But why the L shape? With a dock connector on both the short and long side there is no need for an L. An L just seems an awkward design, to me. As far as inductive coils go, how would these work? I thought inductive coils were mostly used in cars, so maybe I am missing something, here? Can someone explain how inductive coils would facilitate the optional positioning of an iPad?
I'm not sure what these "L" comments are all about. I have the keyboard dock, which holds the iPad in a vertical position. It's not quite 90º from the table surface. That's normal. The drawings I see in the article show pretty much the same thing. What's the problem?
That's not really true. Most advertising plays up the good, and plays down the bad. Exaggeration has never been considered to be fraud, unless it's deceiving enough so that the average viewer wouldn't be able to tell. Ads are rarely like that.
You mean by purchasing an Android I don't automatically become a starship commander? Or be able to open 15 apps in 5 seconds? The first I might be skeptical the second could be misleading.
I'm not sure what these "L" comments are all about. I have the keyboard dock, which holds the iPad in a vertical position. It's not quite 90º from the table surface. That's normal. The drawings I see in the article show pretty much the same thing. What's the problem?
I think they mean a dock connector on a corner, in the shape of an ?L? so the device can be placed in portrait or landscape mode as needed.
But as pointed out this in itself would require a dock connector on two connecters or a dock that could rotate the L from either side to accommodate the change from portrait to landscape.
Ultimately it looks like the same dock connector on two sides is the simplest option.
You mean by purchasing an Android I don't automatically become a starship commander? Or be able to open 15 apps in 5 seconds? The first I might be skeptical the second could be misleading.
I would hope that (most) people wouldn't be that stupid. It's like advertising sports cars with beautiful women. Most guys know that buying one of those cars isn't likely to land them a date with one of those women..but hope springs eternal, and if it helps just a little bit...
I think they mean a dock connector on a corner, in the shape of an ?L? so the device can be placed in portrait or landscape mode as needed.
But as pointed out this in itself would require a dock connector on two connecters or a dock that could rotate the L from either side to accommodate the change from portrait to landscape.
Ultimately it looks like the same dock connector on two sides is the simplest option.
Clumsy. It would be better if the dock had a short cable so that the connector could be put where needed.
Clumsy. It would be better if the dock had a short cable so that the connector could be put where needed.
Yes, but that's a clumsy solution, too. In the name of usability (and awesome design) the challenge would be to make horizontal as simple as vertical, but without clumsy hardware arrangements and added parts. I was under the impression that was what the inductive coils thing was all about but I really don't understand what these coils would do.
Like Solips said above...
... though there is something very non-apple about having two identical connectors on the same device.
Yes, but that's a clumsy solution, too. In the name of usability (and awesome design) the challenge would be to make horizontal as simple as vertical, but without clumsy hardware arrangements and added parts. I was under the impression that was what the inductive coils thing was all about but I really don't understand what these coils would do.
Like Solips said above...
... though there is something very non-apple about having two identical connectors on the same device.
The induction would be for recharging the battery, as far as I know.
Here is the Patently Apple article that describes the iPad, and mentions that the coils would be used for recharging.
A patent for sticking another connector on the side?
Really?
Read the posts first, please!
It's a design patent. Design patents cover the entire outside design of a device or part. Anyone can put a connector on the side. The device can't look like an iPad.
I've seen dismissive posts from you before targeted at other forum members as your argument falls apart, but I've never seen you say you were wrong or misunderstood or thanks for the correction. I probably just missed it tho.
I've seen dismissive posts from you before targeted at other forum members as your argument falls apart, but I've never seen you say you were wrong or misunderstood or thanks for the correction. I probably just missed it tho.
The E-Week article says pretty much the same thing. At one point, they assume what you are assuming, but near the bottom the truth comes out. It's all the same thing. Advertisers are accusing Google of "cheating". Both in the EU complaint, and in what looks to be the complaint here as well.
My argument hasn't fallen apart at all. You just have to be able to read it properly. don't use a statement that a writer makes. Use the information in the article instead.
If someone can show me that my argument has fallen apart, I'll be very happy to admit it. But when someone is insisting on something that's wrong, then it's their problem.
From the article YOU just supplied:
"In Texas, Google advertisers MyTriggers and SourceTools claimed Google denigrates their ad placement on its search engine, causing the companies to lose money."
Since the DoJ also has active Apple investigations in progress, how many years revenue should Apple lose if found in violation of US laws?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, they broke the law, it depends on exactly what they did, how significant an impact it had, what harm did it cause, did they profit by it, and are they a repeat offender.
This isn't a tech industry issue. It's not an Apple vs. Google issue. (So, the trolls and astroturfers can stand down.) In fact, the tech industry, generally, is much less problematic than others. The bottom line is that it's ridiculous that incorporation is allowed to be used as a shield and get out of jail free card. Why is it that when a bunch of guys in Brooklyn do it they get charged under the RICO statutes, but when guys in a corporate boardroom do it they just hand over some money to the Feds and everyone is happy? Sounds like organized crime in both cases, there shouldn't be a double standard.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, they broke the law, it depends on exactly what they did, how significant an impact it had, what harm did it cause, did they profit by it, and are they a repeat offender.
This isn't a tech industry issue. It's not an Apple vs. Google issue. (So, the trolls and astroturfers can stand down.) In fact, the tech industry, generally, is much less problematic than others. The bottom line is that it's ridiculous that incorporation is allowed to be used as a shield and get out of jail free card. Why is it that when a bunch of guys in Brooklyn do it they get charged under the RICO statutes, but when guys in a corporate boardroom do it they just hand over some money to the Feds and everyone is happy? Sounds like organized crime in both cases, there shouldn't be a double standard.
I completely agree with that viewpoint. A 20 year old kid with a bag of marijuana on the car seat can spend more time in jail than a financial advisor who costs dozens of families their life savings with stock fraud.
There's now some indication of what this illegal "thing" is that Google may accrue a fine for.
According to a report today, they'd received revenue from ad's placed for on-line pharmacies (Canadian providers perhaps?) by 3rd party advertising partners. Pretty evil.
I completely agree with that viewpoint. A 20 year old kid with a bag of marijuana on the car seat can spend more time in jail than a financial advisor who costs dozens of families their life savings with stock fraud.
True story: In 2002 after five days or so in Amsterdam/Europe on holiday, on the day I was supposed to head back to SFO I "discovered" a bit of grass leftover in my jacket pockets. Luckily I found it otherwise I would have got a bit of body cavity search action and maybe even worse when I hit US soil.
There's now some indication of what this illegal "thing" is that Google may accrue a fine for.
According to a report today, they'd received revenue from ad's placed for on-line pharmacies (Canadian providers perhaps?) by 3rd party advertising partners. Pretty evil.
True story: In 2002 after five days or so in Amsterdam/Europe on holiday, on the day I was supposed to head back to SFO I "discovered" a bit of grass leftover in my jacket pockets. Luckily I found it otherwise I would have got a bit of body cavity search action and maybe even worse when I hit US soil.
I have a similar story that involves picking my car up from the Valdosta Police Dept in 1973. After finding something I left under the driver's seat was still there after a police search during a stolen vehicle recovery, I was convinced they were just waiting for me to start the car and attempt to drive away. Instead they were thankfully incompetent.
Comments
But why the L shape? With a dock connector on both the short and long side there is no need for an L. An L just seems an awkward design, to me. As far as inductive coils go, how would these work? I thought inductive coils were mostly used in cars, so maybe I am missing something, here? Can someone explain how inductive coils would facilitate the optional positioning of an iPad?
I'm not sure what these "L" comments are all about. I have the keyboard dock, which holds the iPad in a vertical position. It's not quite 90º from the table surface. That's normal. The drawings I see in the article show pretty much the same thing. What's the problem?
That's not really true. Most advertising plays up the good, and plays down the bad. Exaggeration has never been considered to be fraud, unless it's deceiving enough so that the average viewer wouldn't be able to tell. Ads are rarely like that.
You mean by purchasing an Android I don't automatically become a starship commander? Or be able to open 15 apps in 5 seconds? The first I might be skeptical the second could be misleading.
I'm not sure what these "L" comments are all about. I have the keyboard dock, which holds the iPad in a vertical position. It's not quite 90º from the table surface. That's normal. The drawings I see in the article show pretty much the same thing. What's the problem?
I think they mean a dock connector on a corner, in the shape of an ?L? so the device can be placed in portrait or landscape mode as needed.
But as pointed out this in itself would require a dock connector on two connecters or a dock that could rotate the L from either side to accommodate the change from portrait to landscape.
Ultimately it looks like the same dock connector on two sides is the simplest option.
You mean by purchasing an Android I don't automatically become a starship commander? Or be able to open 15 apps in 5 seconds? The first I might be skeptical the second could be misleading.
I would hope that (most) people wouldn't be that stupid. It's like advertising sports cars with beautiful women. Most guys know that buying one of those cars isn't likely to land them a date with one of those women..but hope springs eternal, and if it helps just a little bit...
I think they mean a dock connector on a corner, in the shape of an ?L? so the device can be placed in portrait or landscape mode as needed.
But as pointed out this in itself would require a dock connector on two connecters or a dock that could rotate the L from either side to accommodate the change from portrait to landscape.
Ultimately it looks like the same dock connector on two sides is the simplest option.
Clumsy. It would be better if the dock had a short cable so that the connector could be put where needed.
$500 million is walking around money for Google.
Clumsy. It would be better if the dock had a short cable so that the connector could be put where needed.
Yes, but that's a clumsy solution, too. In the name of usability (and awesome design) the challenge would be to make horizontal as simple as vertical, but without clumsy hardware arrangements and added parts. I was under the impression that was what the inductive coils thing was all about but I really don't understand what these coils would do.
Like Solips said above...
... though there is something very non-apple about having two identical connectors on the same device.
Yes, but that's a clumsy solution, too. In the name of usability (and awesome design) the challenge would be to make horizontal as simple as vertical, but without clumsy hardware arrangements and added parts. I was under the impression that was what the inductive coils thing was all about but I really don't understand what these coils would do.
Like Solips said above...
... though there is something very non-apple about having two identical connectors on the same device.
The induction would be for recharging the battery, as far as I know.
Here is the Patently Apple article that describes the iPad, and mentions that the coils would be used for recharging.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...-and-more.html
If you read the article I posted, you would understand it, instead of repeating the same old thing.
Really?
I'm happy you got some joy out of it.
A patent for sticking another connector on the side?
Really?
Read the posts first, please!
It's a design patent. Design patents cover the entire outside design of a device or part. Anyone can put a connector on the side. The device can't look like an iPad.
This link actually does comment on the investigation itself, unlike yours.
http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Search-E...rutiny-195073/
I've seen dismissive posts from you before targeted at other forum members as your argument falls apart, but I've never seen you say you were wrong or misunderstood or thanks for the correction. I probably just missed it tho.
Mel, you're a smart guy.
This link actually does comment on the investigation itself, unlike yours.
http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Search-E...rutiny-195073/
I've seen dismissive posts from you before targeted at other forum members as your argument falls apart, but I've never seen you say you were wrong or misunderstood or thanks for the correction. I probably just missed it tho.
The E-Week article says pretty much the same thing. At one point, they assume what you are assuming, but near the bottom the truth comes out. It's all the same thing. Advertisers are accusing Google of "cheating". Both in the EU complaint, and in what looks to be the complaint here as well.
My argument hasn't fallen apart at all. You just have to be able to read it properly. don't use a statement that a writer makes. Use the information in the article instead.
If someone can show me that my argument has fallen apart, I'll be very happy to admit it. But when someone is insisting on something that's wrong, then it's their problem.
From the article YOU just supplied:
"In Texas, Google advertisers MyTriggers and SourceTools claimed Google denigrates their ad placement on its search engine, causing the companies to lose money."
Which backs up my contention, not yours.
You don't have an argument.
Since the DoJ also has active Apple investigations in progress, how many years revenue should Apple lose if found in violation of US laws?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, they broke the law, it depends on exactly what they did, how significant an impact it had, what harm did it cause, did they profit by it, and are they a repeat offender.
This isn't a tech industry issue. It's not an Apple vs. Google issue. (So, the trolls and astroturfers can stand down.) In fact, the tech industry, generally, is much less problematic than others. The bottom line is that it's ridiculous that incorporation is allowed to be used as a shield and get out of jail free card. Why is it that when a bunch of guys in Brooklyn do it they get charged under the RICO statutes, but when guys in a corporate boardroom do it they just hand over some money to the Feds and everyone is happy? Sounds like organized crime in both cases, there shouldn't be a double standard.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, they broke the law, it depends on exactly what they did, how significant an impact it had, what harm did it cause, did they profit by it, and are they a repeat offender.
This isn't a tech industry issue. It's not an Apple vs. Google issue. (So, the trolls and astroturfers can stand down.) In fact, the tech industry, generally, is much less problematic than others. The bottom line is that it's ridiculous that incorporation is allowed to be used as a shield and get out of jail free card. Why is it that when a bunch of guys in Brooklyn do it they get charged under the RICO statutes, but when guys in a corporate boardroom do it they just hand over some money to the Feds and everyone is happy? Sounds like organized crime in both cases, there shouldn't be a double standard.
I completely agree with that viewpoint. A 20 year old kid with a bag of marijuana on the car seat can spend more time in jail than a financial advisor who costs dozens of families their life savings with stock fraud.
According to a report today, they'd received revenue from ad's placed for on-line pharmacies (Canadian providers perhaps?) by 3rd party advertising partners. Pretty evil.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/12/g...ine-pharmaceu/
I completely agree with that viewpoint. A 20 year old kid with a bag of marijuana on the car seat can spend more time in jail than a financial advisor who costs dozens of families their life savings with stock fraud.
True story: In 2002 after five days or so in Amsterdam/Europe on holiday, on the day I was supposed to head back to SFO I "discovered" a bit of grass leftover in my jacket pockets.
There's now some indication of what this illegal "thing" is that Google may accrue a fine for.
According to a report today, they'd received revenue from ad's placed for on-line pharmacies (Canadian providers perhaps?) by 3rd party advertising partners. Pretty evil.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/12/g...ine-pharmaceu/
Evil enough.
True story: In 2002 after five days or so in Amsterdam/Europe on holiday, on the day I was supposed to head back to SFO I "discovered" a bit of grass leftover in my jacket pockets.
I have a similar story that involves picking my car up from the Valdosta Police Dept in 1973. After finding something I left under the driver's seat was still there after a police search during a stolen vehicle recovery, I was convinced they were just waiting for me to start the car and attempt to drive away. Instead they were thankfully incompetent.