Funny thing is, Asher Moses - the writer of this article - has been on the anti-Apple brigade ever since he began writing for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. I got into the habit of seeing his name and not even bothering to click to read his stories.
Quote:
It's a flagship consumer electronics store on Sydney's George Street with smiling blue shirt-wearing sales staff, a minimalist design and smartphones and tablets that invite customers to pick up and play.
But according to Samsung, the new store - just a block from Apple's Sydney store - was all its own idea.
Everything from the store layout to the sales staff to the products and even the packaging and promotional material is uncannily Apple-esque.
Funny thing is, Asher Moses - the writer of this article - has been on the anti-Apple brigade ever since he began writing for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. I got into the habit of seeing his name and not even bothering to click to read his stories.
Might root and brick my Galaxy Nexus and go in to demand a new one.
I find THAT to be an inspirational feature, actually. An entire generation growing up alongside an OS they can understand and to which they can connect won't be going off and buying a PC.
This thread is dead, but I have to concur with this. My 2 year old loves using the iPad and finds his way around it very well. The apps you get for kids are amazing, so it really is like a primary entertainment-cum-education device. I really don't see him opting for a traditional PC unless his school needs it. Maybe 10 years down the line Indian schools will allow iPads as viable alternatives to PCs.
So if they win, they get 2.5 bil.? That's it? They don't get to ban the devices that copied them, they just go on selling and doing more damage.
Neither part is necessarily correct. Apple said they want $2.5B. Highly unlikely anywhere near that amount will be awarded even if Samsung ruled against on every Apple claim. Second, banning devices is exactly what Apple is asking for too, in addition to the money.
I am going to be totally honest here. I do want Samsung to win this case. Not because I am an Android fan, I don't own any android devices, and not because I don't like Apple products. I own a Mac Mini and 2 ipods.
But I want Apple to lose because for some reason of late I just really dislike Apple. I know it is not rational to dislike a company but I just cannot seem to help it. Yes they make good products and do great marketing but the company just comes across as totally arrogant.
I am going to be totally honest here. I do want Samsung to win this case. Not because I am an Android fan, I don't own any android devices, and not because I don't like Apple products. I own a Mac Mini and 2 ipods.
But I want Apple to lose because for some reason of late I just really dislike Apple. I know it is not rational to dislike a company but I just cannot seem to help it. Yes they make good products and do great marketing but the company just comes across as totally arrogant.
Ooh! Legally protecting one's intellectual property! How "arrogant"!
1. You're frigging joking, right? They only did it as a DIRECT RESPONSE to Apple doing it. Testing has shown that Apple's maps are higher resolution and clearer than Google's. And Apple's aren't even out of beta yet.
You are truly off your rocker.
You show you have no idea what you are talking about on a regular basis.
You show you have no idea what you are talking about on a regular basis.
I'd link you to the stories and the proof, but you'd ignore them. They're on this site in the archives, if you wish to peruse. Or if you don't trust any site with the word "Apple" in the title, the same stories are reported elsewhere. I'm not going to waste any more of my time reproving you wrong.
Ooh! Legally protecting one's intellectual property! How "arrogant"!
Hate without purpose is just stupidity.
He said that he hates Apple "for some reason". A reason exists, it is just inexplicable. Now, I don't see how hate can have a purpose but that is probably me thinking on a metaphysical level.
As for the comment about protecting intellectual property, the counter that it is legal can be countered with the question of if it should be.
I'd link you to the stories and the proof, but you'd ignore them. They're on this site in the archives, if you wish to peruse. Or if you don't trust any site with the word "Apple" in the title, the same stories are reported elsewhere. I'm not going to waste any more of my time reproving you wrong.
Are you talking about satellite photos or simple routes? Google uses vector images for roads so resolution isn't really applicable there. I also don't see why this matters. Obviously, it does to the consumer, but I don't see how this can really help or hurt an argument about which company is better. Neither Google or Apple owns a satellite.
It's an epic collision of cultures. Stewart Brand and 60's idealism overlaid on rough and tumble American capitalism, where even the mighty can be humiliated vs the corrupt (from a western pov) Korean chaebols with their government enforced monopolies, unapologetic mercantilism and a self-deprecating work ethic that values uniformity.
Maybe you kids see it different, but a baby boomer like me is rooting hard for Apple. After so many years of watching the borg-like Asian tech industry exploit the hubris of American industry, I so want Apple to kick Samsung's ass.
Ooh! Legally protecting one's intellectual property! How "arrogant"!
Hate without purpose is just stupidity.
I did not say I disliked Apple because of this case. I have built up a dislike due to many actions.
I would agree with the legally protecting intellectual property but with some of these patents they just go too far but that is another issue.
Where did I say I HATE Apple?
However, I will concede as I did in my original post that even dislike is illogical. But I would hazard a guess that you or others in this forums dislike Google and Microsoft.
Wait, we're calling into question the legality of being able to protect something you create? So you want NO patents, trademarks, or copyrights, then.
No I think what people generally want are patents for things that logically should be protected. eg If you spend years and money researching a new form of battery that gives x times the power, quite rightly you should get payment from anyone else who wishes to use it. But we should not allow patents on minute details eg Slide to unlock (I am not going to argue if Apple did or did not invent or about prior art) but providing you do not copy the exact look of how one company does something you should be in the clear ie Apple has and icon that you slide across, on WP7 you just slide the screen upwards. I would even argue whether we should even allow patents on minute code segments at all.
In the past code evolved by people improving on old algorithms. If we take say a sort routine we started with simple bubble sort that did the job but when data sizes increased became very slow so people built upon previous idea and the code evolved see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm If each person in the chain patented each bit it would have took far longer to get to the optimal solution.
If companies patented thing back then like they do now I imagine the Patent would be something like "Ability to sort data blah blah blah". This would prevent anyone building any type of sort routine at all.
No I think what people generally want are patents for things that logically should be protected. eg If you spend years and money researching a new form of battery that gives x times the power, quite rightly you should get payment from anyone else who wishes to use it. But we should not allow patents on minute details eg Slide to unlock (I am not going to argue if Apple did or did not invent or about prior art) but providing you do not copy the exact look of how one company does something you should be in the clear ie Apple has and icon that you slide across, on WP7 you just slide the screen upwards. I would even argue whether we should even allow patents on minute code segments at all.
In the past code evolved by people improving on old algorithms. If we take say a sort routine we started with simple bubble sort that did the job but when data sizes increased became very slow so people built upon previous idea and the code evolved see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm If each person in the chain patented each bit it would have took far longer to get to the optimal solution.
If companies patented thing back then like they do now I imagine the Patent would be something like "Ability to sort data blah blah blah". This would prevent anyone building any type of sort routine at all.
I agree!!!
To all ardent Apple defender's here:
Don’t think that rooting for a Samsung win is because I/we are Apple bashers or because I/we are Sammy lovers. Both companies have some great products (I bought and own various Apple and Samsung products). Apple excels in some areas and sucks at others and the same for Samsung. I’m rooting for a Sam win because:
IMHO some of the patents make no sense and shouldn’t have been awarded. I think the whole patents attribution process should/must be revised;
I don’t agree with some of the instances in which the term “copied” has been applied ;
IMHO both companies have grown using technology developed by themselves but also, developed by others;
IMHO this whole trial has one objective: Apple striking a blow at their largest competitor;
IMHO, I agree that Apple has become too cocky in the past years , if they win they will become even more;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and put a strong hold on product development and evolution – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and stifle the competitive process – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;
IMHO an Apple win will amplify the idea that “they are too big to mess with” which I truly don’t like;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent that will lead to a succession of lawsuits of this nature in many areas (not only in consumer electronics!)
Then there is another point, I'm not an accountant nor am I financial analyst but 2,5 BILLION in damages, really?!
Don’t think that rooting for a Samsung win is because I/we are Apple bashers or because I/we are Sammy lovers. Both companies have some great products (I bought and own various Apple and Samsung products). Apple excels in some areas and sucks at others and the same for Samsung. I’m rooting for a Sam win because:
IMHO some of the patents make no sense and shouldn’t have been awarded. I think the whole patents attribution process should/must be revised;
I don’t agree with some of the instances in which the term “copied” has been applied ;
IMHO both companies have grown using technology developed by themselves but also, developed by others;
IMHO this whole trial has one objective: Apple striking a blow at their largest competitor;
IMHO, I agree that Apple has become too cocky in the past years , if they win they will become even more;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and put a strong hold on product development and evolution – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and stifle the competitive process – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;
IMHO an Apple win will amplify the idea that “they are too big to mess with” which I truly don’t like;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent that will lead to a succession of lawsuits of this nature in many areas (not only in consumer electronics!)
Then there is another point, I'm not an accountant nor am I financial analyst but 2,5 BILLION in damages, really?!
It excellent to hear someone making perfect sense. This mirrors my thoughts exactly. Already we are at a stage where small players cannot enter the market for fear of infringing on someones IP and these small companies just cannot afford this type of litigation. It is almost impossible to produce something new that some small of does not infringe because these patents are sometimes so broad.
Comments
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/store-wars-samsung-apple-gadgets-at-10-paces-20120823-24njn.html
Funny thing is, Asher Moses - the writer of this article - has been on the anti-Apple brigade ever since he began writing for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. I got into the habit of seeing his name and not even bothering to click to read his stories.
Quote:
It's a flagship consumer electronics store on Sydney's George Street with smiling blue shirt-wearing sales staff, a minimalist design and smartphones and tablets that invite customers to pick up and play.
But according to Samsung, the new store - just a block from Apple's Sydney store - was all its own idea.
Everything from the store layout to the sales staff to the products and even the packaging and promotional material is uncannily Apple-esque.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/store-wars-samsung-apple-gadgets-at-10-paces-20120823-24njn.html
Funny thing is, Asher Moses - the writer of this article - has been on the anti-Apple brigade ever since he began writing for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. I got into the habit of seeing his name and not even bothering to click to read his stories.
Might root and brick my Galaxy Nexus and go in to demand a new one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I find THAT to be an inspirational feature, actually. An entire generation growing up alongside an OS they can understand and to which they can connect won't be going off and buying a PC.
This thread is dead, but I have to concur with this. My 2 year old loves using the iPad and finds his way around it very well. The apps you get for kids are amazing, so it really is like a primary entertainment-cum-education device. I really don't see him opting for a traditional PC unless his school needs it. Maybe 10 years down the line Indian schools will allow iPads as viable alternatives to PCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges
So if they win, they get 2.5 bil.? That's it? They don't get to ban the devices that copied them, they just go on selling and doing more damage.
Neither part is necessarily correct. Apple said they want $2.5B. Highly unlikely anywhere near that amount will be awarded even if Samsung ruled against on every Apple claim. Second, banning devices is exactly what Apple is asking for too, in addition to the money.
I am going to be totally honest here. I do want Samsung to win this case. Not because I am an Android fan, I don't own any android devices, and not because I don't like Apple products. I own a Mac Mini and 2 ipods.
But I want Apple to lose because for some reason of late I just really dislike Apple. I know it is not rational to dislike a company but I just cannot seem to help it. Yes they make good products and do great marketing but the company just comes across as totally arrogant.
Originally Posted by qualar
I am going to be totally honest here. I do want Samsung to win this case. Not because I am an Android fan, I don't own any android devices, and not because I don't like Apple products. I own a Mac Mini and 2 ipods.
But I want Apple to lose because for some reason of late I just really dislike Apple. I know it is not rational to dislike a company but I just cannot seem to help it. Yes they make good products and do great marketing but the company just comes across as totally arrogant.
Ooh! Legally protecting one's intellectual property! How "arrogant"!
Hate without purpose is just stupidity.
I agree!! It right up there with blind, unconditional love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Numbered list time!
1. You're frigging joking, right? They only did it as a DIRECT RESPONSE to Apple doing it. Testing has shown that Apple's maps are higher resolution and clearer than Google's. And Apple's aren't even out of beta yet.
You are truly off your rocker.
You show you have no idea what you are talking about on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by OhReally
You are truly off your rocker.
You show you have no idea what you are talking about on a regular basis.
I'd link you to the stories and the proof, but you'd ignore them. They're on this site in the archives, if you wish to peruse. Or if you don't trust any site with the word "Apple" in the title, the same stories are reported elsewhere. I'm not going to waste any more of my time reproving you wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ooh! Legally protecting one's intellectual property! How "arrogant"!
Hate without purpose is just stupidity.
He said that he hates Apple "for some reason". A reason exists, it is just inexplicable. Now, I don't see how hate can have a purpose but that is probably me thinking on a metaphysical level.
As for the comment about protecting intellectual property, the counter that it is legal can be countered with the question of if it should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'd link you to the stories and the proof, but you'd ignore them. They're on this site in the archives, if you wish to peruse. Or if you don't trust any site with the word "Apple" in the title, the same stories are reported elsewhere. I'm not going to waste any more of my time reproving you wrong.
Are you talking about satellite photos or simple routes? Google uses vector images for roads so resolution isn't really applicable there. I also don't see why this matters. Obviously, it does to the consumer, but I don't see how this can really help or hurt an argument about which company is better. Neither Google or Apple owns a satellite.
Originally Posted by Samson Corwell
As for the comment about protecting intellectual property, the counter that it is legal can be countered with the question of if it should be.
Wait, we're calling into question the legality of being able to protect something you create? So you want NO patents, trademarks, or copyrights, then.
Maybe you kids see it different, but a baby boomer like me is rooting hard for Apple. After so many years of watching the borg-like Asian tech industry exploit the hubris of American industry, I so want Apple to kick Samsung's ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ooh! Legally protecting one's intellectual property! How "arrogant"!
Hate without purpose is just stupidity.
I did not say I disliked Apple because of this case. I have built up a dislike due to many actions.
I would agree with the legally protecting intellectual property but with some of these patents they just go too far but that is another issue.
Where did I say I HATE Apple?
However, I will concede as I did in my original post that even dislike is illogical. But I would hazard a guess that you or others in this forums dislike Google and Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Wait, we're calling into question the legality of being able to protect something you create? So you want NO patents, trademarks, or copyrights, then.
No I think what people generally want are patents for things that logically should be protected. eg If you spend years and money researching a new form of battery that gives x times the power, quite rightly you should get payment from anyone else who wishes to use it. But we should not allow patents on minute details eg Slide to unlock (I am not going to argue if Apple did or did not invent or about prior art) but providing you do not copy the exact look of how one company does something you should be in the clear ie Apple has and icon that you slide across, on WP7 you just slide the screen upwards. I would even argue whether we should even allow patents on minute code segments at all.
In the past code evolved by people improving on old algorithms. If we take say a sort routine we started with simple bubble sort that did the job but when data sizes increased became very slow so people built upon previous idea and the code evolved see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm If each person in the chain patented each bit it would have took far longer to get to the optimal solution.
If companies patented thing back then like they do now I imagine the Patent would be something like "Ability to sort data blah blah blah". This would prevent anyone building any type of sort routine at all.
Quote:
As for the comment about protecting intellectual property, the counter that it is legal can be countered with the question of if it should be.
Great comment!!!
Quote:
As for the comment about protecting intellectual property, the counter that it is legal can be countered with the question of if it should be.
Great comment!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by qualar
No I think what people generally want are patents for things that logically should be protected. eg If you spend years and money researching a new form of battery that gives x times the power, quite rightly you should get payment from anyone else who wishes to use it. But we should not allow patents on minute details eg Slide to unlock (I am not going to argue if Apple did or did not invent or about prior art) but providing you do not copy the exact look of how one company does something you should be in the clear ie Apple has and icon that you slide across, on WP7 you just slide the screen upwards. I would even argue whether we should even allow patents on minute code segments at all.
In the past code evolved by people improving on old algorithms. If we take say a sort routine we started with simple bubble sort that did the job but when data sizes increased became very slow so people built upon previous idea and the code evolved see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm If each person in the chain patented each bit it would have took far longer to get to the optimal solution.
If companies patented thing back then like they do now I imagine the Patent would be something like "Ability to sort data blah blah blah". This would prevent anyone building any type of sort routine at all.
I agree!!!
To all ardent Apple defender's here:
Don’t think that rooting for a Samsung win is because I/we are Apple bashers or because I/we are Sammy lovers. Both companies have some great products (I bought and own various Apple and Samsung products). Apple excels in some areas and sucks at others and the same for Samsung. I’m rooting for a Sam win because:
IMHO some of the patents make no sense and shouldn’t have been awarded. I think the whole patents attribution process should/must be revised;
I don’t agree with some of the instances in which the term “copied” has been applied ;
IMHO both companies have grown using technology developed by themselves but also, developed by others;
IMHO this whole trial has one objective: Apple striking a blow at their largest competitor;
IMHO, I agree that Apple has become too cocky in the past years , if they win they will become even more;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and put a strong hold on product development and evolution – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and stifle the competitive process – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;
IMHO an Apple win will amplify the idea that “they are too big to mess with” which I truly don’t like;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent that will lead to a succession of lawsuits of this nature in many areas (not only in consumer electronics!)
Then there is another point, I'm not an accountant nor am I financial analyst but 2,5 BILLION in damages, really?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gogo2000
I agree!!!
To all ardent Apple defender's here:
Don’t think that rooting for a Samsung win is because I/we are Apple bashers or because I/we are Sammy lovers. Both companies have some great products (I bought and own various Apple and Samsung products). Apple excels in some areas and sucks at others and the same for Samsung. I’m rooting for a Sam win because:
IMHO some of the patents make no sense and shouldn’t have been awarded. I think the whole patents attribution process should/must be revised;
I don’t agree with some of the instances in which the term “copied” has been applied ;
IMHO both companies have grown using technology developed by themselves but also, developed by others;
IMHO this whole trial has one objective: Apple striking a blow at their largest competitor;
IMHO, I agree that Apple has become too cocky in the past years , if they win they will become even more;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and put a strong hold on product development and evolution – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and stifle the competitive process – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;
IMHO an Apple win will amplify the idea that “they are too big to mess with” which I truly don’t like;
IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent that will lead to a succession of lawsuits of this nature in many areas (not only in consumer electronics!)
Then there is another point, I'm not an accountant nor am I financial analyst but 2,5 BILLION in damages, really?!
It excellent to hear someone making perfect sense. This mirrors my thoughts exactly. Already we are at a stage where small players cannot enter the market for fear of infringing on someones IP and these small companies just cannot afford this type of litigation. It is almost impossible to produce something new that some small of does not infringe because these patents are sometimes so broad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhReally
You are truly off your rocker.
You show you have no idea what you are talking about on a regular basis.
The year 2005, check the specs, 3D Maps:-
http://www.gsmarena.com/gigabyte_gsmart_2005-1760.php
Then there was Nokia in 2009:-
http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_n97_embraces_kinetic_scrolling_with_firmware_200-news-1212.php
of course Nokia owns NavTeq who released their Navigon App for iOS in 2010, complete with 3D maps
http://www.gsmarena.com/navigon_release_their_mobile_navigator_app_for_the_iphone-news-985.php
Google couldn't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag.