You did! You said it shouldn't have been released as a Beta while saying it needs to be better. Since you completely ignored the complexity of the service and that a dozen guys coding Siri in Cupertino can't possibly work the testing in a lab environment you foolishly overlooked how it needs to learn in your pooh-poohing of the service.
Note that once Siri is out of Beta it still won't be complete. It will never be complete! Language evolves too quickly for that to ever happen.
When you run a business you can chose how it operates… or do you want to state again how you are against a free market system?
I know the Apple stocks are down so you may have a vested interest.
I think I am allowed to criticise when I feel it's warranted.
By one of the comments aimed at me: "if you don't like AI" you can leave.
Gads I get this bullshit all the time. You don't like something about Australia you can leave etc.
What moronic childish statements, so no one is allowed to criticise?
Grow up people.
Especially since infringement only requires proof for one claim per patent. As Judge Koh pointed out to the lawyers for both sides, they should know by now which of their claims are most likely to be upheld... and should concentrate on those... instead of wasting anyone's time on "filler material" as she put it.
That might be mixing up cases, since Koh sided with Apple at first on this one.
2012 Jun - Judge Koh GRANTS Apple a pretrial injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, based on her opinion that Apple would probably be able to prove infringement on at least the search patent.
2012 Oct - Three judge appeals panel says Apple's search claim poorly worded, remands case back to Koh, forcing her to remove the injunction.
2012 Dec - Apple asks for an en banc(all judge) review of the appeals decision.
2013 Jan - Appeals court denies Apple's request.
Samsung modified their search box before the injunction took effect, rendering the multi-location search patent moot.
No I am not mixing cases up. What I am talking about is the Judge not awarding the injunction after Apple won the case. The preliminary injunction was merely about Apple's chances of winning at Trial. Apple did in fact win at Trial, and it should have been awarded an injunction. It also doesn't matter if Samsung wasn't selling those products anymore because had an injunction been allowed, Apple merely could have added new infringing products based on the infringed patents to be added to the list without having to try each new infringing product.
So tell me, how many products have Apple released officially as beta? To my recollection, only Siri.
So why did they do this? To get there first? To help differentiate a new product from an older one?
I'm still waiting for an answer but not getting any, just apologies for Apple.
People should be less defensive and more critical, otherwise be like an Ostrich.
He seems to want it to be finished and yet not released until finished despite it not being possible to finish unless it's released. I don't think people understand how much nuance is needed for this type of service. Understanding your phonemes is hard enough but then trying to get it to understand your meaning and then search for the answer you're looking within a huge number of cultures and subcultures is just huge. Even within the same home there can be wild differences based on age, gender, and professions.
So tell me, how many products have Apple released officially as beta? To my recollection, only Siri.
So why did they do this? To get there first? To help differentiate a new product from an older one?
I'm still waiting for an answer but not getting any, just apologies for Apple.
People should be less defensive and more critical, otherwise be like an Ostrich.
Quite a few. Safari was a public beta before it was ever part of their OS. I also seem to recall Safari 3 for Windows was also a public beta. Those are just examples of stability for the public beta and not trying to determine how the services will be used and what will be the most common requests for the service.
Then you have QuickTime and the first version of Mac OS X. Now all the Mac OS X and iOS betas require you to be in their paid developer programs but they betas. I think Xcode betas might be available to anyone who is signed up.
Then you have iWork.com that was a beta for over 3.5 years before they finally shut it down last Summer, and MobileMe Mail and Calendar betas. Finally, there is the Apple TV. They don't call it a beta but it's HW, they call it a "hobby" which sounds like they have even less confidence in it than a beta.
There are others as well as least one I think was labeled as preview, but as you can see Siri is by far not the first thing they labeled as beta.
Apple did in fact win at Trial, and it should have been awarded an injunction.
Apple would've, if they had shown the four necessary requirements for an injunction due to utility patents: 1) irreparable harm, 2) inadequacy of monetary damages, 3) balance of hardships, 4) public interest.
They couldn't do so, in part because they had offered Samsung a license rate, which blew away reason #2. That alone would be enough, but Apple had also presented surveys showing that people bought phones based on their looks, not on their functionality, which helped dismiss utility patent reason #1. There were many other reasons, as well.
Quote:
It also doesn't matter if Samsung wasn't selling those products anymore because had an injunction been allowed, Apple merely could have added new infringing products based on the infringed patents to be added to the list without having to try each new infringing product.
Some blogs have said that, but it took a trial to determine individual device infringement in the first place. Usually you need to add devices before a trial starts (like Apple is doing now).
But I'm open to the idea. Would you happen to have a reference that shows a legal precedent for adding items to an injunction later? That would be very useful. Thanks!
They couldn't do so, in part because they had offered Samsung a license rate, which blew away reason #2
So they were hurt by attempting to be fair. No good deed, as te saying goes.
Q: Do you think Samsung's ill gotten lead has caused irreparable harm to other Android-based vendors or do you thing Samsumg would have been as successful and the others as u successful had they decided not to steal IP?
So they were hurt by attempting to be fair. No good deed, as te saying goes.
Umm. Apple wanted $30 per phone and $40 per tablet. If the device was running an Apple cross-licensed OS like Windows, they gave a discount. (Yes, Apple wanted royalties from even Windows Mobile 5 phones. The reasons given were vague.) That makes Motorola's asking royalty rates look cheap in comparison.
In any case, that was just one strike against an injunction. There were others, including the fact that none of the infringing devices were still being sold (or if they were, they had switched to workarounds). Injunctions cannot be used as punishment, but only to prevent future harm from accused device sales.
I agree that getting an injunction would've been a precedent that Apple would've liked to have. (As we know, they got one for the Nexus in this later trial, but it was repealed.)
Quote:
Q: Do you think Samsung's ill gotten lead has caused irreparable harm to other Android-based vendors or do you thing Samsumg would have been as successful and the others as u successful had they decided not to steal IP?
I think Samsung's success has more to do with switching to heavily promoting a single model name, and with constantly improving their UI and display size. In other words, by moving away from looking like the iPhone and thus differentiating themselves.
I'm an example of such a customer. I didn't pay much attention to Samsung smartphones for a long time. In fact, I was a big HTC fan because of their build quality and Sense. I didn't like the original TouchWiz (parts looked like a cartoon version of iOS) and I thought Samsung smartphones were too flimsy feeling. However, I was impressed by how light and thin they were.
It wasn't until the Galaxy Nexus came out, just as I was looking for a replacement CDMA phone, that I began to think Samsung had a phone that I might desire. By then, the name "Galaxy" had been in use a while, and the reviews were constantly getting better. The fact that it had ICS on it was icing on the cake (sorry). It forced me to reevaluate my previous low opinion of Samsung smartphones.
Not to known trolls who have a large number of posts that contribute little to the discussion at hand. Or spend time very carefully crafting their posts to pretend to be neutral while spouting half-truths.
Lots of people disagree with some things I say. I only poke fun at a few specific ones.
I missed the response before. I could look back at some of his earlier posts, but several people moved to personal attacks rather quickly. I still don't agree with their use, in spite of having made a couple stupid ones myself when reading the rant posts of others just really annoyed me that day.
I could look back at some of his earlier posts, but several people moved to personal attacks rather quickly.
Welcome to the community AppleInsider's owners have chosen to create for itself.
There is only one rule here, prohibiting personal attacks. But it's selectively enforced, apparently to shape the conversation to fit the unusual editorial stance here.
This is, of course, a source of entertainment to the outside world, but here it serves its purpose of creating an unnecessarily small but unusually loyal fan base comprise of a very narrow demographic that makes certain ad sales slightly easier than a more diverse audience would support.
Comments
Originally Posted by Taniwha
You didn't find the court's decision to be disingenuous when it worked in apple's favour.
Illegal evidence ? legal evidence arbitrarily forbidden from entry.
Anything else?
I think I am allowed to criticise when I feel it's warranted.
By one of the comments aimed at me: "if you don't like AI" you can leave.
Gads I get this bullshit all the time. You don't like something about Australia you can leave etc.
What moronic childish statements, so no one is allowed to criticise?
Grow up people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Especially since infringement only requires proof for one claim per patent. As Judge Koh pointed out to the lawyers for both sides, they should know by now which of their claims are most likely to be upheld... and should concentrate on those... instead of wasting anyone's time on "filler material" as she put it.
That might be mixing up cases, since Koh sided with Apple at first on this one.
2012 Jun - Judge Koh GRANTS Apple a pretrial injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, based on her opinion that Apple would probably be able to prove infringement on at least the search patent.
2012 Oct - Three judge appeals panel says Apple's search claim poorly worded, remands case back to Koh, forcing her to remove the injunction.
2012 Dec - Apple asks for an en banc (all judge) review of the appeals decision.
2013 Jan - Appeals court denies Apple's request.
Samsung modified their search box before the injunction took effect, rendering the multi-location search patent moot.
No I am not mixing cases up. What I am talking about is the Judge not awarding the injunction after Apple won the case. The preliminary injunction was merely about Apple's chances of winning at Trial. Apple did in fact win at Trial, and it should have been awarded an injunction. It also doesn't matter if Samsung wasn't selling those products anymore because had an injunction been allowed, Apple merely could have added new infringing products based on the infringed patents to be added to the list without having to try each new infringing product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
I never painted Siri as a bad product as you assume, I think it was not ready for prime time.
Hence it being labeled to this day a beta?
So why did they do this? To get there first? To help differentiate a new product from an older one?
I'm still waiting for an answer but not getting any, just apologies for Apple.
People should be less defensive and more critical, otherwise be like an Ostrich.
He seems to want it to be finished and yet not released until finished despite it not being possible to finish unless it's released. I don't think people understand how much nuance is needed for this type of service. Understanding your phonemes is hard enough but then trying to get it to understand your meaning and then search for the answer you're looking within a huge number of cultures and subcultures is just huge. Even within the same home there can be wild differences based on age, gender, and professions.
Quite a few. Safari was a public beta before it was ever part of their OS. I also seem to recall Safari 3 for Windows was also a public beta. Those are just examples of stability for the public beta and not trying to determine how the services will be used and what will be the most common requests for the service.
Then you have QuickTime and the first version of Mac OS X. Now all the Mac OS X and iOS betas require you to be in their paid developer programs but they betas. I think Xcode betas might be available to anyone who is signed up.
Then you have iWork.com that was a beta for over 3.5 years before they finally shut it down last Summer, and MobileMe Mail and Calendar betas. Finally, there is the Apple TV. They don't call it a beta but it's HW, they call it a "hobby" which sounds like they have even less confidence in it than a beta.
There are others as well as least one I think was labeled as preview, but as you can see Siri is by far not the first thing they labeled as beta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Apple did in fact win at Trial, and it should have been awarded an injunction.
Apple would've, if they had shown the four necessary requirements for an injunction due to utility patents: 1) irreparable harm, 2) inadequacy of monetary damages, 3) balance of hardships, 4) public interest.
They couldn't do so, in part because they had offered Samsung a license rate, which blew away reason #2. That alone would be enough, but Apple had also presented surveys showing that people bought phones based on their looks, not on their functionality, which helped dismiss utility patent reason #1. There were many other reasons, as well.
Quote:
It also doesn't matter if Samsung wasn't selling those products anymore because had an injunction been allowed, Apple merely could have added new infringing products based on the infringed patents to be added to the list without having to try each new infringing product.
Some blogs have said that, but it took a trial to determine individual device infringement in the first place. Usually you need to add devices before a trial starts (like Apple is doing now).
But I'm open to the idea. Would you happen to have a reference that shows a legal precedent for adding items to an injunction later? That would be very useful. Thanks!
So they were hurt by attempting to be fair. No good deed, as te saying goes.
Q: Do you think Samsung's ill gotten lead has caused irreparable harm to other Android-based vendors or do you thing Samsumg would have been as successful and the others as u successful had they decided not to steal IP?
Was IOS Maps ever beta?
Who is kidding who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So they were hurt by attempting to be fair. No good deed, as te saying goes.
Umm. Apple wanted $30 per phone and $40 per tablet. If the device was running an Apple cross-licensed OS like Windows, they gave a discount. (Yes, Apple wanted royalties from even Windows Mobile 5 phones. The reasons given were vague.) That makes Motorola's asking royalty rates look cheap in comparison.
In any case, that was just one strike against an injunction. There were others, including the fact that none of the infringing devices were still being sold (or if they were, they had switched to workarounds). Injunctions cannot be used as punishment, but only to prevent future harm from accused device sales.
I agree that getting an injunction would've been a precedent that Apple would've liked to have. (As we know, they got one for the Nexus in this later trial, but it was repealed.)
Quote:
Q: Do you think Samsung's ill gotten lead has caused irreparable harm to other Android-based vendors or do you thing Samsumg would have been as successful and the others as u successful had they decided not to steal IP?
I think Samsung's success has more to do with switching to heavily promoting a single model name, and with constantly improving their UI and display size. In other words, by moving away from looking like the iPhone and thus differentiating themselves.
I'm an example of such a customer. I didn't pay much attention to Samsung smartphones for a long time. In fact, I was a big HTC fan because of their build quality and Sense. I didn't like the original TouchWiz (parts looked like a cartoon version of iOS) and I thought Samsung smartphones were too flimsy feeling. However, I was impressed by how light and thin they were.
It wasn't until the Galaxy Nexus came out, just as I was looking for a replacement CDMA phone, that I began to think Samsung had a phone that I might desire. By then, the name "Galaxy" had been in use a while, and the reviews were constantly getting better. The fact that it had ICS on it was icing on the cake (sorry). It forced me to reevaluate my previous low opinion of Samsung smartphones.
- Siri, go away.
Siri: I don't see 'away' in your address book.
Wrong. Mac OS X 10.0, for one. Safari. iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Not to known trolls who have a large number of posts that contribute little to the discussion at hand. Or spend time very carefully crafting their posts to pretend to be neutral while spouting half-truths.
Lots of people disagree with some things I say. I only poke fun at a few specific ones.
I missed the response before. I could look back at some of his earlier posts, but several people moved to personal attacks rather quickly. I still don't agree with their use, in spite of having made a couple stupid ones myself when reading the rant posts of others just really annoyed me that day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I could look back at some of his earlier posts, but several people moved to personal attacks rather quickly.
Welcome to the community AppleInsider's owners have chosen to create for itself.
There is only one rule here, prohibiting personal attacks. But it's selectively enforced, apparently to shape the conversation to fit the unusual editorial stance here.
This is, of course, a source of entertainment to the outside world, but here it serves its purpose of creating an unnecessarily small but unusually loyal fan base comprise of a very narrow demographic that makes certain ad sales slightly easier than a more diverse audience would support.