In retrospect, I realize the above reply might not make my point effectively. Let's roleplay:
I'm hacking Slashdot's servers right now. I'm doing so by exploiting the HTTPd they are using. Let's just have them close port 80 to stop me, right? If that was the correct and reasonable response, I could take out half the internet in a day.
If the retaliation occurs after the fact, this is correct; however, if the retaliation occurs while the instigating attack is ongoing, you are preventing [further] harm by putting an end to the offending party's ability to attack. That's textbook self defense [which does allow for use of nonlethal force and destruction of the means used to carry out the attack in cases where one is defending their property].
This. And because of this, were Apple to make a 1:1 clone of the GS3 (and Samsung were to allow it), it would cost Apple considerably more than it costs Samsung. Furthermore, because of this, Samsung can put more advanced parts in their phones than Apple, sell at the same price point, and reap the same profit margin. Of course, they go a step further and put even more advanced technology in their devices (720p screen, NFC, more recent Bluetooth, etc), sell at a slightly lower price point, reap a bit less per-unit profit, and watch their market share grow as Apple's dwindles.
Don't tell me you think they'll continue sacrificing their profits once Apple's gone. No, that's when they keep doing what they're doing, but at a price point equal to, or a bit above, what Apple currently charges.
With over a decade of buying exclusively Apple products in any market they enter, I'd say my boss is one of those Apple customers. He's absolutely enamored with the HTC One X he bought last month after the disappointing letdown that is the iPhone 5 was announced.
Sitting here with my HTC phone, Toshiba laptop, iPad, and iPod Classic, glancing over at the PowerMac G3 I converted into an office chair (with convenient storage) and the PowerBook G4 that currently hosts my mail and DNS services, I have to say I think Samsung is in the right, here.
They're not making the image bigger when you make your browser window larger. They are making the image smaller to fit crappy small browser windows...
...and then, they're stacking the heading on top of the image, with the link buttons underneath when you make your browser window larger.
If you can't make your window large enough to see it, try zooming the page out. Personally, at 1080p, I have to zoom out 4 times to see the footer without scrolling, making the text on the page smaller (in resolution, even a physically larger display wouldn't help that) than the average person would be able to read. Yes, I can read it at that zoom level, even on my 164." display, but that's only due to my 20/8 vision.
Which is correct. It doesn't make either act right, but it is correct, in a big way. The assumption is that when something is stolen from you, you will replace it at some point; therefore, there are further costs involved in being a victim of theft (stealing) that do not apply to copyright infringement (piracy). If I make a copy of a CD, does anyone replace any missing inventory? No? Then it's not stealing. Pretty simple, really.
GP is talking about Comcast. The *are* the content industry and they're fairly certain that if you aren't paying them $120/mo for internet, you'll end up paying them more than $120/mo for CATV. They're most likely wrong about that, but they don't know that yet.
As long as the ISPs, owned by the content companies, act as dumb pipes, the content companies that own them lose paying customers. Since content generally costs more than the bandwidth used to transfer it, a content customer is more valuable than an internet customer, therefore it makes sense for the ISPs to drop their own customers if their parent companies think those same customers will become *their* customers.
Do I agree with it? Fuck no; I'm just laying out the business-and-marketing facts of the situation. Now, go pirate a movie so you have something to watch tonight.
It's done all the time. Some little customization, to an otherwise widely-useable codebase, that is tailored to the specific needs of a single client.
I can't count how many times my company has put together a custom extension to our core product for a client only to later field many requests along the lines of "you know, like you did for [client] but with this small change" and end up rolling that same modification into our core product with a wider variety of configuration options.
Sometimes you're implementing a feature as a one-off, coded to behave a certain way because the client doesn't need, or want to pay for, the flexibility of a more generalized implementation. That is code I would never release to the public, but that doesn't make it bad code.
Wow, a bit longer response than I expected. You really went all-out, there, didn't you? Did you think I was being sarcastic? Because I wasn't.
I think we agree a lot about these types of things and I was more interested in finding out whether your thought process was trained by formal education or if you, liky myself, are simply a logical thinker, able to put things together that the average idiot can't grasp even if it's handed to them on a silver platter.
That's a feature allowing the user to wipe their own device. Yes, both companies have that. Yes, that means both companies can wipe a user's device without the user requesting it. No, Google has not done this. Yes, Apple has.
Slashdot Mirror
In retrospect, I realize the above reply might not make my point effectively. Let's roleplay:
I'm hacking Slashdot's servers right now. I'm doing so by exploiting the HTTPd they are using. Let's just have them close port 80 to stop me, right? If that was the correct and reasonable response, I could take out half the internet in a day.
So if I'm hosting a service for others (who are authorized) to access, please explain how closing the port is an option?
And when you come back online? You need to make them stop or, well, they're not gonna stop.
If the retaliation occurs after the fact, this is correct; however, if the retaliation occurs while the instigating attack is ongoing, you are preventing [further] harm by putting an end to the offending party's ability to attack. That's textbook self defense [which does allow for use of nonlethal force and destruction of the means used to carry out the attack in cases where one is defending their property].
Anyone being able to build AOSP-based devices was kind of one of the original points of the OS. You're right about the rest, though.
This. And because of this, were Apple to make a 1:1 clone of the GS3 (and Samsung were to allow it), it would cost Apple considerably more than it costs Samsung. Furthermore, because of this, Samsung can put more advanced parts in their phones than Apple, sell at the same price point, and reap the same profit margin. Of course, they go a step further and put even more advanced technology in their devices (720p screen, NFC, more recent Bluetooth, etc), sell at a slightly lower price point, reap a bit less per-unit profit, and watch their market share grow as Apple's dwindles.
Don't tell me you think they'll continue sacrificing their profits once Apple's gone. No, that's when they keep doing what they're doing, but at a price point equal to, or a bit above, what Apple currently charges.
You don't play much chess, do you?
With over a decade of buying exclusively Apple products in any market they enter, I'd say my boss is one of those Apple customers. He's absolutely enamored with the HTC One X he bought last month after the disappointing letdown that is the iPhone 5 was announced.
Sitting here with my HTC phone, Toshiba laptop, iPad, and iPod Classic, glancing over at the PowerMac G3 I converted into an office chair (with convenient storage) and the PowerBook G4 that currently hosts my mail and DNS services, I have to say I think Samsung is in the right, here.
Losing market share while the competitor you are suing eats your lunch is not how you "define the market".
They're not making the image bigger when you make your browser window larger. They are making the image smaller to fit crappy small browser windows...
...and then, they're stacking the heading on top of the image, with the link buttons underneath when you make your browser window larger.
If you can't make your window large enough to see it, try zooming the page out. Personally, at 1080p, I have to zoom out 4 times to see the footer without scrolling, making the text on the page smaller (in resolution, even a physically larger display wouldn't help that) than the average person would be able to read. Yes, I can read it at that zoom level, even on my 164." display, but that's only due to my 20/8 vision.
Well, it's more than 01, less than 11, and still only a 2-bit binary integer.
Motorola sets the percentage, Apple sets the dollar value.
Which is correct. It doesn't make either act right, but it is correct, in a big way. The assumption is that when something is stolen from you, you will replace it at some point; therefore, there are further costs involved in being a victim of theft (stealing) that do not apply to copyright infringement (piracy). If I make a copy of a CD, does anyone replace any missing inventory? No? Then it's not stealing. Pretty simple, really.
GP is talking about Comcast. The *are* the content industry and they're fairly certain that if you aren't paying them $120/mo for internet, you'll end up paying them more than $120/mo for CATV. They're most likely wrong about that, but they don't know that yet.
As long as the ISPs, owned by the content companies, act as dumb pipes, the content companies that own them lose paying customers. Since content generally costs more than the bandwidth used to transfer it, a content customer is more valuable than an internet customer, therefore it makes sense for the ISPs to drop their own customers if their parent companies think those same customers will become *their* customers.
Do I agree with it? Fuck no; I'm just laying out the business-and-marketing facts of the situation. Now, go pirate a movie so you have something to watch tonight.
Drawing it out one step further, you keep your idea a secret, but that doesn't prevent me from having and using the same idea. There is no way.
QR codes are quite useful. I scan them all the time...
It's done all the time. Some little customization, to an otherwise widely-useable codebase, that is tailored to the specific needs of a single client.
I can't count how many times my company has put together a custom extension to our core product for a client only to later field many requests along the lines of "you know, like you did for [client] but with this small change" and end up rolling that same modification into our core product with a wider variety of configuration options.
Sometimes you're implementing a feature as a one-off, coded to behave a certain way because the client doesn't need, or want to pay for, the flexibility of a more generalized implementation. That is code I would never release to the public, but that doesn't make it bad code.
I'm a dyslexic typist, but I somehow think you still know what I meant.
Wow, a bit longer response than I expected. You really went all-out, there, didn't you? Did you think I was being sarcastic? Because I wasn't.
I think we agree a lot about these types of things and I was more interested in finding out whether your thought process was trained by formal education or if you, liky myself, are simply a logical thinker, able to put things together that the average idiot can't grasp even if it's handed to them on a silver platter.
This guy gets it. Do you by chance have any psych education?
It may be 0.5% of Muslims living in the US, but you can bet it's a far, far higher percentage of Muslime living in the Middle East.
Gun owners aren't the busculture, murderes are.
That's a feature allowing the user to wipe their own device. Yes, both companies have that. Yes, that means both companies can wipe a user's device without the user requesting it. No, Google has not done this. Yes, Apple has.
You're assuming that Apple will allow Google's updated Maps app, rather than banning it as "duplication of existing functionality".