TS is one single poster who makes or cracks scores of caustic/funny one liners . SAND in the eye type posts , no ??
YET if your attack on my buddy is true then WHAT does that say about the 2 or 3 dozen posters who follow him around again and again responding to him ?? How stupid moronic is it to respond over and over to such a terrible dude you so describe .??
takes two to tangle ?? NO ??
and the owner of this site engages and defends TS style in multiple recent posts .
why o why ??
TS is needed because he stirs the pot and brings eyeballs to AI . AND AI sells ads .. no ??
And all these lifeless white skinned nerds do need a foil like TS to daily rage against . no ??
re write your fine worded post to include the whole truth .
if not then you have wasted one of the best post's I have read IN A WHILE .
PEACE 9
Bruce, sorry man, I can't agree with you on this. Everything else, I do - more than agree. This individual has, in recent memory, been banned twice already, and perhaps more before I began posting, and I'm sure has been warned more times than I care to count. There's a difference between playing the contrarian (and doing it well), and spamming the board with one-liners with an emoticon hanging off them, designed just to bait others and get attention. The owners and mods have not defended this behaviour. In fact, they've penalized it pretty heavily, as we've seen in recent memory.
This individual does not help AI sell ads, nor does he pull in viewers. AI articles help sell ads and pull in viewers. The tone, slant, and headlines of the articles help sell ads and pull in viewers.
And all these lifeless white skinned nerds do need a foil like TS to daily rage against
No, we don't.
I know you mean well, but easy on the generalizations. A lot of these "lifeless" people post a lot of substance, and if AI is about discussion, then they certainly advance the discussion further. And if we're not here to do that first and foremost, then our intentions are dubious at best.
Wow, what an ASSumption. Being in Finland does not make me a Finn. I just happen to work here at the moment. Whether or not Nokia is the largest, smallest, middle, infinitesimal company in the world is of no consequence to me. They could fold tomorrow and it would not affect me one bit. In short, I do not care. There you go, I saved you the surprise. Can't help you about the ASS.
By the way I do not speak Finnish and could not be bothered to use Google Translate, but I cordially invite you to: Foxtrot, Oscar, Echo, Sierra, Alpha, Delta. From me to you, up close and personal.
I just wanted to clarify for everyone else so I translated it for you:
Älä nakata poron paskaa, poika. Se saa heitti takaisin sinulle
Do not toss reindeer shit, son. It may be cast back to you
Well I would beleive him over a lot of the stats tossed around here. But if there are 4.6 billion mobile connections in the world, and they have sold 35 million iPhones, how can you try and prove that they don't have a 0.7% market share?
Why are you restricting Apple to the Smartphone market, when Steve Jobs originally said he wanted a share of the total market?
If you read that article, it proves that the iPhone isn't as big as people in parts of the US make it out to be.
Perhaps because 4.4+ Billion of those purported connections aren't smartphones; hence they are money losers, not profit gainers. Apple's is gaining the lion's share of profits in the smart phone market.
This site claims in March 2009 Apple total iPhone sales at 17 million since it's inception.
I have never questioned Apple meeting their 1% target, never once, not at all. There that is it, either understand that, or just shut up.
That is you, and only you, confusing installed base with market.
That is you, and only you, stating that Apple can only have a 0.7% marketshare because you don’t know the difference between installed base and market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
But if there are 4.6 billion mobile connections in the world, and they have sold 35 million iPhones, how can you try and prove that they don't have a 0.7% market share?
Hence, my proof that your ‘stats' are that only ones that are wrong and that Appl took nearly 1.9% of the handset market for Q2-2009 and 2.28% of the handset market for Q3-2009.
Not only that, his assertion that "Apple infringed on Nokia's patents" is simply unfounded. (Underlining mine: the choice of the word 'infringe' is not accidental on his part, since, as any reasonable dictionary will show you, it implies a violation of the law or rights of the other person. It is a very loaded word on his part).
He apparently did not bother to read Apple's response to Nokia's suit.
Isn't the whole question here about four different points?
1) Did Apple infringe Nokia patents without paying? Who knows until court gives a verdict.
2) Are the Nokia patents "essential". Apple is saying no, other licensees and industry analysists are saying: YES. Look at pages 9-> http://www.frlicense.com/GSM_FINAL.pdf. Nokia chose 10 of 180+ patents that have been deemed essential to make the case strong.
3) Did Nokia offer F/RAND to Apple? Nokia says yes, but Apple told them to shove it, Apple says No. We'll knwo until the courts say which way it went.
4) Apple says Nokia infringed on their patents. Who knows until court gives a verdict.
So isn't this a case, where we as layman can only believe industry analysis of the FACTS (i.e. point 2). The other points are ruled by in court. Point 3 could be ruled by us, but none of us know what Nokia offered Apple and what other companies are paying for the same patents.
<Personal opinion>Apple's wording in the beginning of the filing about Nokia being desperate is not very professional and shows arrogance (founded in valid success no doubt) or an attempt to shift the focus from the fact of patents and licensing to "sore loser" type of blaming. </Personal opinion>
Isn't the whole question here about four different points?
1) Did Apple infringe Nokia patents without paying? Who knows until court gives a verdict.
2) Are the Nokia patents "essential". Apple is saying no, other licensees and industry analysists are saying: YES. Look at pages 9-> http://www.frlicense.com/GSM_FINAL.pdf. Nokia chose 10 of 180+ patents that have been deemed essential to make the case strong.
3) Did Nokia offer F/RAND to Apple? Nokia says yes, but Apple told them to shove it, Apple says No. We'll knwo until the courts say which way it went.
4) Apple says Nokia infringed on their patents. Who knows until court gives a verdict.
So isn't this a case, where we as layman can only believe industry analysis of the FACTS (i.e. point 2). The other points are ruled by in court. Point 3 could be ruled by us, but none of us know what Nokia offered Apple and what other companies are paying for the same patents.
<Personal opinion>Apple's wording in the beginning of the filing about Nokia being desperate is not very professional and shows arrogance (founded in valid success no doubt) or an attempt to shift the focus from the fact of patents and licensing to "sore loser" type of blaming. </Personal opinion>
Isn't the whole question here about four different points?
1) Did Apple infringe Nokia patents without paying? Who knows until court gives a verdict.
2) Are the Nokia patents "essential". Apple is saying no, other licensees and industry analysists are saying: YES. Look at pages 9-> http://www.frlicense.com/GSM_FINAL.pdf. Nokia chose 10 of 180+ patents that have been deemed essential to make the case strong.
3) Did Nokia offer F/RAND to Apple? Nokia says yes, but Apple told them to shove it, Apple says No. We'll knwo until the courts say which way it went.
4) Apple says Nokia infringed on their patents. Who knows until court gives a verdict.
So isn't this a case, where we as layman can only believe industry analysis of the FACTS (i.e. point 2). The other points are ruled by in court. Point 3 could be ruled by us, but none of us know what Nokia offered Apple and what other companies are paying for the same patents.
All good points and nicely presented. We?re likely not going to know who stole whose patents since this will likely be settled out of court for some paltry amount that will make wonder why they even bothered to butt heads in the first place.
We can look at the 2003-2006 case of Apple Corps v. Apple Computers, Inc. to see how going to court can backfire.
Quote:
<Personal opinion>Apple's wording in the beginning of the filing about Nokia being desperate is not very professional and shows arrogance (founded in valid success no doubt) or an attempt to shift the focus from the fact of patents and licensing to "sore loser" type of blaming. </Personal opinion>
I see your point but I don?t think it?s strong enough to be conclusive for me to form an opinion on who is at fault. It seems more like a tactic than Apple being cornered with the goods in hand.
You must be confusing me with someone else, I don't have a N97. Infact, just like the iPhone, I don't know anyone that has one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Hey it did so well Nokia is dumping Symbian for their high end handsets in favour of Maemo on the N900, their new flagship, well sort of flagship as it's more of an Internet tablet stuck in landscape mode most of the time.
Again, you seem to be confusing things, Nokia hasn't dumped Symbian for anything, they are using a different OS on one model yes, dumping no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Nokia needs Apple for it's phones as Symbian uses a WebKit based browser, open source developed by Apple.
If they are dumping Symbian like you say, why are you cared. Also, WebKit is open source, so they don't need Apple for it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Fennec is only for Maemo so far, the flagship after the failure of a hundred N95 clones with slightly different features.
Not sure what you are trying to say here at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Nokia grasping at straws, N-Gage is dead, their flagship stores are closing, London, New York, they pulled out of Japan, they made their first loss in ten years last quarter.
Now, your lack of knowledge really comes out, Nokia handset division made a profit, quite a large one, it was NSN that made the loss. Also, they still sell some models of their phones in Japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Nokia were knocked from the number one position based on handset revenue by guess who.
Yes all the metrics changed to revenue because Apple doesn't make a dent in the share otherwise. As a consumer (ie I don't own shares in any company) Apples profits on their devices offends me, enough to make me really think what make of computer I will purchase next will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
A Nokia executive admitted in 2007 that they are proud of copying others.
Again, your point? Apple has been copying for years, all companies do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Suck it up fanboy.
I own more Apple products than Nokia products and that makes me a fanboy? For which side?
Bruce, sorry man, I can't agree with you on this. Everything else, I do - more than agree. This individual has, in recent memory, been banned twice already, and perhaps more before I began posting, and I'm sure has been warned more times than I care to count. There's a difference between playing the contrarian (and doing it well), and spamming the board with one-liners with an emoticon hanging off them, designed just to bait others and get attention. The owners and mods have not defended this behaviour. In fact, they've penalized it pretty heavily, as we've seen in recent memory.
This individual does not help AI sell ads, nor does he pull in viewers. AI articles help sell ads and pull in viewers. The tone, slant, and headlines of the articles help sell ads and pull in viewers.
And all these lifeless white skinned nerds do need a foil like TS to daily rage against
No, we don't.
I know you mean well, but easy on the generalizations. A lot of these "lifeless" people post a lot of substance, and if AI is about discussion, then they certainly advance the discussion further. And if we're not here to do that first and foremost, then our intentions are dubious at best.
i was born from massive troll wars on the EMI pink floyd boards . A TROLL war so bad the board crashed forever. .I learned one thing and one thing only my friend . and my whole post addresses that single lesson learned
IF YOU FEEL SOME ONE IS A TROLLC THEN YOU MUST NOT ENGAGE HIM EVER .
quadra this seems so simple and clear .., i ilke TS a lot but even i cringe sometimes at his caustic remarks .
I was not referring to you in my WHITE BOY crack .. I was trying to shame some fine reg ppi who add so much great stuff hear yet on the turn of a dime they start fighting with TS about stupid stuff .
hi jacking yet another good topic .
i agree with you about the AI ad stuff i may be wrong .
last word is any one upset at this situation must just ignore said offender.
i regret quagra if i offended you ; i did not mean too .
I see your point but I don?t think it?s strong enough to be conclusive for me to form an opinion on who is at fault. It seems more like a tactic than Apple being cornered with the goods in hand.
Never meant to be conveying a conclusive point as such. A mere personal "feeling" from the filing.
Comments
TS is one single poster who makes or cracks scores of caustic/funny one liners . SAND in the eye type posts , no ??
YET if your attack on my buddy is true then WHAT does that say about the 2 or 3 dozen posters who follow him around again and again responding to him ?? How stupid moronic is it to respond over and over to such a terrible dude you so describe .??
takes two to tangle ?? NO ??
and the owner of this site engages and defends TS style in multiple recent posts .
why o why ??
TS is needed because he stirs the pot and brings eyeballs to AI . AND AI sells ads .. no ??
And all these lifeless white skinned nerds do need a foil like TS to daily rage against . no ??
re write your fine worded post to include the whole truth .
if not then you have wasted one of the best post's I have read IN A WHILE .
PEACE 9
Bruce, sorry man, I can't agree with you on this. Everything else, I do - more than agree. This individual has, in recent memory, been banned twice already, and perhaps more before I began posting, and I'm sure has been warned more times than I care to count. There's a difference between playing the contrarian (and doing it well), and spamming the board with one-liners with an emoticon hanging off them, designed just to bait others and get attention. The owners and mods have not defended this behaviour. In fact, they've penalized it pretty heavily, as we've seen in recent memory.
This individual does not help AI sell ads, nor does he pull in viewers. AI articles help sell ads and pull in viewers. The tone, slant, and headlines of the articles help sell ads and pull in viewers.
And all these lifeless white skinned nerds do need a foil like TS to daily rage against
No, we don't.
I know you mean well, but easy on the generalizations. A lot of these "lifeless" people post a lot of substance, and if AI is about discussion, then they certainly advance the discussion further. And if we're not here to do that first and foremost, then our intentions are dubious at best.
Wow, what an ASSumption. Being in Finland does not make me a Finn. I just happen to work here at the moment. Whether or not Nokia is the largest, smallest, middle, infinitesimal company in the world is of no consequence to me. They could fold tomorrow and it would not affect me one bit. In short, I do not care. There you go, I saved you the surprise. Can't help you about the ASS.
By the way I do not speak Finnish and could not be bothered to use Google Translate, but I cordially invite you to: Foxtrot, Oscar, Echo, Sierra, Alpha, Delta. From me to you, up close and personal.
I just wanted to clarify for everyone else so I translated it for you:
Älä nakata poron paskaa, poika. Se saa heitti takaisin sinulle
Do not toss reindeer shit, son. It may be cast back to you
Well I would beleive him over a lot of the stats tossed around here. But if there are 4.6 billion mobile connections in the world, and they have sold 35 million iPhones, how can you try and prove that they don't have a 0.7% market share?
Why are you restricting Apple to the Smartphone market, when Steve Jobs originally said he wanted a share of the total market?
If you read that article, it proves that the iPhone isn't as big as people in parts of the US make it out to be.
Perhaps because 4.4+ Billion of those purported connections aren't smartphones; hence they are money losers, not profit gainers. Apple's is gaining the lion's share of profits in the smart phone market.
This site claims in March 2009 Apple total iPhone sales at 17 million since it's inception.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/03..._iphone_sales/
The now purported number has doubled in under a year.
Nokia sees it's profit futures crashing.
I have never questioned Apple meeting their 1% target, never once, not at all. There that is it, either understand that, or just shut up.
That is you, and only you, confusing installed base with market.
That is you, and only you, stating that Apple can only have a 0.7% marketshare because you don’t know the difference between installed base and market.
But if there are 4.6 billion mobile connections in the world, and they have sold 35 million iPhones, how can you try and prove that they don't have a 0.7% market share?
Hence, my proof that your ‘stats' are that only ones that are wrong and that Appl took nearly 1.9% of the handset market for Q2-2009 and 2.28% of the handset market for Q3-2009.
Originally Posted by Gwydion
...no, you can't make a phone without licensing patents to Nokia...
Because Nokia and other companies have developed all the technology used in mobile telephony?
Really are you saying that those companies doesn't have to be paid for using the technology that they have developed?
Why, because we are talking about Apple?
Not only that, his assertion that "Apple infringed on Nokia's patents" is simply unfounded. (Underlining mine: the choice of the word 'infringe' is not accidental on his part, since, as any reasonable dictionary will show you, it implies a violation of the law or rights of the other person. It is a very loaded word on his part).
He apparently did not bother to read Apple's response to Nokia's suit.
Isn't the whole question here about four different points?
1) Did Apple infringe Nokia patents without paying? Who knows until court gives a verdict.
2) Are the Nokia patents "essential". Apple is saying no, other licensees and industry analysists are saying: YES. Look at pages 9-> http://www.frlicense.com/GSM_FINAL.pdf. Nokia chose 10 of 180+ patents that have been deemed essential to make the case strong.
3) Did Nokia offer F/RAND to Apple? Nokia says yes, but Apple told them to shove it, Apple says No. We'll knwo until the courts say which way it went.
4) Apple says Nokia infringed on their patents. Who knows until court gives a verdict.
So isn't this a case, where we as layman can only believe industry analysis of the FACTS (i.e. point 2). The other points are ruled by in court. Point 3 could be ruled by us, but none of us know what Nokia offered Apple and what other companies are paying for the same patents.
<Personal opinion>Apple's wording in the beginning of the filing about Nokia being desperate is not very professional and shows arrogance (founded in valid success no doubt) or an attempt to shift the focus from the fact of patents and licensing to "sore loser" type of blaming. </Personal opinion>
Regs, Jarkko
Isn't the whole question here about four different points?
1) Did Apple infringe Nokia patents without paying? Who knows until court gives a verdict.
2) Are the Nokia patents "essential". Apple is saying no, other licensees and industry analysists are saying: YES. Look at pages 9-> http://www.frlicense.com/GSM_FINAL.pdf. Nokia chose 10 of 180+ patents that have been deemed essential to make the case strong.
3) Did Nokia offer F/RAND to Apple? Nokia says yes, but Apple told them to shove it, Apple says No. We'll knwo until the courts say which way it went.
4) Apple says Nokia infringed on their patents. Who knows until court gives a verdict.
So isn't this a case, where we as layman can only believe industry analysis of the FACTS (i.e. point 2). The other points are ruled by in court. Point 3 could be ruled by us, but none of us know what Nokia offered Apple and what other companies are paying for the same patents.
<Personal opinion>Apple's wording in the beginning of the filing about Nokia being desperate is not very professional and shows arrogance (founded in valid success no doubt) or an attempt to shift the focus from the fact of patents and licensing to "sore loser" type of blaming. </Personal opinion>
Regs, Jarkko
Thanks for expressing my opinion better than me
Isn't the whole question here about four different points?
1) Did Apple infringe Nokia patents without paying? Who knows until court gives a verdict.
2) Are the Nokia patents "essential". Apple is saying no, other licensees and industry analysists are saying: YES. Look at pages 9-> http://www.frlicense.com/GSM_FINAL.pdf. Nokia chose 10 of 180+ patents that have been deemed essential to make the case strong.
3) Did Nokia offer F/RAND to Apple? Nokia says yes, but Apple told them to shove it, Apple says No. We'll knwo until the courts say which way it went.
4) Apple says Nokia infringed on their patents. Who knows until court gives a verdict.
So isn't this a case, where we as layman can only believe industry analysis of the FACTS (i.e. point 2). The other points are ruled by in court. Point 3 could be ruled by us, but none of us know what Nokia offered Apple and what other companies are paying for the same patents.
All good points and nicely presented. We?re likely not going to know who stole whose patents since this will likely be settled out of court for some paltry amount that will make wonder why they even bothered to butt heads in the first place.
We can look at the 2003-2006 case of Apple Corps v. Apple Computers, Inc. to see how going to court can backfire.
<Personal opinion>Apple's wording in the beginning of the filing about Nokia being desperate is not very professional and shows arrogance (founded in valid success no doubt) or an attempt to shift the focus from the fact of patents and licensing to "sore loser" type of blaming. </Personal opinion>
I see your point but I don?t think it?s strong enough to be conclusive for me to form an opinion on who is at fault. It seems more like a tactic than Apple being cornered with the goods in hand.
So how's your N97?
You must be confusing me with someone else, I don't have a N97. Infact, just like the iPhone, I don't know anyone that has one.
Hey it did so well Nokia is dumping Symbian for their high end handsets in favour of Maemo on the N900, their new flagship, well sort of flagship as it's more of an Internet tablet stuck in landscape mode most of the time.
Again, you seem to be confusing things, Nokia hasn't dumped Symbian for anything, they are using a different OS on one model yes, dumping no.
Nokia needs Apple for it's phones as Symbian uses a WebKit based browser, open source developed by Apple.
If they are dumping Symbian like you say, why are you cared. Also, WebKit is open source, so they don't need Apple for it at all.
Fennec is only for Maemo so far, the flagship after the failure of a hundred N95 clones with slightly different features.
Not sure what you are trying to say here at all.
Nokia grasping at straws, N-Gage is dead, their flagship stores are closing, London, New York, they pulled out of Japan, they made their first loss in ten years last quarter.
Now, your lack of knowledge really comes out, Nokia handset division made a profit, quite a large one, it was NSN that made the loss. Also, they still sell some models of their phones in Japan.
Nokia were knocked from the number one position based on handset revenue by guess who.
Yes all the metrics changed to revenue because Apple doesn't make a dent in the share otherwise. As a consumer (ie I don't own shares in any company) Apples profits on their devices offends me, enough to make me really think what make of computer I will purchase next will be.
A Nokia executive admitted in 2007 that they are proud of copying others.
Again, your point? Apple has been copying for years, all companies do it.
Suck it up fanboy.
I own more Apple products than Nokia products and that makes me a fanboy? For which side?
Is that you Gollum
sorry i am reading the hobbit right now,
That is you, and only youblah blah blah
Like I said, if you can't understand it, just shut up as your backpedalling is keeping me awake.
Bruce, sorry man, I can't agree with you on this. Everything else, I do - more than agree. This individual has, in recent memory, been banned twice already, and perhaps more before I began posting, and I'm sure has been warned more times than I care to count. There's a difference between playing the contrarian (and doing it well), and spamming the board with one-liners with an emoticon hanging off them, designed just to bait others and get attention. The owners and mods have not defended this behaviour. In fact, they've penalized it pretty heavily, as we've seen in recent memory.
This individual does not help AI sell ads, nor does he pull in viewers. AI articles help sell ads and pull in viewers. The tone, slant, and headlines of the articles help sell ads and pull in viewers.
And all these lifeless white skinned nerds do need a foil like TS to daily rage against
No, we don't.
I know you mean well, but easy on the generalizations. A lot of these "lifeless" people post a lot of substance, and if AI is about discussion, then they certainly advance the discussion further. And if we're not here to do that first and foremost, then our intentions are dubious at best.
i was born from massive troll wars on the EMI pink floyd boards . A TROLL war so bad the board crashed forever. .I learned one thing and one thing only my friend . and my whole post addresses that single lesson learned
IF YOU FEEL SOME ONE IS A TROLLC THEN YOU MUST NOT ENGAGE HIM EVER .
quadra this seems so simple and clear .., i ilke TS a lot but even i cringe sometimes at his caustic remarks .
I was not referring to you in my WHITE BOY crack .. I was trying to shame some fine reg ppi who add so much great stuff hear yet on the turn of a dime they start fighting with TS about stupid stuff .
hi jacking yet another good topic .
i agree with you about the AI ad stuff i may be wrong .
last word is any one upset at this situation must just ignore said offender.
i regret quagra if i offended you ; i did not mean too .
peace
9
I see your point but I don?t think it?s strong enough to be conclusive for me to form an opinion on who is at fault. It seems more like a tactic than Apple being cornered with the goods in hand.
Never meant to be conveying a conclusive point as such. A mere personal "feeling" from the filing.
Regs, Jarkko
Disturbing... Hate much?
oh dude
my god no
'just a joke
boil your bones is from the orc song in the childrens book the hobbit
again sorry meant no hate at all .
i simply dislike nokia
peace 9
Never meant to be conveying a conclusive point as such. A mere personal "feeling" from the filing.
Regs, Jarkko
Gotcha. Mea culpa.
i
last word is any one upset at this situation must just ignore said offender.
i regret quagra if i offended you ; i did not mean too .
peace
9
No offense, taken, Bruce, I go tanning now and then.
COULD SOME ONE EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHY THESE TWO GIANTS ARE SUING EACH OTHER .
please just some facts and or links but no fighting .
No offense, taken, Bruce, I go tanning now and then.
hey thanks for that
well my 2 kids are going wild on the wii game right now
i think i will join then in some 100 pin bowling
peace Quadra 610
9
i still don't understand any of this >>> WITH ALL THIS ALL BICKERING HERE
COULD SOME ONE EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHY THESE TWO GIANTS ARE SUING EACH OTHER .
please just some facts and or links but no fighting .
$$$$$$$$
blinding logic
peace
9