Apple's dark side
This is the other side of Apple.
Proving that Apple, in many respects, is no different than any of the other big American corporations. They're not the guys in the white hats anymore they once were. Haven't been since the introduction of OSX, really. It may be painful to realise, but it's reality. And needs to be acknowledged for what it is.
Proving that Apple, in many respects, is no different than any of the other big American corporations. They're not the guys in the white hats anymore they once were. Haven't been since the introduction of OSX, really. It may be painful to realise, but it's reality. And needs to be acknowledged for what it is.
Comments
This is the other side of Apple.
Proving that Apple, in many respects, is no different than any of the other big American corporations. They're not the guys in the white hats anymore they once were. Haven't been since the introduction of OSX, really. It may be painful to realise, but it's reality. And needs to be acknowledged for what it is.
There's nothing "dark" about this at all as Apple is not a philanthropy and they never were. Your suggestion that they don't wear white hats anymore is off-base, IMHO. They never did wear white hats. Apple is a company out to make money for their stockholders just like any other company (or at least like any other company should be doing). If they can make insanely great products along the way... all the better for consumers.
This is the other side of Apple.
Proving that Apple, in many respects, is no different than any of the other big American corporations. They're not the guys in the white hats anymore they once were. Haven't been since the introduction of OS X (sic), really. It may be painful to realize (sic), but it's reality. And needs to be acknowledged for what it is.
First thing you got to know, articles written for a lot of sites are designed to invoke controversy and hit traffic, this one is no exception. So certain facts are omitted as to create confusion on the readers so they respond.
The Slate article fails to mention the differences between previous touch interfaces and Apple's in software AND hardware. It's this duplication of Apple's costly innovation with nothing but copying on their part, is why Apple is suing to prevent.
Do you see car makers suing each other's "concept" because the other made a device with four wheels and a engine? Of course not.
Do you see musicians suing each other's "concept" because another took a guitar and made some sounds? No.
What you do see is lawsuits when one copies another's innovation exactly in a area all jointly share. A example would be if GM copies a model of a Ford car or a musician copies the sounds of another in one of their songs.
Apple is suing HTC because they copied Apple's model of touchscreen, not for violating the touchscreen concept like the Slate article misstates.
Multi-touch devices are everywhere, everyone had some version of one. But Apple made such a improvement and a difference that they got awarded a patent first for that significant improvement as to protect it and get a decent return on that costly investment required to produce it. It's this significant improvement on touchscreen interface that warrant's it's own class or model, something nobody else (at the time of the patent) had.
If Microsoft, or HTC or anyone else came up with such superior improvement to their touchscreens they would be defending their patents from the cloners as well.
Perhaps next time if you have a question about a article and wish to discuss it, just post a heading and comment to that effect.
There's nothing "dark" about this at all as Apple is not a philanthropy and they never were. Your suggestion that they don't wear white hats anymore is off-base, IMHO. They never did wear white hats. Apple is a company out to make money for their stockholders just like any other company (or at least like any other company should be doing). If they can make insanely great products along the way... all the better for consumers.
Precisely. All corporations are out to protect their interests. These days they exchange lawsuits like you and I might exchange business cards. With all the boo-hoo-hoo in this article, the writer somehow manages to not mention Nokia's lawsuit against Apple, and their claim of control over tech so basic that virtually any cell phone maker might be infringing on their patents.
Not to be confused with #38, I Thought You People Were Always Claiming That Apple Shits Rainbows.
See also Mac Strawman #37: Surely the Cult Will Be Thrown Into Disarray Now That Their Lord and Master Is Revealed To Be Evil.
Not to be confused with #38, I Thought You People Were Always Claiming That Apple Shits Rainbows.
Idiot
Like someone else said, the article would have been better if the author was actually talking about Apple, not some dreamt up strawman for saying software and method patents are bad and shouldn't be allowed to be patented. Apple hasn't patented multitouch, or perhaps, haven't been awarded a patent on the idea if they ever applied in the first place. They've been awarded patents on specific implementations and designs of various things in the iPhone. Something Mr. Manjoo totally agrees with.
So, the article is really just using Apple to express his opinion of certain types of patents. Dude, doesn't even know the litigious nature of the tech sector and the mobile sector in particular.