or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Open source community 'hopelessly confused' by Apple-HTC suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Open source community 'hopelessly confused' by Apple-HTC suit - Page 3

post #81 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

This is the Intarwebs! Are you new here?

Try this one: http://www.brucebnews.com/2010/03/ipad-aspect-ratio (Answer in the comments!)

Heh. I guess being a Windows consultant doesn't require much in the way of common sense.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #82 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Where did you think the ``Gang of Four'' got this famous Design Pattern from? They published it from a patent by NeXT. The entire Gang of Four book is a well-known design patterns book from guys tipping their hats to NeXT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab View Post

Do you have any evidence of that?

Yes, just like the M-V-C and Factory Patterns came straight from Brad Cox and his book Object-Oriented Programming: An Evolutionary Approach. Cox was big at NeXT, actually he is Mr Objective-C, which is arguably the first object-oriented language explicitly designed for commercial use, as opposed to Smalltalk which is a wonderful research language and an inspiration for Obj-C. The second edition was 1986! He had been working on those ideas for years before anyone thought to write a book about them collectively. And as one of the inaugural engineers on the original Macontosh OS, many of his ideas were originated in his work within Apples walls all the way back into the 1970s.

I don't think it unlikely that some of the patent tree at Apple goes back to work he personally supervised. But those early day patents would be expired now, that's why we are seeing the derivative patents. That's a means of adding something to the original and still receiving IP protection for the derivation while allowing others to work with the original un-derived previously patented IP.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #83 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I think your impression is being driven by the way the information about the suit has been presented to you, which is to say, irresponsibly and sensationalized. Then again, it wouldn't "sell papers" if the dry facts were communicated, right?

You may be right, but I have read many reports about this and did some rather dry reading on the claims themselves.

At some point, you simply have to call them as you see them. I simply disagree with Apple on this one. Apple has the legal right to do what ever it wants and I have the right to decide if I want to spend any of my money on their products as a result of their actions. I am sure that my opinion is in the minority on this site, but I bet a lot of consumers will feel the same way I do about this issue...

The funny part is that one of the reasons why I recently switch from a Microsoft based computer to the Mac was because I did not like the way Microsoft conducts business. Apple seems to be acting more and more like Microsoft every day... I do not believe that is a good thing...
post #84 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfoolery View Post

That's just the thing though … this is standard practice. This is how the patent system is supposed to work. What's astonishing, really, is the fact that these other guys failed to do due diligence in the first place and shipped product that tramples on somebody else's (in this case, Apple's) patents. What's even more surprising is the fact that, when confronted with this, those guys didn't alter their product or (more reasonably) just license the innovations from Apple. They had many opportunities to avoid a lawsuit, but they passed them all up. Which makes me wonder if they even have lawyers.

Actually, what seems illogical here is a best practice of companies that make things. I have been to industry seminars where the lawyers tell the engineers to never search patents, that that can only get them in trouble. Because if ANYONE in the organization sees a relevant patent and then the organization infringes, even unintentionally, the verdict can be tripled as a penalty for willful infringement.

So the lawyers recommend you just reverse engineer without doing patent searches and take your chances, because no matter what the cost-at-risk is one third of what it would be if anyone looked at patents at all.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #85 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

I simply disagree with Apple on this one. Apple has the legal right to do what ever it wants and I have the right to decide if I want to spend any of my money on their products as a result of their actions. I am sure that my opinion is in the minority on this site, but I bet a lot of consumers will feel the same way I do about this issue...

I am sure that the vast majority of consumers (possibly in excess of 99.9%) haven't given this 2 seconds thought and are completely disinterested in, even oblivious to, the issue. If Apple's products meet their needs, they'll buy them and this patent dispute will have no impact on that decision.
post #86 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Yes, just like the M-V-C and Factory Patterns came straight from Brad Cox and his book Object-Oriented Programming: An Evolutionary Approach. Cox was big at NeXT, actually he is Mr Objective-C, which is arguably the first object-oriented language explicitly designed for commercial use, as opposed to Smalltalk which is a wonderful research language and an inspiration for Obj-C. The second edition was 1986! He had been working on those ideas for years before anyone thought to write a book about them collectively. And as one of the inaugural engineers on the original Macontosh OS, many of his ideas were originated in his work within Apples walls all the way back into the 1970s.

I don't think it unlikely that some of the patent tree at Apple goes back to work he personally supervised. But those early day patents would be expired now, that's why we are seeing the derivative patents. That's a means of adding something to the original and still receiving IP protection for the derivation while allowing others to work with the original un-derived previously patented IP.

Brad Cox resume on his webpage:

http://virtualschool.edu/cox/cv/BCoxResumeSE.htm

The only reference to Apple o NeXT is:

Consultant: NeXT, Inc. architectural specification for the NextStep cross machine networking API.

Can you give me more information about the work of Cox with Apple?
post #87 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab View Post

Do you have any evidence of that?

Yes. Write the authors. They were well known fans of NeXTStep. The book was standard issue for all Consulting Engineers at NeXT, along with the standard reference materials for NeXTStep.

Contact Apple's Mike Ferris, Peter Graffanino, Scott Forstall, or Avi Tevanian [father of the Microkernel], Bud Tribble [one of the original defectors from Apple to NeXT, now VP at Apple again], Aaron Hillegass [for all his training expertise at NeXT and Eiffel] and on and on.

I can guarantee you the Gang of Four will be called to testify.
post #88 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Yes, just like the M-V-C and Factory Patterns came straight from Brad Cox and his book Object-Oriented Programming: An Evolutionary Approach. Cox was big at NeXT, actually he is Mr Objective-C, which is arguably the first object-oriented language explicitly designed for commercial use, as opposed to Smalltalk which is a wonderful research language and an inspiration for Obj-C. The second edition was 1986! He had been working on those ideas for years before anyone thought to write a book about them collectively. And as one of the inaugural engineers on the original Macontosh OS, many of his ideas were originated in his work within Apples walls all the way back into the 1970s.

I don't think it unlikely that some of the patent tree at Apple goes back to work he personally supervised. But those early day patents would be expired now, that's why we are seeing the derivative patents. That's a means of adding something to the original and still receiving IP protection for the derivation while allowing others to work with the original un-derived previously patented IP.

Thanks Hiro. I was going to add this as I'm staring at my copy of Brad's book reprinted with corrections, 1987, edition.

I will add, Brad founded StepStone and NeXT bought the rights to all his IP and ObjC by 1995 I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepstone

The Gang of Four book is an expansion on Brad Cox's Object-Oriented Programming, An Evolutionary Approach.

http://www.amazon.com/Object-oriente.../dp/0201103931

Pick it up. It's a great read.
post #89 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

I think Wolf doesn't understand the open source community (that Apple is of course part of). I personally don't care for the ideas of Richard Stallman, but he doesn't represent the entire open source community. This really is just about business though. Everyone does this. I'm sure this is about a different dispute, the patent battle is just a proxy fight for something else. Sure it is nice to set an example, but is it wrong to play fair? In the movie Aviator (and in real life), Howard Hughes has the court case about him pampering the army officials for contract work. His response was that he would prefer not to, but everyone in the industry does it so he needs to. He said he would support making the practice illegal. If we think the patent system is allowing ideas to be patented or trivial innovations to be patented then our issue should be with the patent system. I'm sure Apple would support it because they are constantly being hit by trivial patents.

where did stallman get mentioned? i think you are confusing open source and free software. i don't think stallman agrees with open source.
post #90 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Yes. Write the authors. They were well known fans of NeXTStep. The book was standard issue for all Consulting Engineers at NeXT, along with the standard reference materials for NeXTStep.

Contact Apple's Mike Ferris, Peter Graffanino, Scott Forstall, or Avi Tevanian [father of the Microkernel], Bud Tribble [one of the original defectors from Apple to NeXT, now VP at Apple again], Aaron Hillegass [for all his training expertise at NeXT and Eiffel] and on and on.

I can guarantee you the Gang of Four will be called to testify.

avi tevanian?
father of microkernel? thats a bit grand isn't it?
post #91 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

The part that gets me is how they went to the ITC and are trying to halt the import of a competors product BEFORE they have their day in court to try and defent their patents. This seem more like extortion than a real claim of damages.


It will take YEARS before this case is resolved by a court. In the meantime, if HTC is allowed to continue, the situation could be made more complicated and damaging.

But, hey, why get uptight about this? Apple only ASKED that imports be stopped. Such requests are denied more often than not. If the request is granted, then it is probably only with good reason. If not, then you get the result you favor. So why prematurely place a value judgment on the request?

Thompson
post #92 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

avi tevanian?
father of microkernel? thats a bit grand isn't it?

No. His Ph.D. was the Mach Microkernel at CMU. Hurd was the future direction of it.
post #93 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

So why prematurely place a value judgment on the request?
Thompson

Indeed, why prematurely place a value judgment on attempted fraud? Let's see first whether it succeeds or not.
post #94 of 127
Well to all of those think Apple shouldn't go after companies that copy from them should look at the Duet W002. Talk about cloning at it's worse.

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply
post #95 of 127
Apple has pimped open source long enough and they about to get beotch slapped. Yes we are confused and here's why http://www.bsd.org/ is free and Apple uses this as the core of it's OS's. So when you create something on top of it what's the difference between modifiying an organism? You can't patent an organism. So how can you patent something built on a an OS that's free. Sure you can file the papers saying this is mine but in court how do you defend "I'm using open source to patent my product" WRONG you can charge for what you sell but your patent is invalid in a court of law because it originated from OPEN SOURCE. No open source no fake patent. Objection! Over ruled. I 've seen this happen in the Bio-Tech industry with a huge manufacturer and it will happen with Apple. The gig is up Apple and no amount of lawyers or cash can put Humpty together again.
post #96 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by satcomer View Post

Well to all of those think Apple shouldn't go after companies that copy from them should look at the Duet W002. Talk about cloning at it's worse.

I totally think Apple should go after companies that copy from them like that, instead of companies like HTC that are not copying from Apple.

To jump a few replies forward:

fanboi: But HTC is so copying from Apple!
rational person: What exactly is HTC copying from Apple?
fanboi: <crickets>
post #97 of 127
Apple vs Nokia
Nokia vs Apple
Rim vs Apple
Apple vs HTC

Does Apple have time to make another good product = IPad
Flashy software no pun intented designed for elderly and pre-schoolers
The first bite from the Apple = Pride before the fall
post #98 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

What's hypocrytical? Why does everything have to be a binary yes/no or bad/good?

If the concepts that Apple used for the iPhone were so obvious how come, as a TOTAL OUTSIDER, they were the first to produce an iPhone? How come all the other "innovation" that people want "competition" to drive Apple with happend AFTER the iPhone?

What's hypocrytical is those calling from innovation against the one company that drove real innovation in the smart phone market.



"people" are upset because Apple came out of left field as a total newcommer and took over an entire market segment. Worse, they didn't "play by the rules" - they aren't focused on checklists, features and geek-oriented concepts, they are focused on those loathsome end users and "normal people".

It's techie class warfare and it's getting a little tiresome. Bunch of insecure geeks whining...

The people complaining are iPhone and Mac users, not old phone industry "geeks" (whoever those people are). I haven't heard anything from other users. Hardcore Apple users tend to be pretty idealistic. There are a lot of questions about Apple's intentions in this case. Of course we may never know for sure what those intentions are. Apple is also pretty idealistic, so I trust they are doing the right thing. It is just too bad they can't be more transparent about it. Certainly Apple should protect their IP, that's not what people are questioning.
post #99 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruffinius View Post

Apple has pimped open source long enough and they about to get beotch slapped. Yes we are confused and here's why http://www.bsd.org/ is free and Apple uses this as the core of it's OS's. So when you create something on top of it what's the difference between modifiying an organism? You can't patent an organism. So how can you patent something built on a an OS that's free. Sure you can file the papers saying this is mine but in court how do you defend "I'm using open source to patent my product" WRONG you can charge for what you sell but your patent is invalid in a court of law because it originated from OPEN SOURCE. No open source no fake patent. Objection! Over ruled. I 've seen this happen in the Bio-Tech industry with a huge manufacturer and it will happen with Apple. The gig is up Apple and no amount of lawyers or cash can put Humpty together again.

You are confusing a patent with a license. Any software that Apple derived from BSD was also made open source, so there are no licensing issues.
post #100 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Brad Cox resume on his webpage:

http://virtualschool.edu/cox/cv/BCoxResumeSE.htm

The only reference to Apple o NeXT is:

Consultant: NeXT, Inc. architectural specification for the NextStep cross machine networking API.

Can you give me more information about the work of Cox with Apple?

He didn't, he worked for Stepstone. NeXT aquired full rights to Objective-C from Stepstone. Brad Cox was the co-inventor of Objective-C though. He most likely worked closely with NeXT engineers.
post #101 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

where did stallman get mentioned? i think you are confusing open source and free software. i don't think stallman agrees with open source.

You are right, but that just makes Wolf more wrong because he is describing something that sounds more like free software.
post #102 of 127
How can a community be confused? Only an individual can be confused. Confusion requires a brain which an individual has, but a "community" is an abstraction and abstractions don't have brains.
post #103 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

He didn't, he worked for Stepstone. NeXT aquired full rights to Objective-C from Stepstone. Brad Cox was the co-inventor of Objective-C though. He most likely worked closely with NeXT engineers.

Resource: http://virtualschool.edu/cox/pub/

I love Brad's emailer post about ObjC and it's influence on Java

http://virtualschool.edu/objectivec/...nceOnJava.html

Since most people are probably too lazy to click the link:

Quote:
Java Was Strongly Influenced by Objective-C
...and not C++... Copied from Sean Luke's website at http://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html

A while back, the following posting was made by Patrick Naughton who, along with James Gosling, was responsible for much of the design of Java. Objective-C is an object-oriented mutant of C used NeXTSTEP and MacOS X, and also available with gcc.
Tom Gall wrote:
> Sean Luke wrote:
>> Blair MacIntyre (bm@renoir.cs.columbia.edu) wrote:

>>> BZZT. Wrong. Java was modelled on a number of languages, most
>>> importantly Modula-3 and C++.

>> Of course, it's nonsense that Java was modelled off of NewtonScript,
>> but it's even goofier to say that Java was based on Modula-3 and C++.

>> Java's *syntax* may resemble C++, but it has no similarity to C++
>> as a language. Java's chief *semantics* are dynamically-bound and
>> use single inheritance, class objects, and an extensive runtime system.
>> C++ and Modula-3 are as far away from this model as any object-oriented
>> language can be.

>> Java is clearly semantically derivative of Smalltalk and other
>> languages related to it. Most notably, NeXT's
>> Objective-C is almost uncannily similar to Java: single inheritance,
>> dynamic binding, dynamic loading, "class" objects, interfaces,
>> and now methods stored as data (a-la Java's "reflection" library),
>> all-virtual functions, you name it. It's almost weird.

> Hardly weird it was by design actually. As I remember my Java history
> Patrick Naughton the gentleman who got the ball rolling was about to
> quit Sun and join up with NeXT. He happened to be on the same
> intermural hockey team as Scott McNealy. Scott told him to hold off,
> write what he thought was wrong with Sun before he left. Patrick
> didn't leave and was one of the original Oak people. I would like
> to think his affinity for NeXTSTEP showed up in Java, with it
> having an close look and feel to that of Objective-C. (The main
> language on NeXTSTEP)

I don't generally read usenet any more (not since the good old days of
comp.graphics in the 80's...), but I happened across this article while I
was messing around with Excite Live... (a pretty cool service in
itself)...

As it turns out, Sean and Tom are both absolutely correct. Usually, this
kind of urban legend stuff turns out to be completely inaccurate, but in
this case, they are right on. When I left Sun to go to NeXT, I thought
Objective-C was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I hated C++.
So, naturally when I stayed to start the (eventually) Java project, Obj-C
had a big influence. James Gosling, being much older than I was, he had
lots of experience with SmallTalk and Simula68, which we also borrowed
from liberally.

The other influence, was that we had lots of friends working at NeXT at
the time, whose faith in the black cube was flagging. Bruce Martin was
working on the NeXTStep 486 port, Peter King, Mike Demoney, and John
Seamons were working on the mysterious (and never shipped) NRW (NeXT RISC
Workstation, 88110???). They all joined us in late '92 - early '93 after
we had written the first version of Oak. I'm pretty sure that Java's
'interface' is a direct rip-off of Obj-C's 'protocol' which was largely
designed by these ex-NeXT'ers... Many of those strange primitive wrapper
classes, like Integer and Number came from Lee Boynton, one of the early
NeXT Obj-C class library guys who hated 'int' and 'float' types.

Another interesting side-note, (so as not to break any rules on my first
[and last]-ever posting to comp.sys.newton), John Seamons, (who happened
to be Andy Bechtolsheim's roommate at Stanford and largely reponsible for
the first ever port of Unix to the SUN-0) once did a port of Oak (Java)
to the Newton.\tWe were in the midst of trying to do a deal with 3DO to
run as their OS/API, and we didn't have any 3DO dev systems on hand, so
John took apart an Apple Newton 100 and wired it up to a bunch of logic
analyzers, reverse engineered the interfaces and actually got some of the
original Star7 demo to run on this machine. After the 3DO deal tubed, I
think most of the code was lost to history... last I heard, John was out
in Aspen working for wnj, so you never know.

Sigh... we sure knew how to have fun in those days...

-Patrick

-------------
Patrick Naughton
President and CTO
Starwave Corporation
http://www.starwave.com/people/naughton
post #104 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruffinius View Post

Apple vs Nokia
Nokia vs Apple
Rim vs Apple
Apple vs HTC

Does Apple have time to make another good product = IPad
Flashy software no pun intented designed for elderly and pre-schoolers
The first bite from the Apple = Pride before the fall

Pride before the fall == Microsoft.
post #105 of 127
I don't think the open source community is nothing but sick of these stupid lame a## excuses of patent charges. If Apple and your so called enemy/best friend Microsoft didn't have the patent trolls and the patent wars( Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmar sitting in a tree patent trolling because they are loosing!!!!) Shouldn't have messed with HTC, my AT&T contract is up and guess what I'm droid all of the way. I can't believe people follow a company that makes so stupid and impracticable decision to release an iPad for $400 starting out... no thank you i'll stick with my Linux powered notebook. Wow how brain washed does a community have to be, to see that Apple is no different than Microsoft I'f nothing else you are worst, at least you can buy a windows PC for $3,000 cheaper!!! Oh yeah security don't give me that if you want security and stability like so many ex Apple usr's I see in the Linux forums are doing!! Steve Jobs I challenge you... you little patent troll I'll buy a ipad and install Linux on and tell you which OS runs best!!! Drop the stupid patents and fight fair or wait are you scared that you will loose!!! you will!!
post #106 of 127
Hmmmmm, they don't appear to be making Linux users like they used to.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #107 of 127
I guess the outcome of this case is that Apple gets 20 really ridiculous patents voided and it will serve as eye-opener in the way that patenting bullshit doesn't make sense. Those things should never get granted from the patent office and the entire patent law needs a reform.
post #108 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuxAttack80 View Post

I don't think the open source community is nothing but sick of these stupid lame a## excuses of patent charges. If Apple and your so called enemy/best friend Microsoft didn't have the patent trolls and the patent wars( Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmar sitting in a tree patent trolling because they are loosing!!!!) [...] Wow how brain washed does a community have to be, to see that Apple is no different than Microsoft [...]

So, although it's a bit difficult to make out, your argument seems to be,

Microsoft files suits based on its patents.
Apple files suits based on its patents.
Therefore, Apple is Microsoft.

Hmmm, something doesn't seem quite right there.
post #109 of 127
This is just flat out unprofessional. Suing the competition? And "hopelessly confused"? Are you kidding? Have you ever seen the recognition that Ubuntu gets as well as Canonical? O and I bet you have never heard of Google, they get no recognition cuz they have so many open source projects.

It boils down to this.

Companies:
- hire the best programmers and engineers you can afford
- put them on specific projects that will help build a product that will make the most money
- hold back advanced features so that you can release them at a later date to make even more money

Open Source:
- Anyone that can program can help build
- Anyone can work on whatever project they feel most passionate about to benefit everyone using the product
- If a really neat feature is developed, push it out instantly to every one without fees or marketing BS

Open Source will always release the latest and greatest it has to offer. Apple can afford a more feature full iPad but will not release it until later because that way they will make even MORE money because people will buy the POS iPad that just functions as a big iPod Touch with 3G capabilities.
post #110 of 127
Yes, it's really unfair that bad companies put enormous amounts of focus and discipline into products carefully calibrated to hit price points and markets, and then have success with them. If people were smart they'd always use open source software, because a random assemblage of coders are almost certainly going to achieve a well integrated product by pushing out the neat stuff as it occurs to them.

Also, the constant sputtering indignation about POS iPads that are ONLY! BIG! iPOD! TOUCHES! FOR! GOD SAKES! PEOPLE! is starting to get funny, to me.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #111 of 127
Why don't you buy a Nokia with Meamo???

Why buy an HTC with an advertising supported OS.

That's the business model Android uses, gather information about you so you can be targeted with Ads.

Enjoy.

wtf IT'S L-O-S-E NOT L-O-O-S-E!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuxAttack80 View Post

I don't think the open source community is nothing but sick of these stupid lame a## excuses of patent charges. If Apple and your so called enemy/best friend Microsoft didn't have the patent trolls and the patent wars( Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmar sitting in a tree patent trolling because they are loosing!!!!) Shouldn't have messed with HTC, my AT&T contract is up and guess what I'm droid all of the way. I can't believe people follow a company that makes so stupid and impracticable decision to release an iPad for $400 starting out... no thank you i'll stick with my Linux powered notebook. Wow how brain washed does a community have to be, to see that Apple is no different than Microsoft I'f nothing else you are worst, at least you can buy a windows PC for $3,000 cheaper!!! Oh yeah security don't give me that if you want security and stability like so many ex Apple usr's I see in the Linux forums are doing!! Steve Jobs I challenge you... you little patent troll I'll buy a ipad and install Linux on and tell you which OS runs best!!! Drop the stupid patents and fight fair or wait are you scared that you will loose!!! you will!!

I'm sure Apple depends heavily on the revenue generated by selling updated versions of iPhone OS.

So how's the Android 2.1 looking on older devices?

When are they going to push it out to the HTC Magic I occasionally use.

btw Ubuntu kiddy distro sucks, Gnome Sucks, Gentoo and KDE all the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shavex View Post

- hold back advanced features so that you can release them at a later date to make even more money
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #112 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by shavex View Post

Apple can afford a more feature full iPad but will not release it until later because that way they will make even MORE money because people will buy the POS iPad that just functions as a big iPod Touch with 3G capabilities.

Why would Apple hold back a "more feature full iPad" until later? That makes absolutely no sense. You always ship the best thing you have while working on the next best thing - it's called a pipeline. It's not done out of cynicism and a desire to manipulate the market, but because these are complex devices with long lead times.

If you had ever have been involved with an electronic or computer product, you would know this. While I realize conspiracy theories appear fun and exciting, all they really do is expose your ignorance and gullibility.

Your theory makes about as much sense as "artificial supply" theories. It's far better to have a sale then a buzz about shortage - but it's not nearly as exciting to report on.
post #113 of 127
Actually, it makes all kinds of sense. Since Jobs came back, Apple's products always come this bit short of features that slowly creep into later models. And its product segmentation tactics are all about underspeccing so that obsolescence comes real sooner and you have no choice but adquire the next version.
post #114 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Well, perhaps nothing except reputation, citations, invitations to speak at conferences, and possibly a lucrative job offer.

Ask Torvalds whether "no value accrued" to him.

He's an anomaly. Are the guys who started Firefox well known? How about Apache? PHP? Those are all open source too but the authors are far from well known outside the world of open source. Torvalds gained a reputation and a lucrative job because his open source software became a runaway phenomenon. The point the author is making is that academia has mechanisms in place to ensure such recognition and benefits follow scholarly pursuits whereas the open source community does not. Citing one example does not disprove the premise.

In fact, I think we can all agree that in the world of software, the closed source, proprietary model generates far more recognition and reputation than open source.
post #115 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snafu View Post

Actually, it makes all kinds of sense. Since Jobs came back, Apple's products always come this bit short of features that slowly creep into later models. And its product segmentation tactics are all about underspeccing so that obsolescence comes real sooner and you have no choice but adquire the next version.

I understand what you're saying, but I haven't found it to be the case that I have had "no choice" but to acquire the next version of any Apple stuff I've owned. In fact, I think it's generally true (maybe someone else can provide a link) that Mac owners tend to keep their machines longer than PC owners.

"Underspeccing" doesn't really mean anything if your hardware does what you want it to-- it's only of concern if you have a need to always be running the latest and greatest, and find it humiliating if you don't have the highest resolution screen or fastest GPU or most recent Intel silicon.

Given that modern systems are complete overkill for 95% of what most people are doing with their computers, "specs" in general are a poor metric for value, although pretty much the only one available to commodity PC box makers. Which is why Apple is going to do very well with the iPad, even as the usual crowd go crazy about how underpowered and underspecced it is, and how it has a toy OS, and how smart people should buy Windows 7 based tablets.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #116 of 127
I don't doubt the iPad will be a huge success. In fact, I'll evaluate the lowest cost model to see if it fits my needs (quite probably so). But then the hardware has some pretty obvious omissions that no doubt will be solved in later models, even if they could have been implemented in this one quite easily. We have seen that again and again. What becomes irritating is the possibilities such additions would provide, available already in designs such as Freescale's reference model.

My complaint about underspeccing is about future-proofing what I buy to some extent. However one paints it, it is quite ugly to see Apple launching product that it is already behind others' hardware-wise since day one, specially given its pricing. The OS and the (somewhat dubious) industrial design stop being a justification when the price difference becomes so big (given its margins).
post #117 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snafu View Post

I don't doubt the iPad will be a huge success. In fact, I'll evaluate the lowest cost model to see if it fits my needs (quite probably so). But then the hardware has some pretty obvious omissions that no doubt will be solved in later models, even if they could have been implemented in this one quite easily. We have seen that again and again. What becomes irritating is the possibilities such additions would provide, available already in designs such as Freescale's reference model.

My complaint about underspeccing is about future-proofing what I buy to some extent. However one paints it, it is quite ugly to see Apple launching product that it is already behind others' hardware-wise since day one, specially given its pricing. The OS and the (somewhat dubious) industrial design stop being a justification when the price difference becomes so big (given its margins).

In my case there isn't a single thing I do on my near four year old MacBook Pro that would be substantively changed if Apple had included whatever cutting edge CPU or GPU or RAM numbers were current at the time of its manufacturer. And I run PS, Illustrator, FCP, etc. pretty much daily, in addition to all the email/Word/internet/music stuff that wouldn't have been noticeably affected at all.

The fact is that "future proofing" boils down to maybe a 10% to 15% performance increase when you're talking about using the very latest generation components compared to one or two back, and that's for hardware that can already run rings around the majority of software people use.

Unless you're doing a lot of video encoding or similar processor intensive work, the difference between last week's and last year's components just isn't going to be noticeable. I don't care what "other's hardware" is, I want the machine I bought to do what I want and it does. And if you can show me that other hardware from the same era is slightly faster, I'm not going to get to exercised about it, or feel ripped off, because outside of some not very interesting numbers, my experience of doing my work is not significantly changed. YMMV, or course, but for me it's as simple as that.

At the very least, and per the earlier post, there's nothing about any of this that forces me to buy new hardware prematurely because the machine I'm using has become non-productive, and given the nature of component improvement it's hard to imagine how being 10% snappier when I bought it was ever going to affect that.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #118 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

"academic community, where ideas are freely exchanged", what's he been smoking! Yeah, ideas freely exchanged as long as they are in concurrence! Try talking about politics or by extension, military necessity and see how long the freely exchange of ideas lasts!


This is called the Ivy League "Hoighty Toighty" mentality!

Ah, Rot'nApple ... are you even vaguely aware of how your anti-intellectualism reflects Leninism. Like Glen Beck, you make a virtue of ignorance and blame the "elite" for for its socialist, leftist ideals, yet liberalism is not the problem, authoritarianism is. And blaming Al Gore as being economically biased is dumb if you don't also blame Sen. Inhofe or the oil companies as well.

You may like Dennis Miller's sarcasm and I used to like his humor very much, but after 9/11 he became afraid of free thinking and liberalism. He prefers traditional patriarchy over personal responsibility. He likes being an iconoclast over being just and being a making sound bytes over making accurate statements.

I know Reagan and Bush made it cool to disparage smart people, but so did Mao and so did Stalin and they kicked the "hoity toighty" to the gulag and the rice fields to keep them from calling bs on the communist system. You probably don't want to go down that road.

I know academia tends to lean left and people in ivory towers can have an aggravating disconnect from the "real world," but are they really the one's who hurt society the most? Did they invent global warming or extinct salmon runs or deforestation or Wall Street meltdowns or terrorism?!?! Just admit that business and the military tend to lean right and deal with the balance that needs to happen.

No, greed and ignorance, arrogance and anger, fear and irresponsibility did those things. Academia in an imperfect way tries to study these things and ideally without a financial stake in the game tries to find solutions. Unfortunately decades ago universities and business realized that they could work together to push innovation AND create a profit and the line between the two has become more and more blurred.

So think a bit before throwing idiotic statements around. Where academics show political or military bias, that should be pointed out, but not by blaming intellectualism. Try using knowledge rather than blaming those who you don't agree with.

Just be intellectually honest.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #119 of 127
The question that this brings up is so important though. Academics is a free market of ideas and business is a free market of products and services. Open source is a free market of both.

Each defines value in a different way, with a different "currency" but our legal system still hasn't figured out the best way for these three to relate to each other. Sort of like when capitalism was pushing out mercantilism.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #120 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snafu View Post

Actually, it makes all kinds of sense. Since Jobs came back, Apple's products always come this bit short of features that slowly creep into later models. And its product segmentation tactics are all about underspeccing so that obsolescence comes real sooner and you have no choice but adquire the next version.

If you remove the ignorant use of the word underspeccing and the obsolescence accusation that follows you just describe how every successful business works with product lines. I cannot think of any consumer product that goes through a 3-5 year upgrade cycle that you cannot see the same feature creep in. The designers actively plan the feature upgrade path even though the original prototype often has all the features, that gives them the flexibility to wring more life out of the product cycle. What's wrong with that, it's how they get paid for developing those products in the first place.

It has nothing to do with obsolescence, those little extra features are almost always just feature bloat to the VAST majority of the market but give the all important advertising copy new features to tout. Nobody accuses Nikon of crippling their cameras, Porsche of crippling the 911 or Sony of crippling a flat screen TV just because every possible tested feature doesn't ship.

So get a grip and get over your overly self important Judge-Judy act.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Open source community 'hopelessly confused' by Apple-HTC suit