Someone should ask the forum moderator to move this thread to PCworld.com because only the anti-Apple folks lurk on this topic. They love when Apple loses at anything.
... So everyone has to worship apple even if they do something negative to the industry even when they are getting out of hand with the legal battle. Some people are thinking and even speaking their opinions.
... So everyone has to worship apple even if they do something negative to the industry even when they are getting out of hand with the legal battle. Some people are thinking and even speaking their opinions.
You don't have to worship anyone. You have a right to your opinions. IMO, Apple has not done anything negative to the industry; the reverse is more true. They are being sued much more than they sue. My point is that the anti-Apple crowd, like yourself, would enjoy the company of their own kind over at PC World. Unless you just enjoy sticking your crap in our face here
In 2010 apple invented the tablet. For over a decade people have been copying their design.
That's untrue. The Tablets were presented by Steve Balmar a few months before the iPad was. To my account that makes these tablets as the primers. But then of course, you may live in a time warp distortion field.
So what is it? Barred or not. I just woke up but the second and third paragraph seem contradictory.
Not only that. First they write that the The Netherlands was excluded from the bar, now AI writes that the bar is lifted from Europe, except for The Netherlands. So what is it? Not that I want 1 mind you.
By AppleInsider Staff
Published: 12:25 PM EST
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The decision means that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been barred from sale and marketing across all of Europe, except for the Netherlands.
That's untrue. The Tablets were presented by Steve Balmar a few months before the iPad was. To my account that makes these tablets as the primers. But then of course, you may live in a time warp distortion field.
I think you missed that joke...if they invented the tablet a year ago the design could've have been copied for a decade...
At least some of this is urban myth. At least some of it is nonsense.
Mouse/GUI was a business deal (look it up). Then, the GUI & mouse @ PARC was quite something else than what Apple in the end invented. OS X comes from NeXTSTEP, technically it was bought (Apple bought NeXT). NeXTSTEP itself was developed by NeXT.
Big claims require decent proof. Otherwise, it is just noise.
At least some of this is urban myth. At least some of it is nonsense.
Mouse/GUI was a business deal (look it up). Then, the GUI & mouse @ PARC was quite something else than what Apple in the end invented. OS X comes from NeXTSTEP, technically it was bought (Apple bought NeXT). NeXTSTEP itself was developed by NeXT.
Big claims require decent proof. Otherwise, it is just noise.
Apple stole the IDEA and FORMAT of the Mouse / GUI / ...
Denying this makes you the fool of the village.
On what technology is NextStep based? Starts with U and rhymes with Nix.
Numbers. Mmmm Isn't the idea/format based on Visicalc/1-2-3/Multiplan/Excel? Stolen
Keynote. Looks like Harvard Graphics, PPT, ... were the forerunners too. Stolen
Pages. A wordprocessor, well, they got theirs in the Apple II ages. That's invented.
Apple stole the IDEA and FORMAT of the Mouse / GUI / ...
Denying this makes you the fool of the village.
It was a business deal. Nothing was stolen. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share. It was even a deal that was initiated by the VC part of Xerox if I remember correctly. The mouse/GUI Apple created (with the help of the Xerox engineer they hired) differed hugely from what they saw (which was if I recall correctly not at all that practical).
Quote:
On what technology is NextStep based? Starts with U and rhymes with Nix.
Nothing was stolen. Apple licensed Mach and BSD (may even have been free at the time). They hired Avie Tevanian who had worked on Mach at CMU (I think Microsoft tried to hire him as well). Nothing was stolen.
If you want to use a big word like `stolen' you must provide decent proof of actually stealing anything.
Btw, Unix does not rhyme with nix even if it ends with those letters. Without the u (which has the stress) there is no rhyme. Unix doesn't rhyme with 'pics' either, for instance.
Do you like to make an even larger spectacle of your stupidity? I guess you will (because you'll probably reply \)
Do you like to make an even larger spectacle of your stupidity? I guess you will (because you'll probably reply \)
Don't hold back now.
I can understand that some believe Apple is stretching things by getting the Galaxy Tab barred, but why can't Samsung and the others take a page from Microsoft on touch UI design and differentiate themselves as much from the competition, esp. the market leader? Do they want to trick the customer into thinking "it looks like the iphone/ipad, so it must be as good"? Can't they explore other ways of doing things, or can we all conclude that Apple has done it the only way it will ever work well?
In 2010 apple invented the tablet. For over a decade people have been copying their design.
Actually God invented the tablet, and even wrote on them with his finger, no less .... problem was, they were so heavy, being made of stone and all, the shipping costs were horrendous .... hence their failure to become widespread until Apple solved the problem.
It was a business deal. Nothing was stolen. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share. It was even a deal that was initiated by the VC part of Xerox if I remember correctly. The mouse/GUI Apple created (with the help of the Xerox engineer they hired) differed hugely from what they saw (which was if I recall correctly not at all that practical).
Nothing was stolen. Apple licensed Mach and BSD (may even have been free at the time). They hired Avie Tevanian who had worked on Mach at CMU (I think Microsoft tried to hire him as well). Nothing was stolen.
If you want to use a big word like `stolen' you must provide decent proof of actually stealing anything.
Btw, Unix does not rhyme with nix even if it ends with those letters. Without the u (which has the stress) there is no rhyme. Unix doesn't rhyme with 'pics' either, for instance.
Do you like to make an even larger spectacle of your stupidity? I guess you will (because you'll probably reply \)
Well, you definitely show how to be a clown.
You've just demonstrated how Apple copied, copied and copied again.
You've just demonstrated how Apple copied, copied and copied again
So you admit now that they did not steal? Because you have dropped the concept `stealing' here as well as in the comment section for the story "Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola" where you repeat a toned-down version of your original claims.
(I stand corrected, you must have some properly working neurons after all! )
Now you claim Apple `copied'. I would be curious to hear your definition of 'copy'. Must be broad enough for some comical 'equalities'.
So you admit now that they did not steal? Because you have dropped the concept `stealing' here as well as in the comment section for the story "Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola" where you repeat a toned-down version of your original claims.
(I stand corrected, you must have some properly working neurons after all! )
Now you claim Apple `copied'. I would be curious to hear your definition of 'copy'. Must be broad enough for some comical 'equalities'.
Well, I've been told over and over again on this website that copying was stealing, no?
Well, I've been told over and over again on this website that copying was stealing, no?
Never mind what others say, you agree with that?
You know of course that when you use something under license it is not 'stealing'. If you use words like 'stealing' you need to show that it was not legally used. Apple bought NeXT and NeXT licensed Mach/BSD Unix. Xerox sold a look at their work and Apple used that bought information in a legal way. There was even a court case later that Xerox lost if I recall correctly.
You changed 'stole' to 'copy' only now to say that copying equals stealing. So, you're back to saying Apple 'stole'. You need to provide proof. "Legal use of" is not proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plato (sort of), quoting Protagoras
I cannot simply agree, Socrates, to the proposition that a copy is stealing and that a theft is copying, for there appears to me to be a difference between them.
[...]
I admit that copying bears a resemblance to stealing, for there is always some point of view in which everything is like every other thing; white is in a certain way like black, and hard is like soft, and the most extreme opposites have some qualities in common; even the parts of the face which, as we were saying before, are distinct and have different functions, are still in a certain point of view similar, and one of them is like another of them. And you may prove that they are like one another on the same principle that all things are like one another; and yet things which are like in some particular ought not to be called alike, nor things which are unlike in some particular, however slight, unlike.
Here's an interesting image. Very similar to what one can put together for the pre and post iPhone smartphone market.
Everyone is free to make their little "Apple never innovates LOL looks there were computers before the Mac" but anyone who isn't blinded by pointless hatred can see that Apple has completely changed the phone and tablet markets.
Comments
that's not the point
The point is that Apple copied the rectangular form factor
In 2010 apple invented the tablet. For over a decade people have been copying their design.
Someone should ask the forum moderator to move this thread to PCworld.com because only the anti-Apple folks lurk on this topic. They love when Apple loses at anything.
... So everyone has to worship apple even if they do something negative to the industry even when they are getting out of hand with the legal battle. Some people are thinking and even speaking their opinions.
... So everyone has to worship apple even if they do something negative to the industry even when they are getting out of hand with the legal battle. Some people are thinking and even speaking their opinions.
You don't have to worship anyone. You have a right to your opinions. IMO, Apple has not done anything negative to the industry; the reverse is more true. They are being sued much more than they sue. My point is that the anti-Apple crowd, like yourself, would enjoy the company of their own kind over at PC World. Unless you just enjoy sticking your crap in our face here
In 2010 apple invented the tablet. For over a decade people have been copying their design.
That's untrue. The Tablets were presented by Steve Balmar a few months before the iPad was. To my account that makes these tablets as the primers. But then of course, you may live in a time warp distortion field.
So what is it? Barred or not. I just woke up but the second and third paragraph seem contradictory.
Not only that. First they write that the The Netherlands was excluded from the bar, now AI writes that the bar is lifted from Europe, except for The Netherlands. So what is it? Not that I want 1 mind you.
By AppleInsider Staff
Published: 12:25 PM EST
The decision means that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been barred from sale and marketing across all of Europe, except for the Netherlands.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
That's untrue. The Tablets were presented by Steve Balmar a few months before the iPad was. To my account that makes these tablets as the primers. But then of course, you may live in a time warp distortion field.
I think you missed that joke...if they invented the tablet a year ago the design could've have been copied for a decade...
LOL @ life...levity is your king.
Somebody keeps leaving that damn door open...
I agree! My ignore list just seems to keep growing. 2 already from this small thread.
Stuff that Apple stole / bought
- the mouse (stole)
- the GUI (stole)
- touch (stole)
- multitouch (bought)
- iTunes (bought)
- iPad (bought)
- laptop (stole)
- OS X (most parts stolen)
- antenna (stole)
- ...
At least some of this is urban myth. At least some of it is nonsense.
Mouse/GUI was a business deal (look it up). Then, the GUI & mouse @ PARC was quite something else than what Apple in the end invented. OS X comes from NeXTSTEP, technically it was bought (Apple bought NeXT). NeXTSTEP itself was developed by NeXT.
Big claims require decent proof. Otherwise, it is just noise.
At least some of this is urban myth. At least some of it is nonsense.
Mouse/GUI was a business deal (look it up). Then, the GUI & mouse @ PARC was quite something else than what Apple in the end invented. OS X comes from NeXTSTEP, technically it was bought (Apple bought NeXT). NeXTSTEP itself was developed by NeXT.
Big claims require decent proof. Otherwise, it is just noise.
Apple stole the IDEA and FORMAT of the Mouse / GUI / ...
Denying this makes you the fool of the village.
On what technology is NextStep based? Starts with U and rhymes with Nix.
Numbers. Mmmm Isn't the idea/format based on Visicalc/1-2-3/Multiplan/Excel? Stolen
Keynote. Looks like Harvard Graphics, PPT, ... were the forerunners too. Stolen
Pages. A wordprocessor, well, they got theirs in the Apple II ages. That's invented.
Apple stole the IDEA and FORMAT of the Mouse / GUI / ...
Denying this makes you the fool of the village.
It was a business deal. Nothing was stolen. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share. It was even a deal that was initiated by the VC part of Xerox if I remember correctly. The mouse/GUI Apple created (with the help of the Xerox engineer they hired) differed hugely from what they saw (which was if I recall correctly not at all that practical).
On what technology is NextStep based? Starts with U and rhymes with Nix.
Nothing was stolen. Apple licensed Mach and BSD (may even have been free at the time). They hired Avie Tevanian who had worked on Mach at CMU (I think Microsoft tried to hire him as well). Nothing was stolen.
If you want to use a big word like `stolen' you must provide decent proof of actually stealing anything.
Btw, Unix does not rhyme with nix even if it ends with those letters. Without the u (which has the stress) there is no rhyme. Unix doesn't rhyme with 'pics' either, for instance.
Do you like to make an even larger spectacle of your stupidity? I guess you will (because you'll probably reply
Do you like to make an even larger spectacle of your stupidity? I guess you will (because you'll probably reply
Don't hold back now.
I can understand that some believe Apple is stretching things by getting the Galaxy Tab barred, but why can't Samsung and the others take a page from Microsoft on touch UI design and differentiate themselves as much from the competition, esp. the market leader? Do they want to trick the customer into thinking "it looks like the iphone/ipad, so it must be as good"? Can't they explore other ways of doing things, or can we all conclude that Apple has done it the only way it will ever work well?
In 2010 apple invented the tablet. For over a decade people have been copying their design.
Actually God invented the tablet, and even wrote on them with his finger, no less .... problem was, they were so heavy, being made of stone and all, the shipping costs were horrendous .... hence their failure to become widespread until Apple solved the problem.
It was a business deal. Nothing was stolen. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share. It was even a deal that was initiated by the VC part of Xerox if I remember correctly. The mouse/GUI Apple created (with the help of the Xerox engineer they hired) differed hugely from what they saw (which was if I recall correctly not at all that practical).
Nothing was stolen. Apple licensed Mach and BSD (may even have been free at the time). They hired Avie Tevanian who had worked on Mach at CMU (I think Microsoft tried to hire him as well). Nothing was stolen.
If you want to use a big word like `stolen' you must provide decent proof of actually stealing anything.
Btw, Unix does not rhyme with nix even if it ends with those letters. Without the u (which has the stress) there is no rhyme. Unix doesn't rhyme with 'pics' either, for instance.
Do you like to make an even larger spectacle of your stupidity? I guess you will (because you'll probably reply
Well, you definitely show how to be a clown.
You've just demonstrated how Apple copied, copied and copied again.
There's nothing quite original, is there?
There's nothing quite original, is there?
Not you, for sure .... there were lots of trolls here long before you started to copy their "style".
You've just demonstrated how Apple copied, copied and copied again
So you admit now that they did not steal? Because you have dropped the concept `stealing' here as well as in the comment section for the story "Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola" where you repeat a toned-down version of your original claims.
(I stand corrected, you must have some properly working neurons after all!
Now you claim Apple `copied'. I would be curious to hear your definition of 'copy'. Must be broad enough for some comical 'equalities'.
So you admit now that they did not steal? Because you have dropped the concept `stealing' here as well as in the comment section for the story "Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola" where you repeat a toned-down version of your original claims.
(I stand corrected, you must have some properly working neurons after all!
Now you claim Apple `copied'. I would be curious to hear your definition of 'copy'. Must be broad enough for some comical 'equalities'.
Well, I've been told over and over again on this website that copying was stealing, no?
Ah no, that only concerns Google.
It is I who stand corrected.
Well, I've been told over and over again on this website that copying was stealing, no?
Never mind what others say, you agree with that?
You know of course that when you use something under license it is not 'stealing'. If you use words like 'stealing' you need to show that it was not legally used. Apple bought NeXT and NeXT licensed Mach/BSD Unix. Xerox sold a look at their work and Apple used that bought information in a legal way. There was even a court case later that Xerox lost if I recall correctly.
You changed 'stole' to 'copy' only now to say that copying equals stealing. So, you're back to saying Apple 'stole'. You need to provide proof. "Legal use of" is not proof.
I cannot simply agree, Socrates, to the proposition that a copy is stealing and that a theft is copying, for there appears to me to be a difference between them.
[...]
I admit that copying bears a resemblance to stealing, for there is always some point of view in which everything is like every other thing; white is in a certain way like black, and hard is like soft, and the most extreme opposites have some qualities in common; even the parts of the face which, as we were saying before, are distinct and have different functions, are still in a certain point of view similar, and one of them is like another of them. And you may prove that they are like one another on the same principle that all things are like one another; and yet things which are like in some particular ought not to be called alike, nor things which are unlike in some particular, however slight, unlike.
Everyone is free to make their little "Apple never innovates LOL looks there were computers before the Mac" but anyone who isn't blinded by pointless hatred can see that Apple has completely changed the phone and tablet markets.