I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.
Sorry but abusive litigation based on facile patents is abusive litigation. Doesn't matter whether it's done to or by Apple, the patents are still complete bullshit and their use for extortion is abuse and needs to be derided.
So lets see if I read this correctly. Not counting the company Apple has do their dirty work in the world of patent trolling......
And at any rate, nobody is claiming Apple doing this on products they are developing/releasing. It's stuff like slide to unlock, where products were on the market 5 years prior, using exactly what Apple patented, yet somehow that little fact wasn't considered important in granting or defending against said patent.
How is that Patent TROLLING?
Maybe a bullshit decision; but Apple wasn't TROLLING with that.
I don't think "Patent Trolling" means what you think it means.
Give me a break. Apple was worse than MS when it came to the internet, CyberDog? Comical.
Interesting language, since the name for CyberDog came from a Comic in The New Yorker.
And you have to remember when CyberDog was released, it was a pretty cool and ambitious project. In fact, if it hadn't been for Microsoft throwing their weight around in the OpenDoc Consortium (and the fact that CyberDog was burning cash at a time when Apple couldn't afford it), CyberDog (and OpenDoc) probably would have evolved into a Web Standard.
Remember Apple and Carl Sagan? When Carl Sagan had a problem with abuse of his name in a product Apple, in protest at the silliness of the "IP laws" used the internal name insulting him and made a sound like "Sosume".
1. Carl Sagan was an INTERNAL Project CODE NAME for the PowerMac 7100. The whole lawsuit thing was beneath the personage of Dr. Sagan, but he DID sue (twice!) and lost (twice!).
2. Sosumi's name had NOTHING to do with Carl Sagan, or ANY filed lawsuit. THIS is the REAL STORY.
3. The Sound "Sosumi" did NOT sound like "So sue me". It sounded like THIS.
They are just as much a patent troll as they company they are accusing of being a troll.
O RLY?
Name me ONE instance where Apple has DIRECTLY (Rockstar doesn't count; especially since they are FAR from alone in that "venture") filed a Patent Infringement lawsuit that DIDN'T involve either an already-announced Apple Product, or at least one that was in Development.
I think Apple could get its big boy pants on and fix the patent system. Problem is they used it against Samsung, they do not want if fixed. So its just the cost of doing business for them.
Um, this is WAY different than Apple v. Samsung v. Apple v. Samsung v...
That was a classic Patent Infringement suit. Both parties have employees, make and sell products, have R&D Departments, regularly file Patents on innovations (no flaming!) that they at least PERCEIVE in good conscience that they created from their own efforts, and for the express purpose (most of the time, at least) of incorporating into a REAL Product.
VERY different from a Patent Troll scenario; and it's high time our Patent System was modified to somehow reconcile the difference, BUT without creating a set of laws that effectively excludes the little guy, who may have come up with an perfectly valid and "Patentable" idea; but does not YET have a way to monetize it (which I acknowledge is actually a pretty tall order, legalese-wise).
These types of services fail when people stop trusting the developer. Google has lost trust in general with privacy and people have generally developed a distrust with technology. Apple claims its Apple pay is successful but only because its end users have a rather blind trust towards anything Apple does. I have no doubt that eventually we will see these types of pay systems attacked and its really just a matter of which one will be first. When you think of how many smartphones are lost or stolen you have to wonder if its a good ideal to also add these kinds of pay services to them?
Apple Pay is successful partly because of the sheer numbers of iPhones that are capable of using it, and also because, rather than "blind trust", those who aren't simply Apple Haters like you have looked into the specifics and determined for themselves that Apple is not in the business of insinuating itself into your every transaction, like Google does with GW.
And, if you had paid attention, you would already know that you can DISABLE and even WIPE your Apple Pay info from your stolen or misplaced phone remotely; not to mention that your fingerprint is REQUIRED for Apple Pay, which more or less makes Apple Pay useless for anyone but those with fingerprints already registered to that phone.
You use either of these services and they are going to beat you to death with ads and analytics from your spending habits.
Google already knows enough about me. and Apple knows fuckall about security.
As for Google, I wholeheartedly agree; but you haven't been listening if you think Apple has ANY knowledge about your specific Apple Pay transactions. They. Just. Don't.
The way it SHOULD work is that I put my phone over the NFC reader, it asks me for fingerprint, and done. Reality bites.
Not for users of Apple Pay.
In fact, that's EXACTLY how Apple Pay works. No, in fact, it's even EASIER, because you don't have to WAIT to get "prompted" for your fingerprint.
You'll also notice that Apple didn't try to make it look faster than it really is. They didn't edit-out the brief delay while the NFC initialized the transaction. Even with that, and the "cashier" stating the total, the entire video is only 7 seconds long. The Apple Pay part was on the order of 3 seconds.
Richard Stallman is spot on regarding free and open source software (FOSS). He warns us about how proprietary, closed source software can be abused and that our dependency on it is a danger to civil society. In case you didn't see it the first time round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Only an idiot would dismiss the concerns he raises.
In theory, he is correct, and I certainly don't dismiss his CONCERNS; however, as a practical matter, it is an undeniably and obviously unreasonable assumption that more than about.01% (just a guess, and probably WAY too high of a number) of the total computer-buying (let alone "computer-USING") meatsacks on the planet could even recognize, let alone safely extract, even blatantly-added malware (let alone obsfucated malware) simply from staring at even uncommonly-well-documented Source Code (let alone Source with a comment block every 500 lines or so), even if given an infinite amount of time (which, of course 0.00% of us meatsacks actually have).
So, for those reasons (and many others too numerous to mention), "only an idiot" would believe that F/OSS is, in any way, shape, or form, an actual panacea for the detection and elimination of malicious code-insertion by the 99.99% of the computer-buying (let alone computer-USING!) public.
Now we know how many Calories he burned. we are doomed...
Exactly!
Does EVERYTHING have to have the utmost in security?
What I didn't see was any mention of "personal information" or "remote code injection/execution" that MIGHT call for strong encryption.
So the question for Nike becomes "How much will having a bigger, faster microcontroller to encode/decode secure communications cost us (and therefore the consumer)?"
The goal, if you had missed it, is to pass enough laws you're guilty of *something*. Then, if you get to be a problem, there's sure to be *something* to nail you to the wall with.
If we collectively removed all the comments on/. that fall into that category, there would only be about 10 comments-per-article. Plus, I don't think I ever claimed that my post was pure "fact". Of COURSE it is my opinion; that's what makes Slashdot, er, Slashdot... Next!
You should probably stay out of these threads, as all you seem to do is harp on about OSX like your life depends on it, which seems a bit desperate. I feel bad for you if you have to hang out in Windows threads to make yourself feel better by pointing out to everyone why they're retarded and you (and your OS of choice) is awesome.
Ah, now you are assuming that I don't have a dog in this fight. You would be wrong.
I currently am employed developing custom application software for a Microsoft-owned ERP package, and so spend every workday (at least!) using various Microsoft OSes and other software products. I am, for instance, typing this on my work laptop, a Sammy that runs W7 (which, like most Slashdotters, I am fairly happy with, OS-wise).
I deal on a daily basis with MS Server installs from Server 2003 through Server 2012 R2 at my office and at client sites. I occasionally have to interact with Windows 8 on co-worker's computers.
And before this job, I have had to run Windows at work (at least) clear back to W 3.10 and NT 3.51 in various Development jobs.
So, I think most people reading these words would agree that I am fully qualified to give an "Expert Opinion" on the various pros and cons of various Windows and MacOS versions up through the years.
In contrast, you will NEVER see me even attempt to chime in on various Linux distros, UIs, etc; because I have little to no experience with that platform.
Just accept that you are you, and others are others. What you like might not be what they like, and vice versa. Getting all upset because not everyone agrees with you is only serving to make you look like a jealous school kid, regardless of whether that is true or not, or maybe some sort of egocentric lunatic who simply can not fathom why others might disagree with them.
As I stated above, I happen to have deep and daily experience with nearly every version of Windows, both "desktop" and "server", since W3.10 to W8 and NT3.51 to Server 2012 R2, as well as deep and daily experience with every version of MacOS and OS X, since System 1.0 to OS X 10.9 (haven't loaded Yosemite yet). Can you claim the same?
So I am FAR from the "jealous school kid" you try to make me out to be.
Oh, and speaking of "Hanging out in (other platform's threads)" (even though I believe I have amply demonstrated my "bona fides" to be in this thread, above), if we removed all the comments from the Linux and Windows fans that contiually Apple-bash in "Apple threads" on Slashdot (but, unlike you and me, usually masquerading as ACs, instead of putting their Karma on the line like us adults (not jealous school kids)), again, we'd have a pretty lonely site.
Afterall, controversy is what drives this site, to a very large extent; and that ain't going away on ANY front any time soon...
The updates are NOT free. Android is NOT free.
You have to PAY to get access to Android source code. You pay more if you want the newer versions. You have to agree to shit like bundling Google's apps and store (which now also cost money separate from Android itself) or guaranteeing a "flagship" phone launch with expected sales of X within a certain time frame if you want access to the latest builds.
All the more reason that Google could, at any time, change the distribution model such that kernel updates could be pushed out at any time, to any device. They just don't care to do the software redesign work and legal work to make that possible.
Even if Android was actually free, there are plenty of costs associated with pushing out an update. You've got to make sure the new version runs on the old devices (it won't). Then you've got to do QA. Then you've got to push the update out to the carriers. Then the carriers have to do their own validating. Then the carriers have to push it out.
Oh, Cry Me a River.
If Apple can do it (and they obviously do) and Google can do it for their Nexus brand (and they apparently do), then so can everyone else. It's called "the cost of doing business". Tough shit. STFU.
Apple has the clout to fight the carriers on crapware, bloatware, and lock-in. I hope Google in conjunction with hardware manufacturers get the same leverage soon.
Oh, please. Apple came first (Android Beta didn't come out until November, 2007, nearly a year after the original iPhone), and Google could have EASILY followed that model with the manufacturers and carriers if they wished to.
And at this point, Google has so many Android "seats" in the world that they can EASILY dictate terms to the distribution chain.
But again, they just don't give a flying fuck. That much is abundantly clear.
Google can't make hardware vendors do this. Nor can they make hardware vendors apply patches to 4.3.
You REALLY think that Google doesn't have enough leverage to change their Licensing Terms to make this so, even retroactively?
Seriously: What are the hardware manufacturers and carriers going to do? Write their own OS? Sure, and watch their sales PLUMMET, as they could no longer user the "Android" trademark.
Google has PLENTY of leverage here. They just don't care, anymore than the greedy manufacturers and even greedier carriers do.
My plain vanilla Nexus 4 is still running fine with the latest and greatest, well latest, OS from Google. It is just staring to take some performance hits as compared to when it first came out.
That's Google trying to force you to upgrade through planned obsolescence, don'tcha know?
At least that's what all the Fandroids claim Apple is doing when older hardware has trouble keeping up with new iOS versions...;-)
The problem is when your carrier prevents you from upgrading. Blame for this issue lies soley at the feet of Verizon, At&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.
Partially, yes.
But, the actual "problem" is that Google never has (and probably never will) put their foot down, like Apple did at the very start, and say "We control the OS updates and distribution of same".
And before you say "But that is precisely why Android is better.", you need to examine whether that knee-jerk reaction is standing the test of time...
Apple already came out with "Continuity". So Microsoft's "Continuum" sounds pretty similar. You might just have to knuckle down and live with a new term for seamless transitions between phone+tablet and laptop+desktop devices. Of all the terms they could have chosen, "Continu*" don't seem too bad.
But in Apple's case, it was used not to refer to a "contin*" between the "look and feel" of the OS on different devices; but rather an actual, functional, feature (being able to start a document on one device, and then seamlessly (and automagically) transfer it to another class of device.
But that's ok, it has been a LONG time since MS had an "original" thought that didn't didn't actually originate in Cupertino.
I see the MS Shills are out in Moderating Force...
Pick a UI and stick to it! I'm getting very tired of having to relearn the entire UI whenever you make a new release.
You DO realize who you're talking about, right?
MS is almost as bad as Samsung at releasing just any old thing off the engineer's bench and calling it a "product".
Especially since that has been available on Macs in the Finder since at least System 7 (1991), and maybe even before (can't find a reference right now).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.
Sorry, no it isn't.
For the reading impaired like you, here is a good definition of "Patent Trolling".
Apple have been using a patent troll company (Rockstar) to go after Samsung and other companies
Apple is FAR from the only holder of the Rockstar Patents (Nortel Patents).
And I don't think they have relied on those to sue Samsung for most of what they have sued over.
And what about Samsung? They have filed retaliatory Patent suits against Apple, and they aren't a member of Rockstar.
Haters gotta hate.
Sorry but abusive litigation based on facile patents is abusive litigation. Doesn't matter whether it's done to or by Apple, the patents are still complete bullshit and their use for extortion is abuse and needs to be derided.
Still not Patent TROLLING, sorry.
So lets see if I read this correctly. Not counting the company Apple has do their dirty work in the world of patent trolling......
And at any rate, nobody is claiming Apple doing this on products they are developing/releasing. It's stuff like slide to unlock, where products were on the market 5 years prior, using exactly what Apple patented, yet somehow that little fact wasn't considered important in granting or defending against said patent.
How is that Patent TROLLING?
Maybe a bullshit decision; but Apple wasn't TROLLING with that.
I don't think "Patent Trolling" means what you think it means.
If Apple actually invented this technology they would have a prior use defence and would not have been found to infringe.
Anywhere but in East Texas, that is...
Apple "invented".
Give me a break. Apple was worse than MS when it came to the internet, CyberDog? Comical.
Interesting language, since the name for CyberDog came from a Comic in The New Yorker.
And you have to remember when CyberDog was released, it was a pretty cool and ambitious project. In fact, if it hadn't been for Microsoft throwing their weight around in the OpenDoc Consortium (and the fact that CyberDog was burning cash at a time when Apple couldn't afford it), CyberDog (and OpenDoc) probably would have evolved into a Web Standard.
Remember Apple and Carl Sagan? When Carl Sagan had a problem with abuse of his name in a product Apple, in protest at the silliness of the "IP laws" used the internal name insulting him and made a sound like "Sosume".
1. Carl Sagan was an INTERNAL Project CODE NAME for the PowerMac 7100. The whole lawsuit thing was beneath the personage of Dr. Sagan, but he DID sue (twice!) and lost (twice!).
2. Sosumi's name had NOTHING to do with Carl Sagan, or ANY filed lawsuit. THIS is the REAL STORY. 3. The Sound "Sosumi" did NOT sound like "So sue me". It sounded like THIS.
4. It is "Sosumi" NOT "Sosume".
They are just as much a patent troll as they company they are accusing of being a troll.
O RLY?
Name me ONE instance where Apple has DIRECTLY (Rockstar doesn't count; especially since they are FAR from alone in that "venture") filed a Patent Infringement lawsuit that DIDN'T involve either an already-announced Apple Product, or at least one that was in Development.
I think Apple could get its big boy pants on and fix the patent system. Problem is they used it against Samsung, they do not want if fixed. So its just the cost of doing business for them.
Um, this is WAY different than Apple v. Samsung v. Apple v. Samsung v...
That was a classic Patent Infringement suit. Both parties have employees, make and sell products, have R&D Departments, regularly file Patents on innovations (no flaming!) that they at least PERCEIVE in good conscience that they created from their own efforts, and for the express purpose (most of the time, at least) of incorporating into a REAL Product.
VERY different from a Patent Troll scenario; and it's high time our Patent System was modified to somehow reconcile the difference, BUT without creating a set of laws that effectively excludes the little guy, who may have come up with an perfectly valid and "Patentable" idea; but does not YET have a way to monetize it (which I acknowledge is actually a pretty tall order, legalese-wise).
These types of services fail when people stop trusting the developer. Google has lost trust in general with privacy and people have generally developed a distrust with technology. Apple claims its Apple pay is successful but only because its end users have a rather blind trust towards anything Apple does. I have no doubt that eventually we will see these types of pay systems attacked and its really just a matter of which one will be first. When you think of how many smartphones are lost or stolen you have to wonder if its a good ideal to also add these kinds of pay services to them?
Apple Pay is successful partly because of the sheer numbers of iPhones that are capable of using it, and also because, rather than "blind trust", those who aren't simply Apple Haters like you have looked into the specifics and determined for themselves that Apple is not in the business of insinuating itself into your every transaction, like Google does with GW.
And, if you had paid attention, you would already know that you can DISABLE and even WIPE your Apple Pay info from your stolen or misplaced phone remotely; not to mention that your fingerprint is REQUIRED for Apple Pay, which more or less makes Apple Pay useless for anyone but those with fingerprints already registered to that phone.
You use either of these services and they are going to beat you to death with ads and analytics from your spending habits.
Google already knows enough about me. and Apple knows fuckall about security.
As for Google, I wholeheartedly agree; but you haven't been listening if you think Apple has ANY knowledge about your specific Apple Pay transactions. They. Just. Don't.
The way it SHOULD work is that I put my phone over the NFC reader, it asks me for fingerprint, and done. Reality bites.
Not for users of Apple Pay. In fact, that's EXACTLY how Apple Pay works. No, in fact, it's even EASIER, because you don't have to WAIT to get "prompted" for your fingerprint.
You'll also notice that Apple didn't try to make it look faster than it really is. They didn't edit-out the brief delay while the NFC initialized the transaction. Even with that, and the "cashier" stating the total, the entire video is only 7 seconds long. The Apple Pay part was on the order of 3 seconds.
Richard Stallman is spot on regarding free and open source software (FOSS). He warns us about how proprietary, closed source software can be abused and that our dependency on it is a danger to civil society. In case you didn't see it the first time round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Only an idiot would dismiss the concerns he raises.
In theory, he is correct, and I certainly don't dismiss his CONCERNS; however, as a practical matter, it is an undeniably and obviously unreasonable assumption that more than about .01% (just a guess, and probably WAY too high of a number) of the total computer-buying (let alone "computer-USING") meatsacks on the planet could even recognize, let alone safely extract, even blatantly-added malware (let alone obsfucated malware) simply from staring at even uncommonly-well-documented Source Code (let alone Source with a comment block every 500 lines or so), even if given an infinite amount of time (which, of course 0.00% of us meatsacks actually have).
So, for those reasons (and many others too numerous to mention), "only an idiot" would believe that F/OSS is, in any way, shape, or form, an actual panacea for the detection and elimination of malicious code-insertion by the 99.99% of the computer-buying (let alone computer-USING!) public.
Amirite?
Now we know how many Calories he burned. we are doomed...
Exactly!
Does EVERYTHING have to have the utmost in security?
What I didn't see was any mention of "personal information" or "remote code injection/execution" that MIGHT call for strong encryption.
So the question for Nike becomes "How much will having a bigger, faster microcontroller to encode/decode secure communications cost us (and therefore the consumer)?"
And is it necessary?
The various incidents across multiple generations of MacBook Pros having BGA problems is a problem you just don't see from other reputable vendors.
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
That was with about 1 minute's worth of Google-ing. There are MANY more examples.
Fucktard Apple-Haters.
The goal, if you had missed it, is to pass enough laws you're guilty of *something*. Then, if you get to be a problem, there's sure to be *something* to nail you to the wall with.
What's that Orwell line from Animal Farm?
"Everything not forbidden is compulsory."
So much opinion masquerading as fact. Incredible.
If we collectively removed all the comments on /. that fall into that category, there would only be about 10 comments-per-article. Plus, I don't think I ever claimed that my post was pure "fact". Of COURSE it is my opinion; that's what makes Slashdot, er, Slashdot... Next!
You should probably stay out of these threads, as all you seem to do is harp on about OSX like your life depends on it, which seems a bit desperate. I feel bad for you if you have to hang out in Windows threads to make yourself feel better by pointing out to everyone why they're retarded and you (and your OS of choice) is awesome.
Ah, now you are assuming that I don't have a dog in this fight. You would be wrong.
I currently am employed developing custom application software for a Microsoft-owned ERP package, and so spend every workday (at least!) using various Microsoft OSes and other software products. I am, for instance, typing this on my work laptop, a Sammy that runs W7 (which, like most Slashdotters, I am fairly happy with, OS-wise).
I deal on a daily basis with MS Server installs from Server 2003 through Server 2012 R2 at my office and at client sites. I occasionally have to interact with Windows 8 on co-worker's computers.
And before this job, I have had to run Windows at work (at least) clear back to W 3.10 and NT 3.51 in various Development jobs.
So, I think most people reading these words would agree that I am fully qualified to give an "Expert Opinion" on the various pros and cons of various Windows and MacOS versions up through the years.
In contrast, you will NEVER see me even attempt to chime in on various Linux distros, UIs, etc; because I have little to no experience with that platform.
Just accept that you are you, and others are others. What you like might not be what they like, and vice versa. Getting all upset because not everyone agrees with you is only serving to make you look like a jealous school kid, regardless of whether that is true or not, or maybe some sort of egocentric lunatic who simply can not fathom why others might disagree with them.
As I stated above, I happen to have deep and daily experience with nearly every version of Windows, both "desktop" and "server", since W3.10 to W8 and NT3.51 to Server 2012 R2, as well as deep and daily experience with every version of MacOS and OS X, since System 1.0 to OS X 10.9 (haven't loaded Yosemite yet). Can you claim the same?
So I am FAR from the "jealous school kid" you try to make me out to be.
Oh, and speaking of "Hanging out in (other platform's threads)" (even though I believe I have amply demonstrated my "bona fides" to be in this thread, above), if we removed all the comments from the Linux and Windows fans that contiually Apple-bash in "Apple threads" on Slashdot (but, unlike you and me, usually masquerading as ACs, instead of putting their Karma on the line like us adults (not jealous school kids)), again, we'd have a pretty lonely site.
Afterall, controversy is what drives this site, to a very large extent; and that ain't going away on ANY front any time soon...
Got it? Good!
The updates are NOT free. Android is NOT free. You have to PAY to get access to Android source code. You pay more if you want the newer versions. You have to agree to shit like bundling Google's apps and store (which now also cost money separate from Android itself) or guaranteeing a "flagship" phone launch with expected sales of X within a certain time frame if you want access to the latest builds.
All the more reason that Google could, at any time, change the distribution model such that kernel updates could be pushed out at any time, to any device. They just don't care to do the software redesign work and legal work to make that possible.
Even if Android was actually free, there are plenty of costs associated with pushing out an update. You've got to make sure the new version runs on the old devices (it won't). Then you've got to do QA. Then you've got to push the update out to the carriers. Then the carriers have to do their own validating. Then the carriers have to push it out.
Oh, Cry Me a River.
If Apple can do it (and they obviously do) and Google can do it for their Nexus brand (and they apparently do), then so can everyone else. It's called "the cost of doing business". Tough shit. STFU.
Apple has the clout to fight the carriers on crapware, bloatware, and lock-in. I hope Google in conjunction with hardware manufacturers get the same leverage soon.
Oh, please. Apple came first (Android Beta didn't come out until November, 2007, nearly a year after the original iPhone), and Google could have EASILY followed that model with the manufacturers and carriers if they wished to.
And at this point, Google has so many Android "seats" in the world that they can EASILY dictate terms to the distribution chain.
But again, they just don't give a flying fuck. That much is abundantly clear.
Google can't make hardware vendors do this. Nor can they make hardware vendors apply patches to 4.3.
You REALLY think that Google doesn't have enough leverage to change their Licensing Terms to make this so, even retroactively?
Seriously: What are the hardware manufacturers and carriers going to do? Write their own OS? Sure, and watch their sales PLUMMET, as they could no longer user the "Android" trademark.
Google has PLENTY of leverage here. They just don't care, anymore than the greedy manufacturers and even greedier carriers do.
My plain vanilla Nexus 4 is still running fine with the latest and greatest, well latest, OS from Google. It is just staring to take some performance hits as compared to when it first came out.
That's Google trying to force you to upgrade through planned obsolescence, don'tcha know?
;-)
At least that's what all the Fandroids claim Apple is doing when older hardware has trouble keeping up with new iOS versions...
Sorry, couldn't resist!
The problem is when your carrier prevents you from upgrading. Blame for this issue lies soley at the feet of Verizon, At&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.
Partially, yes.
But, the actual "problem" is that Google never has (and probably never will) put their foot down, like Apple did at the very start, and say "We control the OS updates and distribution of same".
And before you say "But that is precisely why Android is better.", you need to examine whether that knee-jerk reaction is standing the test of time...
Apple already came out with "Continuity". So Microsoft's "Continuum" sounds pretty similar. You might just have to knuckle down and live with a new term for seamless transitions between phone+tablet and laptop+desktop devices. Of all the terms they could have chosen, "Continu*" don't seem too bad.
But in Apple's case, it was used not to refer to a "contin*" between the "look and feel" of the OS on different devices; but rather an actual, functional, feature (being able to start a document on one device, and then seamlessly (and automagically) transfer it to another class of device. But that's ok, it has been a LONG time since MS had an "original" thought that didn't didn't actually originate in Cupertino.
I see the MS Shills are out in Moderating Force...
Pick a UI and stick to it! I'm getting very tired of having to relearn the entire UI whenever you make a new release.
You DO realize who you're talking about, right? MS is almost as bad as Samsung at releasing just any old thing off the engineer's bench and calling it a "product".
Mods: -1 Disagree is NOT a valid Mod. Stop it!
IF not, WHY not? Apple does it. WTF?
Especially since that has been available on Macs in the Finder since at least System 7 (1991), and maybe even before (can't find a reference right now).