Seagate SSD lawsuit; Elements 6 ships; Mozilla chastises Apple

[AppleInsider]

If solid-state drives like that in the MacBook Air take off, Seagate may file a patent lawsuit that brings them back to Earth, according to the storage company's chief. Also, Adobe is shipping the latest Mac version of Photoshop Elements, Sirius and XM are a step closer to a merged entity, and Mozilla is criticizing Apple's attempt to "push" Safari.

Seagate may sue Intel, Samsung if SSD tech thrives

Hard disk drive maker Seagate may try to rein in flash memory producers by filing lawsuits if solid-state drive (SSD) technology proves successful, according to statements made by the firm's CEO, Bill Watkins.

Speaking in an interview with Fortune, Watkins notes he is is "convinced" that two of the largest investors in SSD technology, Intel and Samsung, have infringed on Seagate patents that touch on storage interfaces with computers. The executive hasn't said why he has refrained from suing to date but is said by the magazine to be holding lawsuits in reserve if either Intel or Samsung pose serious threats to traditional magnetic storage.

This likely won't be necessary, the Seagate chief suggests. Watkins pans SSD-based notebooks like the MacBook Air as being too costly for what they deliver, which often involves sacrifices both of money and in absolute storage capacity for the extra speed and reliability. "Realistically, I just don’t see the flash notebook sell," he claims.

Both potential legal targets hope to dramatically reduce the cost of SSDs this year and in the future. Intel in particular has promised a 160GB drive by spring and is known to be pushing costs downwards.

Samsung has not commented on the matter, while Intel declined an offer to respond to Watkins' claims of patent infringement.

Adobe ships Photoshop Elements 6 for Mac

Adobe today began shipping Photoshop Elements 6 for Mac users.

The $90 package, revealed earlier this year, is the first Mac-native edition since version 4.0 and adds the ability to make adjustments using curves, walk through fixing images with a Guided Edit mode, and more easily pick out objects with a Quick Select tool.

Elements 6 requires a system running either Mac OS X Tiger or Leopard and can be purchased either as a direct download or physical copy from the Adobe Store.

Sirius, XM satellite radio providers receive DOJ approval

The two satellite radio carriers in the US are a step closer to becoming one, according to a decision made today by the US Department of Justice.

Following more than a year after the original proposal for the merger, the Department largely agreed with the two companies that a unified satellite provider was more a defense against other forms of digital music than an attempt to strangle the radio market through a monopoly. iPods and terrestrial radio are equal options for customers if they don't like what a combined Sirius/XM service would offer, the US government explained.

Traditional broadcasters and HD Radio supporters have contended both that the merger would constitute a monopoly and that it would exclude their own offerings from the market.

The merger will still depend on future FCC approval but may change the relationship of Apple to satellite services. Company head Steve Jobs once dropped discussions of a merger of iPods and satellite radio with Sirius, but at the time was allegedly willing to change his mind if the climate for satellite radio followed suit. Apple has since offered the Wi-Fi Music Store for the iPhone and iPod touch as its options for wireless music but does not have any streaming music options on its devices.

Mozilla criticizes Apple's Safari push on Windows

Apple's attempt to encourage Safari downloads on Windows by offering it as a regular update is simply "wrong," Mozilla chief John Lilly wrote this weekend.

Best known as heading up work behind the Firefox web browser, Lilly warned that many computer users are dependent on software developers to let them know what software they actually need. When they're asked to download a completely new program, it draws uncomfortable similarities with malware that often inserts unwanted code in the guise of a legitimate update, the company head argues.

Lilly notes that there are no complaints inherent against Safari itself or to the concept of granting access to other software through an initial download. However, he cautions that a mass rejection of the browser could affect the likelihood of iTunes users and other customers automatically receiving much more important downloads, such as security fixes.

"It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that’s bad — not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web," the Mozilla leader says.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[SpamSandwich]

Why 4 stories under 1 thread? No wonder the comments go off the rails so fast.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Why 4 stories under 1 thread? No wonder the comments go off the rails so fast.

I don't want 4 threads for these very short articles. Usually, the titles are prefixed with "Briefly:"

[Clive At Five]

Y'know, I'm actually going to agree with Mozilla on this one. Sure Apple isn't forcing you to launch the program and isn't "critically integrating it into OS X" (ahem, Redmond) so it's easy enough to step around, but it's still rude. And let me just say that Safari for Windows is nowhere near ready for prime-time. The fact they are pushing a sub-par browser so heavily is confusing... why be so eager for bad publicity?

However, on the Mac, it's a component of the OS. If you get a computer without an internet browser, how will you ever get one on there? Order it via CD? Yeah right. OS X needs a default/stock browser and that browser therefore must be kept up-to-date...

...but as for slipping Safari into updates on Windows, not justified at all.

They do the same thing with QT.

-Clive

[JimDreamworx]

"Security of the whole Web"

Now that has to be one of the funniest things I've read!

Yes, if Apple didn't do this, the web would be a safe place where I can give anyone my credit card number and ID without fear.

[popmetal]

Why is it such a big deal if apple does this with Safari? Everybody else in the windows world has been doing this ad nauseam with stuff like google desktop and a bunch of adobe software. Seems like Mozilla is feeling the heat now that windows users finally have a browser choice that is not bloated, memory hogging and slowww

[anantksundaram]

Both these statements are true: Apple has become more pushy; and Mozilla's CEO is overreacting/overstating his case.

[jpellino]

As for Seagate, they were wrong that commoditized devices (under $300) could never afford to hold hard drives. (IIRC WebTV was initially shown the door by Al Shugart himself when they suggested such a thing) The vision thing may just take a bit longer at Seagate. And nothing's stopping them from getting into the SSD business. If it takes off, they stand to make more by leading the industry than collecting royalties on the interface design.

They seem to assert that (1) the MBA and it's ilk won't sell but (2) if it does we'll find a way to stop it. In which case Apple et. al. can simply move the interface to an internal USB 2.0 or better, and there is so much uncontested prior art for flash via USB that they would be tossed out of court with great fanfare.

[jpellino]

You can delete Safari once you've loaded Opera, Firefox etc... and the machine will work just fine. That was not the case with IE/WIndows. It was not a matter of shipping-with, it was a matter of inextricably-tied. It was demonstrated in the MS case that it took four-strong-men-and-a-mule's worth of hacking to barely extricate IE from Windows. And I believe they're offering the Safari update when you get other things, and it can be refused.

iTunes does rely on QT, but you can refuse them both and still play plenty of music on your Windows machine and use plenty other players.

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

However, on the Mac, it's a component of the OS. If you get a computer without an internet browser, how will you ever get one on there? Order it via CD? Yeah right. OS X needs a default/stock browser and that browser therefore must be kept up-to-date...

...but as for slipping Safari into updates on Windows, not justified at all.

They do the same thing with QT.

-Clive

[macFanDave]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Y'know, I'm actually going to agree with Mozilla on this one.

<johnMcEnroe>You can't be serious!!!</johnMcEnroe>

The hyperbole of John Lilly's statement makes it ridiculous. It would be like the CEO of GM commenting on a recall of Fords by saying "It will ruin transportation forever!"

Seeing how this guy is paid based on the success of a non-IE, Windows-compatible browser, it is pretty transparent that this guy has to s#!+ on any competitor that might take bread out of the mouths of his starving babes.

When people get malware on a Windows box, they have to dink around with any number of apps to help them get rid of it, and some of the most virulent versions require a disk wipe. If you forget to exclude the Apple Software Update when installing iTunes or QuickTime, you can always remove it easily with Add or Remove Programs in the Control Panel. The comparison of ASU to malware is so idiotic that the credibility of Mozilla and its products like Firefox should be called into question.

[SpamSandwich]

See? Everyone's just talking about Mozilla anyway.... Feh.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by popmetal

Why is it such a big deal if apple does this with Safari? Everybody else in the windows world has been doing this ad nauseam with stuff like google desktop and a bunch of adobe software. Seems like Mozilla is feeling the heat now that windows users finally have a browser choice that is not bloated, memory hogging and slowww

By this comment, I can tell you've never used Safari for Windows. It is currently the buggiest, slowest browser I have on Windows out of Opera, Firefox, and YES... EVEN IE!

Safari for Windows is not any sort of improvement on browsers, and by all conceivable metrics, is inferior to them.

The only thing it has going for it is the OS X theme... which if you're running windows, is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by jpellino

You can delete Safari once you've loaded Opera, Firefox etc... and the machine will work just fine. That was not the case with IE/WIndows. It was not a matter of shipping-with, it was a matter of inextricably-tied. It was demonstrated in the MS case that it took four-strong-men-and-a-mule's worth of hacking to barely extricate IE from Windows. And I believe they're offering the Safari update when you get other things, and it can be refused.

iTunes does rely on QT, but you can refuse them both and still play plenty of music on your Windows machine and use plenty other players.

Right, which is why I distinguished that in my comment. They weren't "pulling an IE," per se, on the Mac Side as it is a well-behaved default OS X browser. It'll update the software without proclaiming itself to be your new default browser. It serves well as a reliable back-up browser for those who choose to use a different one.

As for QT and iTunes, there is absolutely no reason the few scanty places iTunes uses QT technology (media codecs, period) can't be integrated into the iTunes software itself. The sole purpose of QT is only for Apple to silently accumulate browser media format share... (though flash is doing a wonderful job of stifling everybody). Makes one really wonder why flash isn't on the iPhone... yet the iPhone is fully capable of playing ANY QT-friendly format, no matter how bloated...

hmm...

-Clive

[Booga]

By this comment, I can tell you've never used Safari for Windows. It is currently the buggiest, slowest browser I have on Windows out of Opera, Firefox, and YES... EVEN IE!

Safari for Windows is not any sort of improvement on browsers, and by all conceivable metrics, is inferior to them.

The only thing it has going for it is the OS X theme... which if you're running windows, is irrelevant.

I don't know about the poster you replied to, but I've used it and I didn't have remotely the experience you describe. I installed it on this Dell Latitude D620 running Windows XP and found it relatively stable and very, very fast. Much faster than either Firefox or IE on this machine. And surprisingly compatible. The only reason I still use Firefox is because I have the Firefox plug-in that lets me switch individual tabs to the IE renderer for those intranet sites that are IE-only.

Of course, I'm referring to the new 3.1 release. The older 3.0.x beta was buggy and slow-- Apple never should have made that a widespread beta program.

[George8600]

It's just wrong? First off here are my points to tell Mozilla off.

a) The safari update is optional, not required if you own iTunes or Quicktime, optional.

b) Firefox forces its install in many ways. When I install DIVX player, "would you also like to install Firefox, it's highly recommended." It also says that with AIM, Yahoo Messenger, Real Player, Google Earth, Torrent Clients, LimeWire and probably many other installers as well. Seriously.

c) I don't know if this was a little code glitch, but after having it on many PC's and with many different versions of Firefox, Firefox asks more than once to be the default browser, probably once a month to replace the default IE 7, or Safari on Mac's, other than other browsers that ask only one and that's possibly it.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by George8600

b) Firefox forces its install in many ways. When I install DIVX player, "would you also like to install Firefox, it's highly recommended." It also says that with AIM, Yahoo Messenger, Real Player, Google Earth, Torrent Clients, LimeWire and probably many other installers as well. Seriously.

I was curious about that. Does the embedded option to install FireFox also come with the checkbox pre-checked? If not, then Mozilla is not a hypocrite, if it is then they are.

[zunx]

No More Drives Purchased From Seagate For Our University. Ever.

[tundraboy]

' "Realistically, I just don’t see the flash notebook sell," he claims.'

These are the kinds of statements that make CEOs sound like fools a few months later. If he thinks that the cost trajectory for SSDs won't eventually make them a viable alternative to hard drives then he doesn't deserve a penny of his comp.

[popmetal]

Originally Posted by Booga

I don't know about the poster you replied to, but I've used it and I didn't have remotely the experience you describe. I installed it on this Dell Latitude D620 running Windows XP and found it relatively stable and very, very fast. Much faster than either Firefox or IE on this machine. And surprisingly compatible. The only reason I still use Firefox is because I have the Firefox plug-in that lets me switch individual tabs to the IE renderer for those intranet sites that are IE-only.

Of course, I'm referring to the new 3.1 release. The older 3.0.x beta was buggy and slow-- Apple never should have made that a widespread beta program.

Yes, I have been using Safari 3.1 on windows also and it's much better. Clive At Five needs to get his psychic powers checked.

And PC mag's empirical tests agree with out experience.

[zorinlynx]

Sigh... is this is the way things are going? Companies start coming up with new ways of doing something you already do, so you sue them instead of, I don't know....

COMING UP WITH YOUR OWN SOLUTION AND COMPETING WITH THEM!

Why doesn't Seagate come up with their OWN SSD solution, rather than be sue-happy pricks? Is that what the world is coming to?

So much for innovation and progress. Let's SUE SUE SUE to make money through staying behind technology-wise.

I just lost any respect I had for Seagate. And to think I actually admired them as a maker of decent hard disk drives.

-Z

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by popmetal

Yes, I have been using Safari 3.1 on windows also and it's much better. Clive At Five needs to get his psychic powers checked.

And PC mag's empirical tests agree with out experience.

I recently upgraded to 3.0.something and it's been much better, though I've still experienced a plethora of crashes and stalls.

It still does not top the capabilities of Firefox. Plus, you gotta love the built-in spell check,

-Clive

[MiMiC]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

By this comment, I can tell you've never used Safari for Windows. It is currently the buggiest, slowest browser I have on Windows out of Opera, Firefox, and YES... EVEN IE!
-Clive

Don't feel left out, Safari is buggy on OS X also. Crashes at least once a day on me. I only started using it for my iPhone (bookmarks), but i am seriously thinking about going back to my first love, Firefox!!

[George8600]

Originally Posted by solipsism

I was curious about that. Does the embedded option to install FireFox also come with the checkbox pre-checked? If not, then Mozilla is not a hypocrite, if it is then they are.

As far as I can remember the box has always been pre-checked. Since I always had to uncheck it to continue installation.

[nagromme]

Re Seagate: sounds like this might not end in settlement/agreements the way other patent disputes often do. Seagate doesn't WANT a cut of the profits, they want to kill SSD technology (and I don't blame them: every year they can delay the SSD transition is a delay in the eventual slump for their HD products). So if I were Seagate, I'd demand impossible payments, or else payments that allow SSD to continue to exist but not drop in price.

Re Apple and Safari on Windows: they shouldn't have had the box checked by default. The suffering caused by this evil plot is unimaginable

Still, I'm bothered more by Microsoft pushing Windows Genuine Advantage "spyware" on people AUTOMATICALLY (not just a box to uncheck) who had elected to receive ONLY security updates. And then, to this day, there's no option to UNinstall said "spyware," which has already caused me grief. Grief as in: Windows not running!

And Mozilla stands to lose big bucks in search revenue from Safari.

[jbh0001]

Originally Posted by jpellino

... and there is so much uncontested prior art for flash via USB that they would be tossed out of court with great fanfare.

Unless they sue in Texas.

[suhail]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Y'know, I'm actually going to agree with Mozilla on this one. Sure Apple isn't forcing you to launch the program and isn't "critically integrating it into OS X" (ahem, Redmond) so it's easy enough to step around, but it's still rude. And let me just say that Safari for Windows is nowhere near ready for prime-time. The fact they are pushing a sub-par browser so heavily is confusing... why be so eager for bad publicity?...
-Clive

I too agree, John Lilly makes good sense here.

[howiethemacguy]

I've seen this update come up. All the user has to do is read what the update is and decide if they want it or not. Honestly, if people are really too lazy to read before downloading, they deserve what ever headaches that they get for it.

[RexTraverse]

Originally Posted by popmetal

Seems like Mozilla is feeling the heat now that windows users finally have a browser choice that is not bloated, memory hogging and slowww

True. It's called Firefox 3.0 Beta 4. imo, Beta 4 is release ready now, so I can't wait to see how much more they can clean it up before final release.

I have no comment about Safari for Windows, other than I'm not a fan of Safari for OSX in the first place and the original few Windows betas were unusably unstable on my Windows machine.

[RexTraverse]

Originally Posted by howiethemacguy

I've seen this update come up. All the user has to do is read what the update is and decide if they want it or not. Honestly, if people are really too lazy to read before downloading, they deserve what ever headaches that they get for it.

It's not an issue of laziness, it's an issue of inconvenience. Every time Quicktime has an update, the Software Update will, by default, add iTunes and Safari and you have to deselect those, despite the fact that you didn't install either so it's not really an update. The only way to stop these is to stop all updates, also not a good move.

The argument is that if Apple truly believes Safari or iTunes is a good product, let them get downloaded on their merits like Firefox, and not as a trojan horse because some users weren't paying attention and didn't care because it was an Apple thing so thought it was safe.

People are annoyed, not because Apple's doing anything wrong, but it's just a dick move on their part. And for those who compare this to Real or Microsoft doing the same thing... people bitch about those too. Do we really want Apple to have business practices on the same level as Real and Microsoft?

[macFanDave]

Originally Posted by MiMiC

Don't feel left out, Safari is buggy on OS X also. Crashes at least once a day on me.

Crashes about once a quarter for me.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by jpellino

As for Seagate, they were wrong that commoditized devices (under $300) could never afford to hold hard drives. (IIRC WebTV was initially shown the door by Al Shugart himself when they suggested such a thing) The vision thing may just take a bit longer at Seagate. And nothing's stopping them from getting into the SSD business. If it takes off, they stand to make more by leading the industry than collecting royalties on the interface design.

They seem to assert that (1) the MBA and it's ilk won't sell but (2) if it does we'll find a way to stop it. In which case Apple et. al. can simply move the interface to an internal USB 2.0 or better, and there is so much uncontested prior art for flash via USB that they would be tossed out of court with great fanfare.

Watkins is not stupid. He knows what's going on.

It's going to take years before SSD's become a technology worth buying for the vast majority.

Until then, only a very few will want to spend money on it.

Your knowledge of technology is not what you think. You can't simply use interfaces that aren't up to the needs of the purpose just to get around patents. Even USB 3 and FW 3200 aren't nearly as good as proper storage interfaces. Both require adapters that slow down transfer speeds, and lower the reliability of the devices.

Why do you think they aren't being used for that purpose now? They are only being used for quick and simple external drives, and are quickly being superseded by eSATA.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

By this comment, I can tell you've never used Safari for Windows. It is currently the buggiest, slowest browser I have on Windows out of Opera, Firefox, and YES... EVEN IE!

Safari for Windows is not any sort of improvement on browsers, and by all conceivable metrics, is inferior to them.

The only thing it has going for it is the OS X theme... which if you're running windows, is irrelevant.

Actually, you're wrong. That was true for the beta, but not for the final release. PC Magazine reviewed it just the other day. Not a Mac mag by any means, but their reviews of Apple hardware and software has been pretty good over the past few years. Perfect? No, but pretty good. Later releases will be even better.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2278107,00.asp

[melgross]

Originally Posted by tundraboy

' "Realistically, I just don’t see the flash notebook sell," he claims.'

These are the kinds of statements that make CEOs sound like fools a few months later. If he thinks that the cost trajectory for SSDs won't eventually make them a viable alternative to hard drives then he doesn't deserve a penny of his comp.

People are reading too much into that statement. He obviously means that for the next few years, the sales of SSD's won't be important, and he's correct.

The cost trajectory of HDD's is also on a quick slide, and always has been.

You can buy 200 GB 7200 RPM 16 MB cache 2.5" drives from OWC for $135 right now.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by zorinlynx

Sigh... is this is the way things are going? Companies start coming up with new ways of doing something you already do, so you sue them instead of, I don't know....

COMING UP WITH YOUR OWN SOLUTION AND COMPETING WITH THEM!

Why doesn't Seagate come up with their OWN SSD solution, rather than be sue-happy pricks? Is that what the world is coming to?

So much for innovation and progress. Let's SUE SUE SUE to make money through staying behind technology-wise.

I just lost any respect I had for Seagate. And to think I actually admired them as a maker of decent hard disk drives.

-Z

If Seagate has important technology patents on drive interfaces that they are using with their own drives, then they certainly have the right to sue other companies who are using those patents in violation. Seagate isn't a patent troll. They have, over the decades, invented many of the technologies in use in the storage industry, and produce some of the best, and highest performance, drives ever made.

Others license those technologies from Seagate. If Samsung and Intel want to use them, they should license it as well, or develop their own.

So yes. I agree, Samsung and Intel should come up with their own solution, which they haven't. They're using Seagate's.

[mstone]

Every time you sign up for a newsletter, software download, etc, the checkbox is always selected. "can we send you our free stuff?" Lilly's daughter should not have administrator privileges on her computer if she is not able to make those types of decisions - like unchecking a box.

m

[gikku]

Which part of "New software is available..." do you not understand?

Unfortunately installing iTunes/Quicktime/Safari on a Windoze box requires administrator rights. boo hiss.
That rules out all those millions of locked down corporate PCs, including this one.

yes. I know, security, but really....

(BTW, FF doesn't require admin access. maybe John Lilly should chew on that)

[popmetal]

Well, Mozilla should be worried. Once the average user learns that they can get a blazing fast, stable, uncluttered web browser like Safari, Firefox will become a niche product for the uber geeks that have to have a bunch of toolbars all over the place.

Is anyone aware of a single instance where John Lilly complained about any of the third party apps that try to instal Firefox under your nose?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by popmetal

Well, Mozilla should be worried. Once the average user learns that they can get a blazing fast, stable, uncluttered web browser like Safari, Firefox will become a niche product for the uber geeks that have to have a bunch of toolbars all over the place.

Is anyone aware of a single instance where John Lilly complained about any of the third party apps that try to instal Firefox under your nose?

Firefox is going nowhere; there is plenty of room for multiple web browsers. I see Firefox's share increasing web developers start to focus on web standards and the average customer realizes that they don't have to use WIndows; though I think the biggest bump will be in a few years when corporations start moving away from their dependancy on ActiveX.

If you count only MIDs or all internet capable devices then we may very well see a boom in Safari/WebKit. WebKit is currently the only browser that is well suited for mobile computing. That is important as handhelds and cellphones become more powerful.

[lfmorrison]

Originally Posted by solipsism

I was curious about that. Does the embedded option to install FireFox also come with the checkbox pre-checked? If not, then Mozilla is not a hypocrite, if it is then they are.

If the DIVX developers want to shove Firefox down your throats with pushy marketing, then take it up with them. Last I checked, the Mozilla Foundation doesn't own DIVX.

Software that was actually published by Mozilla itself, ONLY gives update notifications about new versions of software that you already have installed on your machine.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by macFanDave

Crashes about once a quarter for me.

Mine crashes about once every few days -- usually, it seems to be Flash-induced.......

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by zorinlynx

Sigh... is this is the way things are going? Companies start coming up with new ways of doing something you already do, so you sue them instead of, I don't know....

COMING UP WITH YOUR OWN SOLUTION AND COMPETING WITH THEM!

Why doesn't Seagate come up with their OWN SSD solution, rather than be sue-happy pricks? Is that what the world is coming to?

So much for innovation and progress. Let's SUE SUE SUE to make money through staying behind technology-wise.

I just lost any respect I had for Seagate. And to think I actually admired them as a maker of decent hard disk drives.

If the other companies are violating patents, and negotiations fail, then a lawsuit is in order. You don't just give away your designs for free if you want to make money.