers don't shun GM or even Toyota because that competition is what has kept the car industry innovating (though I'd like to say in a very piss poor fashion).
Isn't the law in place to serve what's right and wrong about societies ills rather then be used as a form of remuneration based on legislation and "the times"?
It was a dumb typo, I know that, most level headed people would see that. I'm concerned that you don't.
east
The guy who came up with the idiotic math, then we praise the blue print making machine that made the Americans redundant and wonder what the fuck the Asians are doing.
Sorry about the simple math X-Y. I didn't proof my text before sending it.
Asian's I've found to be very philosophical when it comes to doing business. Provided both companies benefit from their transactions and you don't mistreat them they make life pretty easy.
I find it totally mind boggling that after an American organisation shows an Asian company how to create a successful product and when the Asian company actually does so the American's get pissed off? Haven't you guys learned anything from the catastrophes in the middle easy?
Not racist. I put both American and Asian's in the same basket here. The same argument can be made that a series of American companies actually sell and distribute the iPhone and that it's not all "Apple" putting their product on shelves.
But I resent being called racist, so fucking die you piece of scum sucking shit, whatever creed you may be!
I'm not saying that at all. Though I can see that if you take my 6 dot points 100% literally you could say that I am making that judgement :)
It's not as if way back when Steve Jobs had his first keynote showcasing his new iPhone creation it had a "Powered by Samsung" logo underneath the iPhone logo. Why not? I've seen plenty of PC's with "Intel Inside" stickers plastered on it.
Samsung created the IP that ensured that Apple's IP would work. I guess you could then argue that Samsung should be sued by the creator of the screwdriver that was used in the creation of creating their IP but sufficed to say here in lays the problem.
If Apple gets the rights to sue, Samsung should get equal rights to do so as well. Don't allow favouritism via product preference or country of origin allow you to be swayed.
Lets look at this objectively.
1. Phones exist (very important logical point I believe).
2. American company asks an Asian company to make a new type of phone based on a set of blue prints that the American company provides.
3. Asian company builds a machine that makes said blue prints.
4. American company asks for X number of phones to be built. Asian company delivers X number of phones.
5. Asian company realises they can make Y number of phones which is x2 as much as X.
6. Asian company sells X-Y=Z phones which in turn pisses off the American company.
So who sues who? The guy came up with the blue prints? or the guy who came up with the blue prints to the blue-print-making-machine?
Facebook Ireland Ltd, looks like your wrong on a few counts here....
Whois Domain: facebook.it
Status: ok
Created: 2006-03-06 00:00:00
Last Update: 2012-10-26 10:18:21
Expire Date: 2013-07-27
Registrant
Name: Facebook UK LTD
Organization: Facebook UK LTD
ContactID: FACE59
Address: Gladstone House, 77-79 High Street
Created: 2010-07Egham
TW209HY
(SURREY)
GB-27 12:51:57
Last Update: 2010-11-17 14:56:05
Nameservers
a.ns.facebook.com
b.ns.facebook.com
nslookup www.facebook.it
Name: star.c10r.facebook.com
Address: 31.13.77.55
RIPE search on 31.13.77.55
More Info from RIPEstat
inetnum: 31.13.64.0 - 31.13.127.255
netname: IE-FACEBOOK-20110418
descr: Facebook Ireland Ltd
country: IE
address: Facebook Ireland Ltd Hanover Reach, 5-7 Hanover Quay 2 Dublin Ireland
phone: +0016505434800
fax-no: +0016505435325
I can see some level headed justification here... Though it's historically known that Govt. services constantly get the process wrong and like to blame other parties without having a good hard look at themselves before doing so.
On one hand I see Facebook is just like any other communication service. I.E email. If I sent abusive emails to X person then the police went and placed criminal charges on the developers of Exim, that seems hardly fair. On the other hand with Facebook it's akin to an email box except that everyone whose' my friend can read what's in it (and THEN some!).
So the question is who holds the power in this kind of situation? me the account holder, Facebook itself, or local law enforcement?
I can switch off my account or delete posts on my wall at any time but that wont stop the bullying. I cannot prevent the posts within the communities established within Facebook (other walls and Facebook pages) which I can see is the same as say someone verbally abusing me on the street. I can go in my house (block the person) but it doesn't stop the person from ranting and raving out the front of my house, that is, until the police show up.
That's my justification for this and though I wouldn't like to see this issue escalate to criminal charges placed on Facebook. FaceBook is in fact preventing law enforcement to keep the peace in this situation by preventing them from doing their job.
How do we fix that? I'd say its a two sides of the coin issue myself and are we going to hire a Govt appointed 911 for Facebook over this?
Yeah, phewy to that! It's a nice concept and I hope that some will follow your sentiment but highly unlikely.
The world today is presently filled with all manner of creeds, healthy and unhealthy. To assume that your ideal will be common place and era in a new level of social acceptance, though positive and possible, it's a shot in the dark to say the least.
The only way I see it not being so far fetched is if our social constructs were to change. I.E our political design being a big one. Watched the Daily Show much?
We live in a society where today I saw a 13 year old girl dragged on TV to publicly apologise for calling a dark skinned football player an ape from a grandstand during a nationally televised football match. Now setting the whole racism aspect of this aside tell me how, as a society, we are growing away from this? Because when I was a kid growing up, going to the football and listening to the comic relief of the crowd hurling abuse at the players was the highlight of the whole evening.
We are entering a society where everything is everyone else's fault. You can be sued for stupid reasons and be thrown in front of a TV camera for doing something minor (yes even with the racism aspect included it's minor what she did, decapitating soldiers, not so much).
Take your words, flip them on it's head, Now that's real future I believe.
I beg to agree to disagree. Everyone may have it, even the people who say they don't, but from both a capitalistic and consumer perspective it doesn't help the value of Facebook.
For those who have Facebook who wish to not use it do so out of necessity E.G me. I have a Facebook account which is a complete sock puppet (yes against the Terms of Use please ban me I'm so worried) which I use as a developer to create Facebook integration services for my customers', which is hardly ever. My wife uses Facebook to communicate with friends but holds no loyalty and is waiting for the next big thing to take everyone off Facebook so she doesn't have to see any more painful ads polluting her screen.
Do either of us give value to Facebook? Maybe my wife does because she keys data into it about herself but even then she states that half of what she puts in is crap. She refuses to click on the ads so no value there and as for that 90% of the stuff she keys into Facebook you certainly cannot use that data effectively and sell it with guarantee that the information is in anyway useful and I think this statement goes for MOST Facebook users.
See, Facebook is all about socialising and everyone has a social side, likewise everyone has a personal side. Facebook's BIGGEST downfall is assuming the both are the same. People put information on Facebook that they want the rest of the world (network) to see. They do so because they want to show certain information. When Graph search came out and Facebook was expecting people to key in their dentists for example I was like "never gonna work" and it's because of this very reason.
So what is the value of Facebook.
a) It holds an unregulated metric of data which is purely dependent on the "desire" of the user, this is wholly proven by celebrities or any public figure because they wont have their Mom added to a public Facebook account which has 1,000's of fans a linked into.
b) That metric of data can only be used as a significant speculative indicator for marketers. Where as Google has built quite cleverly an affective metric in the ways to gauge popularity of websites and information. In fact there is an entire industry out there called the SEO / SEM industry based on these metrics.
c) Social Networking as an industry has legs but what we've found is that it's not with FaceBook. FaceBook works great for selling travel, restaurants or places of interest and even events. Not so good for retail or actual products and absolutely useless for B2B sales.
So all that's left is the mobile market and this is like Apple deciding to sell routers and server hardware, not a strong point of theirs. The mobile market is held by the device manufacturers and more particularly the SEO / SEM industry.
The only real way for FB to make any long term money is to abandon social networking and use the money they have which is kinda what they are doing. Graph was a good idea but Google Places has been there for years now and is directly built into your phone. FaceBook Home was a small half backed investment trying to take on the likes of Apple and Samsung and it really buckles chance.
I was expecting Funny for this not Troll. We're still pretty touchy feely about Apple around here aren't we?
However, I also think nobody copies shit better than apple.
And nobody copies Apple better than Google.
Yeah because we cant do this already with NightSky
https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-night-sky/id475772902?mt=8
Yes but let's not forget about the guys at Jabba and what they have in store in the coming years.
What I see for FaceBook's future is pretty inevitable. Consider Google+ for Droid, Skype for Windows, Apple figures something out and then there is FaceBook which simply becomes a desktop access point based on people's personal preference, as you would make your choices of search engine you'd also make your choice on what Social Media website to use and if there is an open standard for all then you're only going after the interface preference not what data resides because it all becomes the same data anyway.
If those projects for tying open communications comes to pass then what's really stopping Android from adopting a syncing facility that sends data to Facebook after uploading it to G+? or Apple doing the same? We are talking about text and photos, it isn't complex blocks of encrypted binary here it's stuff the web does every single day.
The world is gagging for a proper communication standard which trumps sms, voice and most defiantly social media. Mobilising Facebook though sounds hip to investors it's bringing it closer to it's death. The people who build mobile devices are smart enough and capable enough to build Facebook features directly into the phone as they are capable to build features into their own social media platforms. All I see the FB website will become is a desktop front-end for this open standard one day.
Of course Facebook can try all they want to lock it down but remember who's devices are they running on? and though the shit fight between device creators and Facebook hasn't started yet. I'm almost certian when FB fails to come up with the goods within the next few years there will be this exact shit fight. Though Google and Apple are used to this kind of crap I feel FB isn't because there ain't no way Apple or Google are prepared to give up market share on their Appstores to some 3rd party no matter how popular they are.
It's a bit of a "need you need me" sentiment FaceBook Maps and Translate features are Bing driven, what alternative is there for FB? Google?
This article really says it all ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/07/snl-kim-jong-un-declares-gay-marriage-legal-in-north-korea_n_3032251.html
This is what happens when you send Dennis Rodman over as an ambassador!
Cant agree with your boss, friend, professor whatever or how well he practised his trade or knew his stuff and believed what he believed. The problem is this.
Our socialistic views created the concept of taxing rich and "ridiculously" high thresholds, seriously, for example if I earn any profits out of my business the Govt gets to take 30 - 40% of it! LUNACY! Then I get to see that Govt take massive chunks of cash and spend it on shit, not good shit, not bad shit. SHIT SHIT.
Our fascist views created the concept of Tax Avoidance because they are sick of seeing lazy ass cock sucking politicians waste said money on shit shit. Now don't get me wrong, I believe that what is going on here is wrong, unethical and without a doubt terrible.
But it's not the case of what your friend speaks, it's a case of the entire system being not corrupt, not underhanded but just being plain obsolete, futile, broken, dumb-shit run, total dickheadedry, so on and so fourth.
Technology exposes these injustices but the irony is technology causes money to also move at a click of a button, so, technology made what's going on and technology is what is going to break it. Hopefully.
Also Julian Assange probably didn't publish these docs because he's hiding up in the Ecuadoran embassy where half the politicians protecting him are stashing cash in the BVI. A strange tinge of irony as well if this was the case hey? :)