I think there's a clear difference of degree here. At least those programs are ASKING. The Apple Windows installer just puts Safari into the list. It's also not Mozilla that's doing that, it is a third party, we don't know if Mozilla asks them to default to install it
From reports that I've seen, you had to manually opt-out every time the Windows version of Software Update is run. It looks like that might have been fixed with the latest version of Software Update.
You can uncheck any Apple software updates in the Windows update from Apple. Not a big deal.
I suppose Apple could consider Safari 3.1 an update to Explorer, or certainly, an upgrade.
Windows Update (from MS) is automatic by default, but can be made manual, such as that from Apple, but you also have to uncheck updates.
So Apple's a little pushy, I think they deserve the right to be a little pushy considering they're the last ones to market an internet browser for windows and have to push their way into the market. And those that are complaining about Safari being on the update when you have a Quicktime/iTunes update, how often do you get a notice of a Quicktime update? Once every few months. Doesn't seem like such a big deal.
If the other companies are violating patents, and negotiations fail, then a lawsuit is in order. You don't just give away your designs for free if you want to make money.
Possibly what rankles is that he's not saying that he's going to sue now, but that if it becomes successful he'll sue. While this makes commercial sense, it sounds mean-spirited. It can sound like he'll let them play, but keep the lawsuit handy in case they encroach on "his" part of the market.
Actually, I suspect they're in negotiations and this is the sort of thing CEOs say during those negotiations. I'd be extremely surprised if Seagate didn't already have cross licensing deals with both Intel and Samsung, since all parties innovate in in the "low-level hardware cunning" space.
But no doubt in a couple of years his quote able flash drives not catching on will be quoted ad nauseam...
So Apple's a little pushy, I think they deserve the right to be a little pushy considering they're the last ones to market an internet browser for windows and have to push their way into the market. And those that are complaining about Safari being on the update when you have a Quicktime/iTunes update, how often do you get a notice of a Quicktime update? Once every few months. Doesn't seem like such a big deal.
It's Apple's fault that they took so long to realize why they might want to do it, and because they've dragged their heels for so long, that's a justification to be pushy about being last to the table?
If the DIVX developers want to shove Firefox down your throats with pushy marketing, then take it up with them. Last I checked, the Mozilla Foundation doesn't own DIVX.
Software that was actually published by Mozilla itself, ONLY gives update notifications about new versions of software that you already have installed on your machine.
Sorry, but it still reflects on Mozilla if they're going to make whiney comments like that. I would assume most devs would not push Firefox so annoyingly if Mozilla asked them not to.
Possibly what rankles is that he's not saying that he's going to sue now, but that if it becomes successful he'll sue. While this makes commercial sense, it sounds mean-spirited. It can sound like he'll let them play, but keep the lawsuit handy in case they encroach on "his" part of the market.
I can see how it can look that way, but if it's not successful, it's just not worth suing.
Actually, you're wrong. That was true for the beta, but not for the final release. PC Magazine reviewed it just the other day. Not a Mac mag by any means, but their reviews of Apple hardware and software has been pretty good over the past few years. Perfect? No, but pretty good. Later releases will be even better.
Who are YOU to comment on MY experience with Safari for Windows?
I even said in a later post that I had recently updated a couple weeks ago and that it was BETTER but still did not surpass my experience with Firefox, seeing that it still stalled, devoured some of my forum posts and, on occasion, crashed.
Aside from all this, the newfound qulaity of Safari STILL DOES NOT JUSTIFY Apple's forceful including of it with every software update, related or not. Users should (and will) choose what browser they like the best - not what is, allegedly, the best.
This notion has been proven supremely by Apple's own iPod (Classic), who coexists in a market with cheaper, more-capable, PC-syching PMPs, yet the continues to dominate the field. Just because MS offers a PMP with a bigger screen and wireless tune-sharing doesn't give them the devine right to all electronics-section end-caps and a squadron of retail goons who will throw Zunes at you if you begin to drift towards the iPod section.
The fact is that Safari and iTunes are completely unrelated. If my Windows PC has one and not the other, it should stay that way until I decide otherwise.
Actually, you're wrong. That was true for the beta, but not for the final release. PC Magazine reviewed it just the other day. Not a Mac mag by any means, but their reviews of Apple hardware and software has been pretty good over the past few years. Perfect? No, but pretty good. Later releases will be even better.]
For what it's worth, for me, Windows Safari 3.1 grenades before it renders its home page! 3.02 never did that.
Yeah, melgross. Who are YOU to comment on other people's experience with Safari on Windows. Didn't you know only Clive was allowed to do that?
Pardon? I don't recall commenting on anyone else's experience on any web browser. I have called Safari "sub-par" which, by the mere fact that people are experiencing stalls and crashes, is a legit statment. I have also said that Safari for Windows is not any sort of improvement on browsers... which is also true. Opera and Firefox both surpass Safari in features, and not just fluff features... for experienced users, the features are actually quite helpful. Plus Firefox's add-on architecture is actually very useful... namely Ad-Block, which is, in a word, beautiful.
Who are YOU to comment on MY experience with Safari for Windows?...
...The fact is that Safari and iTunes are completely unrelated. If my Windows PC has one and not the other, it should stay that way until I decide otherwise.
Who are YOU to comment [ie bash] on OUR Apple forum? If you like Windows so much, find a forum that caters to it and stop wasting our time.
The real point is that Apple has every right to offer Apple programs to anyone who uses THEIR free software. That right is the cost to YOU for getting something for nothing. If you don't agree with that policy, then delete Apple's software. Apple and its community doesn't need your kind IMHO.
Who are YOU to comment [ie bash] on OUR Apple forum? If you like Windows so much, find a forum that caters to it and stop wasting our time.
The real point is that Apple has every right to offer Apple programs to anyone who uses THEIR free software. That right is the cost to YOU for getting something for nothing. If you don't agree with that policy, then delete Apple's software. Apple and its community doesn't need your kind IMHO.
Who am I to "bash" [i.e. constructively criticise... (yes, there's a difference)] Apple on OUR forum? Well, Genghis, I am a Mac/Apple user of 20+ years, who also uses a PC at work and a PC at home for recreational use. I am also an editor/translator for a Mac news website, MacBidouille/HardMac, which is not as large as AI, but by far the best French source for Apple-related news. HardMac, their English-language sister-site, is still small but growing. I am proud to be a member of their emerging community. And lastly, Mr. 16 Posts, I'm an active, contributing member to these forums, HardMac's forums, MacRumors' forums and have been for quite a bit longer than you.
But I don't have to proclaim my alliegence to Apple to have an opinion, nor does my opinion always have to be in favor of Apple, even as a dedicated user and active community member. In fact, as a news contributor, it is my duty to share a balanced view of events regarding Apple, not just those in favor of the company. Let me tell you something - this may come as a news-flash: Apple does not s**t gold. If your view is so warped that you see everything Apple does as The Tech Tao, you need to wake up and smell the reality.
To that end, I'm not disputing the legality of Apple including ALL of their software (even unrelated titles) in their software updates. Obviously there is no legal issue. It's just plain low. If Apple's software is so great, let it speak for itself. Firefox has become as popular as it is by word-of-mouth... not by using Trojan-esque techniques to trick users into installing it.
My criticisms of Apple are of not only using such a tactic, but also how they proclaim Safari to be such an intuitive browser, when in reality, it is no better than other alternatives (and, yes, I use all of IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari on a daily basis, thank you). Some Safari-users on this forum (myself included) have experienced stability issues, even in recent builds. It may not occur for all users, but problems do exist, and they are apparent. It may be close, but Safari 3 still has some progress to make before it becomes a viable option for the mass-market.
That is my professional opinion as a reporter and my personal opinion as a long-time Mac-user. If you cannot accept that someone has a different opinion from you, maybe it is YOU who should not be a member of a PUBLIC FORUM.
The real point is that Apple has every right to offer Apple programs to anyone who uses THEIR free software. That right is the cost to YOU for getting something for nothing. If you don't agree with that policy, then delete Apple's software. Apple and its community doesn't need your kind IMHO.
You are forgetting that there is already a revenue stream for providing that "free" software. People buy iPods and iTunes is for all practical purposes, required to use the iPod. Therefore, I don't consider iTunes to be free, it's paid for by the purchase of hardware and the media through the store. You can use iTunes without the store and without an iPod, but I doubt it's used that way by a lot of people. Software update is also used to update the drivers needed to run the AEBS, Time Capsule and other Apple hardware from a Windows computer. So I'm not seeing where this is somehow "free" software, and how it is a manifest destiny to download other software.
Safari isn't done for free either, it is cost shifted. Apple gets paid a little bit in Google ad revenue for the audience exposure that Safari gives to Google. The same arrangement with Firefox is how the Mozilla Foundation gets most of their income.
Pardon? I don't recall commenting on anyone else's experience on any web browser. I have called Safari "sub-par" which, by the mere fact that people are experiencing stalls and crashes, is a legit statment. I have also said that Safari for Windows is not any sort of improvement on browsers... which is also true. Opera and Firefox both surpass Safari in features, and not just fluff features... for experienced users, the features are actually quite helpful. Plus Firefox's add-on architecture is actually very useful... namely Ad-Block, which is, in a word, beautiful.
-Clive
Fine. Then your experience appears atypical and for me Safari runs faster, and I don't experience stalls and crashes. Therefore it is not "sub-par" in my opinion.
I use Firefox but only for the debugger. Its quite handy. But otherwise its IE or Safari for me.
Pardon? I don't recall commenting on anyone else's experience on any web browser.
Here's a refresher:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
By this comment, I can tell you've never used Safari for Windows. It is currently the buggiest, slowest browser I have on Windows out of Opera, Firefox, and YES... EVEN IE!
As I said before, I have been using 3.1 on Windows and my experience has been consistent with that of most other users, including the testers at PC magazine.
Of those who have commented on Windows-Safari's stability, I've seen roughly 50/50 in this thread. By no means am I willing to project that number onto the mainstream community, but even if as many as 10% of users are experiencing problems with Safari, I'd say that represents "sub-par" on a grand scale.
From what has been reported here by users, there are still a number of kinks to work out. That would signify to me that Safari for Windows is incomplete, even if my personal copy were to be working flawlessly.
I am happy that your copy is woking well and am eager for mine to do the same. I like Safari a lot for certain things but it will probably not sway me, fully, from Firefox. Add-Block is fantastic, and FF's built-in spell-check is a life-saver for me and I will never use a browser again (full-time anyway) without it.
Why is it such a big deal if apple does this with Safari? Everybody else in the windows world has been doing this ad nauseam with stuff like google desktop and a bunch of adobe software. Seems like Mozilla is feeling the heat now that windows users finally have a browser choice that is not bloated, memory hogging and slowww
Is everyone forgetting that when Apple's new software is available box comes up, you can opt out of whatever updates you don't want (i.e. Safari)?
Who am I to "bash" [i.e. constructively criticise... (yes, there's a difference)] Apple on OUR forum? Well, Genghis, I am a Mac/Apple user of 20+ years, who also uses a PC at work and a PC at home for recreational use. I am also an editor/translator for a Mac news website, MacBidouille/HardMac, which is not as large as AI, but by far the best French source for Apple-related news. HardMac, their English-language sister-site, is still small but growing. I am proud to be a member of their emerging community. And lastly, Mr. 16 Posts, I'm an active, contributing member to these forums, HardMac's forums, MacRumors' forums and have been for quite a bit longer than you.
I don't know who you are, what you are, or how long you've been it. That doesn't make you right. Not by a long shot and using a PC for work and a PC at home for recreation while writing for a Mac pub only tells me you're probably a Windows plant. Just the type of person that can't be taken as serious in the Mac community. I've seen your post for quite a long time and it mostly is bashing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
... If your view is so warped that you see everything Apple does as The Tech Tao, you need to wake up and smell the reality.
I do smell reality I smell a rat. That's the only reason I responded to your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
... Firefox has become as popular as it is by word-of-mouth... not by using Trojan-esque techniques to trick users into installing it.
Gimme a break, if you're writing for tech mags after saying this outlandish bull crap, you need to find a new profession because you suck at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
That is my professional opinion as a reporter and my personal opinion as a long-time Mac-user. If you cannot accept that someone has a different opinion from you, maybe it is YOU who should not be a member of a PUBLIC FORUM.
This reminds me of the person who meet you for the first and is compelled to tell me he has 4.0GPA and went to an Ivory League school. You know I don't believe you are what you say you are because you know nothing about public forums that I can see. AND YES THIS MY OPINION if you don't like ignore it.
Possibly what rankles is that he's not saying that he's going to sue now, but that if it becomes successful he'll sue. While this makes commercial sense, it sounds mean-spirited. It can sound like he'll let them play, but keep the lawsuit handy in case they encroach on "his" part of the market.
Actually, I suspect they're in negotiations and this is the sort of thing CEOs say during those negotiations. I'd be extremely surprised if Seagate didn't already have cross licensing deals with both Intel and Samsung, since all parties innovate in in the "low-level hardware cunning" space.
But no doubt in a couple of years his quote able flash drives not catching on will be quoted ad nauseam...
Cheers,
Martin.
He's just voicing the way it's done. These suits take years and can easily cost tens of millions of dollars. Why go through with that if the results aren't worth it?
If anything, it gives these companies the chance to develop their products unimpeded.
If they become successful, and they're making money from them, then they can afford to pay the license fees they should be paying now anyway. If they refuse, then Seagate has the right to sue for more.
Remember, it's the choice of Samsung and Intel to take the course they're taking. I really can't understand how anyone here can take their side, when they're clearly in the wrong, assuming, of course, that they are violating Seagate's processes..
Comments
I think there's a clear difference of degree here. At least those programs are ASKING. The Apple Windows installer just puts Safari into the list. It's also not Mozilla that's doing that, it is a third party, we don't know if Mozilla asks them to default to install it
From reports that I've seen, you had to manually opt-out every time the Windows version of Software Update is run. It looks like that might have been fixed with the latest version of Software Update.
You can uncheck any Apple software updates in the Windows update from Apple. Not a big deal.
I suppose Apple could consider Safari 3.1 an update to Explorer, or certainly, an upgrade.
Windows Update (from MS) is automatic by default, but can be made manual, such as that from Apple, but you also have to uncheck updates.
If the other companies are violating patents, and negotiations fail, then a lawsuit is in order. You don't just give away your designs for free if you want to make money.
Possibly what rankles is that he's not saying that he's going to sue now, but that if it becomes successful he'll sue. While this makes commercial sense, it sounds mean-spirited. It can sound like he'll let them play, but keep the lawsuit handy in case they encroach on "his" part of the market.
Actually, I suspect they're in negotiations and this is the sort of thing CEOs say during those negotiations. I'd be extremely surprised if Seagate didn't already have cross licensing deals with both Intel and Samsung, since all parties innovate in in the "low-level hardware cunning" space.
But no doubt in a couple of years his quote able flash drives not catching on will be quoted ad nauseam...
Cheers,
Martin.
So Apple's a little pushy, I think they deserve the right to be a little pushy considering they're the last ones to market an internet browser for windows and have to push their way into the market. And those that are complaining about Safari being on the update when you have a Quicktime/iTunes update, how often do you get a notice of a Quicktime update? Once every few months. Doesn't seem like such a big deal.
It's Apple's fault that they took so long to realize why they might want to do it, and because they've dragged their heels for so long, that's a justification to be pushy about being last to the table?
If the DIVX developers want to shove Firefox down your throats with pushy marketing, then take it up with them. Last I checked, the Mozilla Foundation doesn't own DIVX.
Software that was actually published by Mozilla itself, ONLY gives update notifications about new versions of software that you already have installed on your machine.
Sorry, but it still reflects on Mozilla if they're going to make whiney comments like that. I would assume most devs would not push Firefox so annoyingly if Mozilla asked them not to.
Possibly what rankles is that he's not saying that he's going to sue now, but that if it becomes successful he'll sue. While this makes commercial sense, it sounds mean-spirited. It can sound like he'll let them play, but keep the lawsuit handy in case they encroach on "his" part of the market.
I can see how it can look that way, but if it's not successful, it's just not worth suing.
Actually, you're wrong. That was true for the beta, but not for the final release. PC Magazine reviewed it just the other day. Not a Mac mag by any means, but their reviews of Apple hardware and software has been pretty good over the past few years. Perfect? No, but pretty good. Later releases will be even better.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2278107,00.asp
Who are YOU to comment on MY experience with Safari for Windows?
I even said in a later post that I had recently updated a couple weeks ago and that it was BETTER but still did not surpass my experience with Firefox, seeing that it still stalled, devoured some of my forum posts and, on occasion, crashed.
Aside from all this, the newfound qulaity of Safari STILL DOES NOT JUSTIFY Apple's forceful including of it with every software update, related or not. Users should (and will) choose what browser they like the best - not what is, allegedly, the best.
This notion has been proven supremely by Apple's own iPod (Classic), who coexists in a market with cheaper, more-capable, PC-syching PMPs, yet the continues to dominate the field. Just because MS offers a PMP with a bigger screen and wireless tune-sharing doesn't give them the devine right to all electronics-section end-caps and a squadron of retail goons who will throw Zunes at you if you begin to drift towards the iPod section.
The fact is that Safari and iTunes are completely unrelated. If my Windows PC has one and not the other, it should stay that way until I decide otherwise.
-Clive
Actually, you're wrong. That was true for the beta, but not for the final release. PC Magazine reviewed it just the other day. Not a Mac mag by any means, but their reviews of Apple hardware and software has been pretty good over the past few years. Perfect? No, but pretty good. Later releases will be even better.]
For what it's worth, for me, Windows Safari 3.1 grenades before it renders its home page! 3.02 never did that.
Who are YOU to comment on MY experience with Safari for Windows?
Yeah, melgross. Who are YOU to comment on other people's experience with Safari on Windows. Didn't you know only Clive was allowed to do that?
Yeah, melgross. Who are YOU to comment on other people's experience with Safari on Windows. Didn't you know only Clive was allowed to do that?
Pardon? I don't recall commenting on anyone else's experience on any web browser. I have called Safari "sub-par" which, by the mere fact that people are experiencing stalls and crashes, is a legit statment. I have also said that Safari for Windows is not any sort of improvement on browsers... which is also true. Opera and Firefox both surpass Safari in features, and not just fluff features... for experienced users, the features are actually quite helpful. Plus Firefox's add-on architecture is actually very useful... namely Ad-Block, which is, in a word, beautiful.
-Clive
Who are YOU to comment on MY experience with Safari for Windows?...
...The fact is that Safari and iTunes are completely unrelated. If my Windows PC has one and not the other, it should stay that way until I decide otherwise.
Who are YOU to comment [ie bash] on OUR Apple forum? If you like Windows so much, find a forum that caters to it and stop wasting our time.
The real point is that Apple has every right to offer Apple programs to anyone who uses THEIR free software. That right is the cost to YOU for getting something for nothing. If you don't agree with that policy, then delete Apple's software. Apple and its community doesn't need your kind IMHO.
Who are YOU to comment [ie bash] on OUR Apple forum? If you like Windows so much, find a forum that caters to it and stop wasting our time.
The real point is that Apple has every right to offer Apple programs to anyone who uses THEIR free software. That right is the cost to YOU for getting something for nothing. If you don't agree with that policy, then delete Apple's software. Apple and its community doesn't need your kind IMHO.
Who am I to "bash" [i.e. constructively criticise... (yes, there's a difference)] Apple on OUR forum? Well, Genghis, I am a Mac/Apple user of 20+ years, who also uses a PC at work and a PC at home for recreational use. I am also an editor/translator for a Mac news website, MacBidouille/HardMac, which is not as large as AI, but by far the best French source for Apple-related news. HardMac, their English-language sister-site, is still small but growing. I am proud to be a member of their emerging community. And lastly, Mr. 16 Posts, I'm an active, contributing member to these forums, HardMac's forums, MacRumors' forums and have been for quite a bit longer than you.
But I don't have to proclaim my alliegence to Apple to have an opinion, nor does my opinion always have to be in favor of Apple, even as a dedicated user and active community member. In fact, as a news contributor, it is my duty to share a balanced view of events regarding Apple, not just those in favor of the company. Let me tell you something - this may come as a news-flash: Apple does not s**t gold. If your view is so warped that you see everything Apple does as The Tech Tao, you need to wake up and smell the reality.
To that end, I'm not disputing the legality of Apple including ALL of their software (even unrelated titles) in their software updates. Obviously there is no legal issue. It's just plain low. If Apple's software is so great, let it speak for itself. Firefox has become as popular as it is by word-of-mouth... not by using Trojan-esque techniques to trick users into installing it.
My criticisms of Apple are of not only using such a tactic, but also how they proclaim Safari to be such an intuitive browser, when in reality, it is no better than other alternatives (and, yes, I use all of IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari on a daily basis, thank you). Some Safari-users on this forum (myself included) have experienced stability issues, even in recent builds. It may not occur for all users, but problems do exist, and they are apparent. It may be close, but Safari 3 still has some progress to make before it becomes a viable option for the mass-market.
That is my professional opinion as a reporter and my personal opinion as a long-time Mac-user. If you cannot accept that someone has a different opinion from you, maybe it is YOU who should not be a member of a PUBLIC FORUM.
-Clive
The real point is that Apple has every right to offer Apple programs to anyone who uses THEIR free software. That right is the cost to YOU for getting something for nothing. If you don't agree with that policy, then delete Apple's software. Apple and its community doesn't need your kind IMHO.
You are forgetting that there is already a revenue stream for providing that "free" software. People buy iPods and iTunes is for all practical purposes, required to use the iPod. Therefore, I don't consider iTunes to be free, it's paid for by the purchase of hardware and the media through the store. You can use iTunes without the store and without an iPod, but I doubt it's used that way by a lot of people. Software update is also used to update the drivers needed to run the AEBS, Time Capsule and other Apple hardware from a Windows computer. So I'm not seeing where this is somehow "free" software, and how it is a manifest destiny to download other software.
Safari isn't done for free either, it is cost shifted. Apple gets paid a little bit in Google ad revenue for the audience exposure that Safari gives to Google. The same arrangement with Firefox is how the Mozilla Foundation gets most of their income.
Pardon? I don't recall commenting on anyone else's experience on any web browser. I have called Safari "sub-par" which, by the mere fact that people are experiencing stalls and crashes, is a legit statment. I have also said that Safari for Windows is not any sort of improvement on browsers... which is also true. Opera and Firefox both surpass Safari in features, and not just fluff features... for experienced users, the features are actually quite helpful. Plus Firefox's add-on architecture is actually very useful... namely Ad-Block, which is, in a word, beautiful.
-Clive
Fine. Then your experience appears atypical and for me Safari runs faster, and I don't experience stalls and crashes. Therefore it is not "sub-par" in my opinion.
I use Firefox but only for the debugger. Its quite handy. But otherwise its IE or Safari for me.
Pardon? I don't recall commenting on anyone else's experience on any web browser.
Here's a refresher:
By this comment, I can tell you've never used Safari for Windows. It is currently the buggiest, slowest browser I have on Windows out of Opera, Firefox, and YES... EVEN IE!
As I said before, I have been using 3.1 on Windows and my experience has been consistent with that of most other users, including the testers at PC magazine.
Then your experience appears atypical...
Of those who have commented on Windows-Safari's stability, I've seen roughly 50/50 in this thread. By no means am I willing to project that number onto the mainstream community, but even if as many as 10% of users are experiencing problems with Safari, I'd say that represents "sub-par" on a grand scale.
From what has been reported here by users, there are still a number of kinks to work out. That would signify to me that Safari for Windows is incomplete, even if my personal copy were to be working flawlessly.
I am happy that your copy is woking well and am eager for mine to do the same. I like Safari a lot for certain things but it will probably not sway me, fully, from Firefox. Add-Block is fantastic, and FF's built-in spell-check is a life-saver for me and I will never use a browser again (full-time anyway) without it.
-Clive
Here's a refresher...
Point taken. My "occasional" cynicism is a flaw of mine.
My other points remain.
-Clive
Why is it such a big deal if apple does this with Safari? Everybody else in the windows world has been doing this ad nauseam with stuff like google desktop and a bunch of adobe software. Seems like Mozilla is feeling the heat now that windows users finally have a browser choice that is not bloated, memory hogging and slowww
Is everyone forgetting that when Apple's new software is available box comes up, you can opt out of whatever updates you don't want (i.e. Safari)?
Who am I to "bash" [i.e. constructively criticise... (yes, there's a difference)] Apple on OUR forum? Well, Genghis, I am a Mac/Apple user of 20+ years, who also uses a PC at work and a PC at home for recreational use. I am also an editor/translator for a Mac news website, MacBidouille/HardMac, which is not as large as AI, but by far the best French source for Apple-related news. HardMac, their English-language sister-site, is still small but growing. I am proud to be a member of their emerging community. And lastly, Mr. 16 Posts, I'm an active, contributing member to these forums, HardMac's forums, MacRumors' forums and have been for quite a bit longer than you.
I don't know who you are, what you are, or how long you've been it. That doesn't make you right. Not by a long shot and using a PC for work and a PC at home for recreation while writing for a Mac pub only tells me you're probably a Windows plant. Just the type of person that can't be taken as serious in the Mac community. I've seen your post for quite a long time and it mostly is bashing.
... If your view is so warped that you see everything Apple does as The Tech Tao, you need to wake up and smell the reality.
I do smell reality I smell a rat. That's the only reason I responded to your post.
... Firefox has become as popular as it is by word-of-mouth... not by using Trojan-esque techniques to trick users into installing it.
Gimme a break, if you're writing for tech mags after saying this outlandish bull crap, you need to find a new profession because you suck at it.
That is my professional opinion as a reporter and my personal opinion as a long-time Mac-user. If you cannot accept that someone has a different opinion from you, maybe it is YOU who should not be a member of a PUBLIC FORUM.
This reminds me of the person who meet you for the first and is compelled to tell me he has 4.0GPA and went to an Ivory League school. You know I don't believe you are what you say you are because you know nothing about public forums that I can see. AND YES THIS MY OPINION if you don't like ignore it.
Possibly what rankles is that he's not saying that he's going to sue now, but that if it becomes successful he'll sue. While this makes commercial sense, it sounds mean-spirited. It can sound like he'll let them play, but keep the lawsuit handy in case they encroach on "his" part of the market.
Actually, I suspect they're in negotiations and this is the sort of thing CEOs say during those negotiations. I'd be extremely surprised if Seagate didn't already have cross licensing deals with both Intel and Samsung, since all parties innovate in in the "low-level hardware cunning" space.
But no doubt in a couple of years his quote able flash drives not catching on will be quoted ad nauseam...
Cheers,
Martin.
He's just voicing the way it's done. These suits take years and can easily cost tens of millions of dollars. Why go through with that if the results aren't worth it?
If anything, it gives these companies the chance to develop their products unimpeded.
If they become successful, and they're making money from them, then they can afford to pay the license fees they should be paying now anyway. If they refuse, then Seagate has the right to sue for more.
Remember, it's the choice of Samsung and Intel to take the course they're taking. I really can't understand how anyone here can take their side, when they're clearly in the wrong, assuming, of course, that they are violating Seagate's processes..