Android is the shittiest O/S ever made. What is it? A bunch a Javascript crap. Cannot do even 10000th of what OSX or Win7 can do. Google is incapable to creating anything real. Just vaporware.
That's the most stupid comment here. You don't even know the difference between Java and Javascript
you call yourself a Global Moderator, which may imply to some that you are an authority in your commentating.
The forum assigns that title to all moderators. It assigns no authority to topical opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka
IMO, much of what you claimed is incorrect and you can't substantiate any of them.
The main issues you highlighted are Apple's control and the greed of the phone companies. The latter I'll answer next. Apple try to be in control by locking down their hardware/software platform. This means no other hardware manufacturers can be compatible with the App Store. Locked in developers, locked in content.
The devices only work with itunes. Check out the iPad ads:
It?s easy to fill your iPad with music. Tap iTunes to browse millions of songs in the iTunes Store and download new music directly to your iPad."
To some it's evil (competitors who can't break in), to others it's the only way it could work (e.g for developers who spend a couple of weeks making an app and making millions).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka
I personally like #2. I gather from your comment that I should be able to drive on the New York Thruway and my toll fare for a car, motorhome or bus should be the same
How is an email different from an SMS message? They charge you per text but you can send as many emails as you want. How is a voice call different from a Skype call? It's all just data. The Telecoms businesses grow to the point where it's about coverage and then they can and do charge what they like. What are you going to do about it? If you only have a choice between 1-2 providers and it's either that you have no communications or expensive bills, you have very little choice in the matter.
Locking you into 2 year contracts should be made illegal. What if their service after 6 months is terrible? You have to pay up for your entire remaining contract to be able to go somewhere else. That's extortion. I have dealt with a number of phone companies over the years and my experience leads me to one conclusion... evil, the lot of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu
Can you post a video of these 'superior' netbooks booting up nearly instantly, or specs which show they can play video for 10 hours or browse the internet for 30 hours on a charge?
iPad can't boot up near instantly either - they can both wake up from sleep instantly though. Also, netbooks can play video for 10 hours:
Steve Jobs is not your friend, he doesn't know you, he doesn't love anything more than your money.
I think Apple as a business works that way. I don't think deep down that's all that Jobs is. It's smart to take enough money to allow you to focus on your passion in life and that's what he's done. He would take more than $1 for a salary if money was his main driving force and he certainly wouldn't say or do some of the things he does. People call him arrogant but everyone who submits an opinion with the intent for others to hear (yes that includes me) has a level of arrogance to think that opinion deserves to be heard possibly in conflict with someone else's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngusYoung
dumb ass black turtle neck
Don't knock the turtle necks. They are actually really functional. You get long sleeves so your arms don't get cold, they are black so they go with anything you wear, you don't have to really iron them like a shirt, they stretch to fit. I think if we as a society had to agree on a common utilitarian uniform, the turtle necks would be voted in.
I'm lying in bed with a MacBook an iPad will easily do what I'm doing now only it will be more comfortable.
I see lots of people struggling with 17' laptops and 10" netbooks.
I don't want to struggle with technology, I just want to use it.
The phone I used before I got an iPhone was a Nokia N82 it had multitasking, a 5MP camera with xenon flash, bluetooth file transfer, secondary camera, Adobe Flash support, lot's of customisation, access to plenty of [STRIKE]pirated[/STRIKE] free applications and most of the bells and whistles that are still being whined about.
I don't miss it at all.
Sure it will do what you are doing now more comfortably, but does it do all that you use your MacBook to do? Or do you go back to your MacBook when you run into one of the iPad's limitations with something you want to do?
If you are still using the MacBook for some of your tasks, and are just using the iPad to replace those tasks that you do on the MacBook that the iPad can also do, then you haven't sacrificed any capability for simplicity. You still have all the capability you had before, in exchange for the same amount of complexity, if not even more. You still need to know how to use the MacBook, but now you also need to know how to use another device. If anything this adds to complexity.
Locking you into 2 year contracts should be made illegal. What if their service after 6 months is terrible? You have to pay up for your entire remaining contract to be able to go somewhere else. That's extortion. I have dealt with a number of phone companies over the years and my experience leads me to one conclusion... evil, the lot of them.
Why should contracts be illegal? Contracts are two way, they are there for both parties, you should be reading them before signing them, if you don't like it, don't sign it, you weren't forced to sign it. If a mobile company is unable to provide an adequate service then you should be able to get out of your contracts, your local consumer protection laws should help you get out of it also.
Why should contracts be illegal? Contracts are two way, they are there for both parties, you should be reading them before signing them, if you don't like it, don't sign it, you weren't forced to sign it. If a mobile company is unable to provide an adequate service then you should be able to get out of your contracts, your local consumer protection laws should help you get out of it also.
Contracts are only fair if both sides have the same negotiating power.
Contracts are only fair if both sides have the same negotiating power.
The power to walk without signing is pretty profound.
Once someone locks themselves into a specific position the negotiating power necessarily goes down commensurately. So if you only want an iPhone, you pretty much give up your negotiating power. But that is an explicitly made personal decision before the contract is ever placed in front of them, so I don't think there's any unfair negotiating power there at all.
The Dell Mini 10 claims 9.5. But we hate Dell. They are lying.
Seems they are-
Quote:
The Dell Inspiron Mini 10 ran for 5 hours and 40 minutes on our video playback battery drain test, using the included six-cell battery. That's fantastic, even for a low-power Netbook. However, the battery is especially bulky, and sticks out from the bottom of the system, raising the rear end. A smaller three-cell battery option is also available.
The link you posted doesn't say anything about 10 hours of video playback. It says-
Quote:
up to 10 hours of battery life(2)
I guarantee it won't play videos for 10 hours.
You would be comfortable tossing a netbook in a briefcase or bag, while still turned on, and moving around? Unless it has a SSD or flash memory, probably not a good idea, thus requiring one to turn it on and off, while the iPad would simply need to be in standby.
Can you guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?
According to Apple, and I'm sure their legal department, it does. I'll bet Apple had downplayed the battery life, and it will play video well over 10 hours.
According to Apple, and I'm sure their legal department, it does. I'll bet Apple had downplayed the battery life, and it will play video well over 10 hours.
I'm not asking Apple, I'm asking you. Can YOU guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?
I'm not asking Apple, I'm asking you. Can YOU guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?
Can you guarantee that the their will be a tomorrow? Don't be obtuse, you know very Apple has been using a real world friendly metric for battery measurements for many years while no one else but Sony has followed suit.
I'm not asking Apple, I'm asking you. Can YOU guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?
Yes, I guarantee it. Happy? Years and years of owning Apple products have convinced me that when they give a battery estimate for any product, they are either spot on, or lowball the figures, so that everyone is surprised it lasts longer than advertised.
The power to walk without signing is pretty profound.
Once someone locks themselves into a specific position the negotiating power necessarily goes down commensurately. So if you only want an iPhone, you pretty much give up your negotiating power. But that is an explicitly made personal decision before the contract is ever placed in front of them, so I don't think there's any unfair negotiating power there at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
You are not forced to sign a contract with a mobile company, if you don't agree with the terms, don't sign it.
Um...so because you have the power to walk away, that means both parties have the same negotiating power and the contracts are fair? So you are saying contracts are only unfair when someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to sign it? You can't think of any other scenarios?
Wireless providers and consumers are obviously not equals in the contract. Wireless providers do not operate in a perfectly competitive market and each have considerable market power, and it is very easy for them to tacitly collude (not necessarily illegally, just tacitly) due to how few of them there are. Thus it is easy for them to all offer very similar terms giving consumers little to no alternative options to choose from. When there are so many individuals on one side and so few firms on the other, it is very easy for the side with the few to have an advantage over the side with many.
You were originally arguing Google was in the mobile business before Apple and Apple is invading Google's area. Now you seem to concede Google was in the mobile business at least no later than Apple...
Learn to read first if you want to argue. I said the Jobs statement about "they entered (ours) mobile business, not us entering (theirs) search" is bullshit. Apple officially entered the mobile phone business when they announced the iPhone. They probably entered the business about the time they bought Fingerworks, but at that time Google had Android and Rubin. So they arguably entered mobile at the same time - Jobs (and you) are lying there.
More important, Schmidt entered the BOD of Apple long time after they both were deep in mobile business - Jobs is either idiot or he was aware of Android. They still let Schmidt in, as they felt the partnership with Google is valuable to them, not other way around. Another Jobs lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2
The iPhone would arguably have been a bigger/earlier success without YouTube, because YouTube made the device look more like a glorified toy. GMail is a privacy nightmare and far from being everyone's platform of choice for e-mail. Maps is indeed a very nice addition to the iPhone, but arguably not the main reason for its success: the iPod touch is a tremendous success without Maps.
Any evidence for this or is it just your feeling based on fact YOU hate YouTube and GMail ?
Lets pretend you are correct - please explain why on earth Apple invited Schmidt to their BOD ? The timing is clear : they needed Google's apps for iPhone and they were well aware that Google is sort of competitor in mobile business then. Rubin used to work for Apple - they knew he was with Google for years.
You still believe Jobs lies and ignore the facts ?
Learn to read first if you want to argue. I said the Jobs statement about "they entered (ours) mobile business, not us entering (theirs) search" is bullshit. Apple officially entered the mobile phone business when they announced the iPhone. They probably entered the business about the time they bought Fingerworks, but at that time Google had Android and Rubin. So they arguably entered mobile at the same time - Jobs (and you) are lying there.
More important, Schmidt entered the BOD of Apple long time after they both were deep in mobile business - Jobs is either idiot or he was aware of Android.
Oh, I expect Jobs knew all about Google's acquisition of Android, Inc. in July 2005. And Google would have known all about Apple's multitouch patent applications before 2006. And Google knew all about how competitive the iPhone would be at least 2 years before the first Android device came to market.
Quote:
They still let Schmidt in, as they felt the partnership with Google is valuable to them, not other way around. Another Jobs lie.
Why not partner with Google, if you want to provide iPhone owner's with the best possible experience (or the best selling experience) at the time? Perhaps it was a way to convince Google to pay Apple even more for the privilege of being on the iPhone.
Quote:
Any evidence for this or is it just your feeling based on fact YOU hate YouTube and GMail ?
If you were alive in 2007, you could have read many a criticism about the iPhone being a toy, with the presence of YouTube being a major reason. All of Google's services, including gmail, are frequently criticized over their privacy concerns.
Quote:
Lets pretend you are correct - please explain why on earth Apple invited Schmidt to their BOD ?
Maybe he expected Schmidt, and in turn Google, to be rational and respectful of Apple's IP. Who knows if this has anything to do with it, but I'm sure you've heard the saying, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
Quote:
The timing is clear : they needed Google's apps for iPhone and they were well aware that Google is sort of competitor in mobile business then. Rubin used to work for Apple - they knew he was with Google for years.
Would that make it okay for Google to infringe?
Quote:
You still believe Jobs lies and ignore the facts ?
I didn't say that. I believe we can all be viewed as a mass of contradictions, though. And I'd say Apple/Jobs has been very forthright about its mobile IP.
Oh, and I believe Google has infringed on some of Apple's patents. You seem to be doing everything you can to distract from the real crux of the situation.
Um...so because you have the power to walk away, that means both parties have the same negotiating power and the contracts are fair? So you are saying contracts are only unfair when someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to sign it? You can't think of any other scenarios?
Are you telling me that you are forced to accept the terms of a mobile contract? No you are not, the mobile companies present their contract covering services, pricing, and conditions, from this you have the choice of accepting it, or refusing it, you are not forced into either of those two decision. If you accept it and they can't live up to their end of the contract then demand to be taken out of the contract without, without cost. If you don't have consumer laws to back this up, I am really sorry for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein
Wireless providers and consumers are obviously not equals in the contract. Wireless providers do not operate in a perfectly competitive market and each have considerable market power, and it is very easy for them to tacitly collude (not necessarily illegally, just tacitly) due to how few of them there are. Thus it is easy for them to all offer very similar terms giving consumers little to no alternative options to choose from. When there are so many individuals on one side and so few firms on the other, it is very easy for the side with the few to have an advantage over the side with many.
Maybe you should be taking your concerns to your local consumer rights group, all mobile companies have contracts, and as I have said, none of them are forcing you to sign it. But if you do, as I have said, you have consumer rights (well you should do anyway),
Serves Steve right. How many time has Steve teamed up with other people then screw them over?
Wozniak 70's - Jobs and Wozniak had a deal where they would split proceeds 50/50 on stuff they sold to Atari. Jobs told Woz they made $600. In Nolan Bushnell's book, "Silicon Valley Guys" it was revealed Jobs was actually paid $3k-$5k.
At age 23, and already wealthy, Jobs fathered a child and for 2 years, while the mother was on welfare, he kept denying he was the father. He even went as far as signing a court documents stating he was "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child."
How about Microsoft, HP and Motorola who deeply regret ever partnering with the Apple.
Apple even tried to license its OS at one time and then literally put their licensees out of business by breaking their promise to support them because it was not convenient.
Jobs' personal abuses are also legend: He parks his Mercedes in handicapped spaces, periodically reduces subordinates to tears, and fires employees in angry tantrums.
Stanford management science professor Robert Sutton discussed Jobs in his bestselling 2007 book, "The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't." "As soon as people heard I was writing a book on assholes, they would come up to me and start telling a Steve Jobs story,"
Comments
Android is the shittiest O/S ever made. What is it? A bunch a Javascript crap. Cannot do even 10000th of what OSX or Win7 can do. Google is incapable to creating anything real. Just vaporware.
That's the most stupid comment here. You don't even know the difference between Java and Javascript
It has Windows too.
... as well as Linux
you call yourself a Global Moderator, which may imply to some that you are an authority in your commentating.
The forum assigns that title to all moderators. It assigns no authority to topical opinions.
IMO, much of what you claimed is incorrect and you can't substantiate any of them.
The main issues you highlighted are Apple's control and the greed of the phone companies. The latter I'll answer next. Apple try to be in control by locking down their hardware/software platform. This means no other hardware manufacturers can be compatible with the App Store. Locked in developers, locked in content.
The devices only work with itunes. Check out the iPad ads:
http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/ipod.html
"Feed your iPad.
It?s easy to fill your iPad with music. Tap iTunes to browse millions of songs in the iTunes Store and download new music directly to your iPad."
To some it's evil (competitors who can't break in), to others it's the only way it could work (e.g for developers who spend a couple of weeks making an app and making millions).
I personally like #2. I gather from your comment that I should be able to drive on the New York Thruway and my toll fare for a car, motorhome or bus should be the same
How is an email different from an SMS message? They charge you per text but you can send as many emails as you want. How is a voice call different from a Skype call? It's all just data. The Telecoms businesses grow to the point where it's about coverage and then they can and do charge what they like. What are you going to do about it? If you only have a choice between 1-2 providers and it's either that you have no communications or expensive bills, you have very little choice in the matter.
Locking you into 2 year contracts should be made illegal. What if their service after 6 months is terrible? You have to pay up for your entire remaining contract to be able to go somewhere else. That's extortion. I have dealt with a number of phone companies over the years and my experience leads me to one conclusion... evil, the lot of them.
Can you post a video of these 'superior' netbooks booting up nearly instantly, or specs which show they can play video for 10 hours or browse the internet for 30 hours on a charge?
iPad can't boot up near instantly either - they can both wake up from sleep instantly though. Also, netbooks can play video for 10 hours:
http://channel.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=22670
Steve Jobs is not your friend, he doesn't know you, he doesn't love anything more than your money.
I think Apple as a business works that way. I don't think deep down that's all that Jobs is. It's smart to take enough money to allow you to focus on your passion in life and that's what he's done. He would take more than $1 for a salary if money was his main driving force and he certainly wouldn't say or do some of the things he does. People call him arrogant but everyone who submits an opinion with the intent for others to hear (yes that includes me) has a level of arrogance to think that opinion deserves to be heard possibly in conflict with someone else's.
dumb ass black turtle neck
Don't knock the turtle necks. They are actually really functional. You get long sleeves so your arms don't get cold, they are black so they go with anything you wear, you don't have to really iron them like a shirt, they stretch to fit. I think if we as a society had to agree on a common utilitarian uniform, the turtle necks would be voted in.
Is it?
I'm lying in bed with a MacBook an iPad will easily do what I'm doing now only it will be more comfortable.
I see lots of people struggling with 17' laptops and 10" netbooks.
I don't want to struggle with technology, I just want to use it.
The phone I used before I got an iPhone was a Nokia N82 it had multitasking, a 5MP camera with xenon flash, bluetooth file transfer, secondary camera, Adobe Flash support, lot's of customisation, access to plenty of [STRIKE]pirated[/STRIKE] free applications and most of the bells and whistles that are still being whined about.
I don't miss it at all.
Sure it will do what you are doing now more comfortably, but does it do all that you use your MacBook to do? Or do you go back to your MacBook when you run into one of the iPad's limitations with something you want to do?
If you are still using the MacBook for some of your tasks, and are just using the iPad to replace those tasks that you do on the MacBook that the iPad can also do, then you haven't sacrificed any capability for simplicity. You still have all the capability you had before, in exchange for the same amount of complexity, if not even more. You still need to know how to use the MacBook, but now you also need to know how to use another device. If anything this adds to complexity.
Locking you into 2 year contracts should be made illegal. What if their service after 6 months is terrible? You have to pay up for your entire remaining contract to be able to go somewhere else. That's extortion. I have dealt with a number of phone companies over the years and my experience leads me to one conclusion... evil, the lot of them.
Why should contracts be illegal? Contracts are two way, they are there for both parties, you should be reading them before signing them, if you don't like it, don't sign it, you weren't forced to sign it. If a mobile company is unable to provide an adequate service then you should be able to get out of your contracts, your local consumer protection laws should help you get out of it also.
Why should contracts be illegal? Contracts are two way, they are there for both parties, you should be reading them before signing them, if you don't like it, don't sign it, you weren't forced to sign it. If a mobile company is unable to provide an adequate service then you should be able to get out of your contracts, your local consumer protection laws should help you get out of it also.
Contracts are only fair if both sides have the same negotiating power.
Contracts are only fair if both sides have the same negotiating power.
The power to walk without signing is pretty profound.
Once someone locks themselves into a specific position the negotiating power necessarily goes down commensurately. So if you only want an iPhone, you pretty much give up your negotiating power. But that is an explicitly made personal decision before the contract is ever placed in front of them, so I don't think there's any unfair negotiating power there at all.
The Dell Mini 10 claims 9.5. But we hate Dell. They are lying.
Seems they are-
The Dell Inspiron Mini 10 ran for 5 hours and 40 minutes on our video playback battery drain test, using the included six-cell battery. That's fantastic, even for a low-power Netbook. However, the battery is especially bulky, and sticks out from the bottom of the system, raising the rear end. A smaller three-cell battery option is also available.
http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/dell-inspiron-mini-10/4505-3121_7-32146102.html
Contracts are only fair if both sides have the same negotiating power.
You are not forced to sign a contract with a mobile company, if you don't agree with the terms, don't sign it.
iPad can't boot up near instantly either - they can both wake up from sleep instantly though. Also, netbooks can play video for 10 hours:
http://channel.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=22670
The link you posted doesn't say anything about 10 hours of video playback. It says-
up to 10 hours of battery life(2)
I guarantee it won't play videos for 10 hours.
You would be comfortable tossing a netbook in a briefcase or bag, while still turned on, and moving around? Unless it has a SSD or flash memory, probably not a good idea, thus requiring one to turn it on and off, while the iPad would simply need to be in standby.
I guarantee it won't play videos for 10 hours.
Can you guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?
Can you guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?
According to Apple, and I'm sure their legal department, it does. I'll bet Apple had downplayed the battery life, and it will play video well over 10 hours.
According to Apple, and I'm sure their legal department, it does. I'll bet Apple had downplayed the battery life, and it will play video well over 10 hours.
I'm not asking Apple, I'm asking you. Can YOU guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?
I'm not asking Apple, I'm asking you. Can YOU guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?
Can you guarantee that the their will be a tomorrow? Don't be obtuse, you know very Apple has been using a real world friendly metric for battery measurements for many years while no one else but Sony has followed suit.
I'm not asking Apple, I'm asking you. Can YOU guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?
Yes, I guarantee it. Happy? Years and years of owning Apple products have convinced me that when they give a battery estimate for any product, they are either spot on, or lowball the figures, so that everyone is surprised it lasts longer than advertised.
The power to walk without signing is pretty profound.
Once someone locks themselves into a specific position the negotiating power necessarily goes down commensurately. So if you only want an iPhone, you pretty much give up your negotiating power. But that is an explicitly made personal decision before the contract is ever placed in front of them, so I don't think there's any unfair negotiating power there at all.
You are not forced to sign a contract with a mobile company, if you don't agree with the terms, don't sign it.
Um...so because you have the power to walk away, that means both parties have the same negotiating power and the contracts are fair? So you are saying contracts are only unfair when someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to sign it? You can't think of any other scenarios?
Wireless providers and consumers are obviously not equals in the contract. Wireless providers do not operate in a perfectly competitive market and each have considerable market power, and it is very easy for them to tacitly collude (not necessarily illegally, just tacitly) due to how few of them there are. Thus it is easy for them to all offer very similar terms giving consumers little to no alternative options to choose from. When there are so many individuals on one side and so few firms on the other, it is very easy for the side with the few to have an advantage over the side with many.
You were originally arguing Google was in the mobile business before Apple and Apple is invading Google's area. Now you seem to concede Google was in the mobile business at least no later than Apple...
Learn to read first if you want to argue. I said the Jobs statement about "they entered (ours) mobile business, not us entering (theirs) search" is bullshit. Apple officially entered the mobile phone business when they announced the iPhone. They probably entered the business about the time they bought Fingerworks, but at that time Google had Android and Rubin. So they arguably entered mobile at the same time - Jobs (and you) are lying there.
More important, Schmidt entered the BOD of Apple long time after they both were deep in mobile business - Jobs is either idiot or he was aware of Android. They still let Schmidt in, as they felt the partnership with Google is valuable to them, not other way around. Another Jobs lie.
The iPhone would arguably have been a bigger/earlier success without YouTube, because YouTube made the device look more like a glorified toy. GMail is a privacy nightmare and far from being everyone's platform of choice for e-mail. Maps is indeed a very nice addition to the iPhone, but arguably not the main reason for its success: the iPod touch is a tremendous success without Maps.
Any evidence for this or is it just your feeling based on fact YOU hate YouTube and GMail ?
Lets pretend you are correct - please explain why on earth Apple invited Schmidt to their BOD ? The timing is clear : they needed Google's apps for iPhone and they were well aware that Google is sort of competitor in mobile business then. Rubin used to work for Apple - they knew he was with Google for years.
You still believe Jobs lies and ignore the facts ?
Learn to read first if you want to argue. I said the Jobs statement about "they entered (ours) mobile business, not us entering (theirs) search" is bullshit. Apple officially entered the mobile phone business when they announced the iPhone. They probably entered the business about the time they bought Fingerworks, but at that time Google had Android and Rubin. So they arguably entered mobile at the same time - Jobs (and you) are lying there.
More important, Schmidt entered the BOD of Apple long time after they both were deep in mobile business - Jobs is either idiot or he was aware of Android.
Oh, I expect Jobs knew all about Google's acquisition of Android, Inc. in July 2005. And Google would have known all about Apple's multitouch patent applications before 2006. And Google knew all about how competitive the iPhone would be at least 2 years before the first Android device came to market.
They still let Schmidt in, as they felt the partnership with Google is valuable to them, not other way around. Another Jobs lie.
Why not partner with Google, if you want to provide iPhone owner's with the best possible experience (or the best selling experience) at the time? Perhaps it was a way to convince Google to pay Apple even more for the privilege of being on the iPhone.
Any evidence for this or is it just your feeling based on fact YOU hate YouTube and GMail ?
If you were alive in 2007, you could have read many a criticism about the iPhone being a toy, with the presence of YouTube being a major reason. All of Google's services, including gmail, are frequently criticized over their privacy concerns.
Lets pretend you are correct - please explain why on earth Apple invited Schmidt to their BOD ?
Maybe he expected Schmidt, and in turn Google, to be rational and respectful of Apple's IP. Who knows if this has anything to do with it, but I'm sure you've heard the saying, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
The timing is clear : they needed Google's apps for iPhone and they were well aware that Google is sort of competitor in mobile business then. Rubin used to work for Apple - they knew he was with Google for years.
Would that make it okay for Google to infringe?
You still believe Jobs lies and ignore the facts ?
I didn't say that. I believe we can all be viewed as a mass of contradictions, though. And I'd say Apple/Jobs has been very forthright about its mobile IP.
Oh, and I believe Google has infringed on some of Apple's patents. You seem to be doing everything you can to distract from the real crux of the situation.
Um...so because you have the power to walk away, that means both parties have the same negotiating power and the contracts are fair? So you are saying contracts are only unfair when someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to sign it? You can't think of any other scenarios?
Are you telling me that you are forced to accept the terms of a mobile contract? No you are not, the mobile companies present their contract covering services, pricing, and conditions, from this you have the choice of accepting it, or refusing it, you are not forced into either of those two decision. If you accept it and they can't live up to their end of the contract then demand to be taken out of the contract without, without cost. If you don't have consumer laws to back this up, I am really sorry for you.
Wireless providers and consumers are obviously not equals in the contract. Wireless providers do not operate in a perfectly competitive market and each have considerable market power, and it is very easy for them to tacitly collude (not necessarily illegally, just tacitly) due to how few of them there are. Thus it is easy for them to all offer very similar terms giving consumers little to no alternative options to choose from. When there are so many individuals on one side and so few firms on the other, it is very easy for the side with the few to have an advantage over the side with many.
Maybe you should be taking your concerns to your local consumer rights group, all mobile companies have contracts, and as I have said, none of them are forcing you to sign it. But if you do, as I have said, you have consumer rights (well you should do anyway),
Wozniak 70's - Jobs and Wozniak had a deal where they would split proceeds 50/50 on stuff they sold to Atari. Jobs told Woz they made $600. In Nolan Bushnell's book, "Silicon Valley Guys" it was revealed Jobs was actually paid $3k-$5k.
http://www.woz.org/letters/pirates/30.html
At age 23, and already wealthy, Jobs fathered a child and for 2 years, while the mother was on welfare, he kept denying he was the father. He even went as far as signing a court documents stating he was "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...une/index2.htm
How about Microsoft, HP and Motorola who deeply regret ever partnering with the Apple.
Apple even tried to license its OS at one time and then literally put their licensees out of business by breaking their promise to support them because it was not convenient.
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blo...rned/?cs=16537
Jobs' personal abuses are also legend: He parks his Mercedes in handicapped spaces, periodically reduces subordinates to tears, and fires employees in angry tantrums.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...tune/index.htm
Stanford management science professor Robert Sutton discussed Jobs in his bestselling 2007 book, "The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't." "As soon as people heard I was writing a book on assholes, they would come up to me and start telling a Steve Jobs story,"
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...tune/index.htm