Manufacturing isn't coming back to the United States as long as the NLRB and the federal governments try to dictate terms to the free market.
Hell, one only has to look at the most recent Boeing case to see why manufacturing will continue fleeing the country.
It doesn't matter if people are unemployed because the markets do not dictate wages. Even if those people *wanted* to work for lower wages instead of simple not working, the federal government wont allow them to do so.
During the great depression, when wage controls were implemented, elevator operators were priced out of the market. It became apparent that the automated systems would be cheaper than paying the operators the new federally imposed minimum wage. The building owners didn't want to fire these people. The people *wanted* to continue to work for their wages, they appreciated being employed. Sadly FDRs court packing scheme turned over years of precedent and the exploration of alternative labor markets began.
It seems as if the federal government would rather have people unemployed then working for lower wages. Its quite sad actually.
Manufacturing isn't coming back to the United States as long as the NLRB and the federal governments try to dictate terms to the free market.
"try to ensure a fair living wage for Americans" you mean. FTFY.
Quote:
It doesn't matter if people are unemployed because the markets do not dictate wages. Even if those people *wanted* to work for lower wages instead of simple not working, the federal government wont allow them to do so.
Riiiiiight. The government doesn't want people working. Go ahead, tell us that again so we can get another good laugh. Oh, by the way, your tinfoil hat is on a bit crooked.
Quote:
During the great depression, when wage controls were implemented, elevator operators were priced out of the market. It became apparent that the automated systems would be cheaper than paying the operators the new federally imposed minimum wage. The building owners didn't want to fire these people. The people *wanted* to continue to work for their wages, they appreciated being employed. Sadly FDRs court packing scheme turned over years of precedent and the exploration of alternative labor markets began.
It seems as if the federal government would rather have people unemployed then working for lower wages. Its quite sad actually.
What's sad is how you keep trying to convince everyone that fair, living wages are somehow evil. And you are somehow claiming that FDR destroyed our manufacturing base, completely ignoring all the manufacturing that took place in the U.S. in the decades following his 1932 New Deal policies. We built stuff all through the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s. If FDR were truly to blame for the exodus of manufacturing, those wouldn't have happened.
What really happened was corporate greed and irresponsibility. A penny cheaper manufacturing costs is all it takes for a greedy corporate beancounter to outsource jobs to India/Taiwan/China etc. There is no forethought at all at the corporate level as to who exactly is going to be buying their products if they put Americans out of work.
So how about we stop blaming government for sticking up for the working class and put the blame on greedy businessowners, where it belongs!
There is no way a phone manufacturer can make a phone without violating Nokia and Samsung's telecommunication-related patents last 20 years. Who was involved in developing 1, 2, 3, 4G data transmission standards? Apple has nothing but suing all the IT companies to negotiate better loyalties.
So Samsung wants to stop the export of products containing components they make to the USA???
0_o
but Apple will be selling how many products with this ban?
i bet its less than Samsung....
still, this whole thing makes me lmao.
"don't let them import because they are suing us, if they can bring products in than, um, uh, we can copy them, so don't let them bring any in, because it will make our case harder, ?"
Manufacturing isn't coming back to the United States as long as the NLRB and the federal governments try to dictate terms to the free market.
Not even close. There are a great number of reasons why we've lost jobs here - and the NLRB is responsible for only a tiny portion. Just a few examples:
- Environmental rules
- Exchange rate manipulation by other countries
- People in other countries being willing to work for lower wages than Americans
- Substantially higher retirement costs in the U.S.
- Liablity laws
- Desire to have safe working environments
- And many, many more
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus
It doesn't matter if people are unemployed because the markets do not dictate wages. Even if those people *wanted* to work for lower wages instead of simple not working, the federal government wont allow them to do so.
That's a dumb argument. The government sets only the minimum wage. How does that explain why you can't get a machinist for under about $15 or an engineer for under about $20 an hour in the US?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus
During the great depression, when wage controls were implemented, elevator operators were priced out of the market. It became apparent that the automated systems would be cheaper than paying the operators the new federally imposed minimum wage. The building owners didn't want to fire these people. The people *wanted* to continue to work for their wages, they appreciated being employed. Sadly FDRs court packing scheme turned over years of precedent and the exploration of alternative labor markets began.
Uh huh. During the 1940s, the U.S. had the strongest manufacturing economy in the world. Obviously, the wage controls didn't hurt very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus
It seems as if the federal government would rather have people unemployed then working for lower wages. Its quite sad actually.
It seems as if right-wing radicals can't think logically. It's quite sad, actually.
Apple pays $5 for a iPhone sold to Nokia. Now Samsung wants its share. Another $5 goes to Samsung. Better deal for Samsung. Apple has to buy parts from Samsung or Chinese companies. And there are some parts that Apple must buy from Samsung to complete an iPhone or iPad. If Apple wants to buy them from China or Japan, the price tags will go higher dramatically. Three countries control Global IT parts industry. Period.
Do I honestly think that Samsung is in the wrong here? - yes. Do I think this will actually happen? - No. Is this starting to get absolutely ridiculous? - Yes!!!!!! At this point, if I were the judge, I'd tell both companies (Apple/Samsung) to grow the hell up, quit whining, and knock it off - and dismiss the entire case.
So, you're suggesting that Samsung should be able to duplicate any Apple product, and the huge investment and risk borne by Apple should be swept under the rug in a effort to play nice? Bull$hit.
Sadly FDRs court packing scheme turned over years of precedent and the exploration of alternative labor markets began.
Huh? FDR's court packing scheme failed. Or are there more than nine justices now?
Anyway, I don't know why Apple's bothering going after Samsung's lookalike tablets. Yes, they DO look like iPads, other than their dimensions. Walk into any Staples and tell me the average non-techie person would be able to tell them apart at a mere glance. But who cares? The market seems to be taking care of that problem for them -- despite being marketed by major tech companies, they're seen by the public at large as inferior knockoffs and ignored.
There is no way a phone manufacturer can make a phone without violating Nokia and Samsung's telecommunication-related patents last 20 years. Who was involved in developing 1, 2, 3, 4G data transmission standards? Apple has nothing but suing all the IT companies to negotiate better loyalties.
Save your breath... the world revolves around Apple
You can make it entirely metal. You can make it have different designs on the side. You can place the buttons whereever you want. There are lots of different ways. Think of the different ways people distinguish picture frames. It's the same concept, there's tons of ways to get creative with the shape, despite it being in a "rectangle" format. They'd just rather not experiment, however, because they're betting that people will associate it with an iPad if it looks similarly. And no, no tablet currently looks like an iPad. The Android 3.0 tablets are the closest things that come close to imitating Apple's interface, and they don't look anything like it. The actual hardware on the other hand...
And so their business logic goes something like this:
Step 1: Copy Apple and the black frame as opposed to coming up with some new cool design that doesn't have a matte black or white
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!!
1. Designs on side? No. Because if you're looking at a display, the last thing you want is some design distracting your eyes from what's on the screen. Current screen tech needs a border both to make the device functional, and because you want something to hold that doesn't cover up the screen.
2. volume buttons and the like are experimented with different places. Heck, the Xoom put it on the back right next to the camera. Problem is, that doesn't work. The best place for a power button is somewhere along the edge or sides. This is a pretty common theme in ALL electronics, not just tablets/phones.
3. As for the shape, what do you think they would do? Give it a triangle back? that makes it a pain to hold. Make the back have a more rounded look? This increases the bulk, and makes it harder to rest on a surface..
The fact of the matter is, is that ALL that is required for a device to be considered "Like an iphone" for the general consumer is the following:
1: It is a touchscreen
2: It doesn't have a physical keyboad.
That's it. And sometimes that second point isn't even a requirement because they'll think it is an iphone with a keyboard. Yes, this is how most consumers think. They will know it's "not an iphone" because of the lack of the logo (usually) but they'll refer to it as the "Motorola iphone/ipad" just the same.
That's not to say that Samsung is innocent here. Touchwiz (at least up until the latest version) is a direct attempt to mimic iOS look and feel, and the GalaxyS line is pretty much a parroting of iphone design. That being said, Apple's also going after devices like the Nexus S, the Transform, etc. Devices that don't really look like an iphone device AT ALL besides that they are touchscreen smartphones and they come in black (or white)
IMO, webOS mimics the look and feel of iOS a lot more than stock android does, and yet HP/Palm are seemingly both safe. For that reason alone Apple shouldn't get the Nortel patents. They're using their current patents (even ones that have merit) to go after potential threats first and formost, and not just anyone who violates them.
As for on topic.. I think this is just a delay tactic by samsung, or they may possibly be doing this to try and point out just how crazy patent law gets, hoping that popular opinion will turn against it.
Anyway, I don't know why Apple's bothering going after Samsung's lookalike tablets. Yes, they DO look like iPads, other than their dimensions. Walk into any Staples and tell me the average non-techie person would be able to tell them apart at a mere glance. But who cares? The market seems to be taking care of that problem for them -- despite being marketed by major tech companies, they're seen by the public at large as inferior knockoffs and ignored.
It's because while the current competitors are junk, eventually the competitors will learn to make a decent product. If Apple doesn't stop them from stealing its trade dress today, they'll be able to do it once they have a decent product - and it COULD hurt Apple's sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne_contact
Apple pays $5 for a iPhone sold to Nokia. Now Samsung wants its share. Another $5 goes to Samsung. Better deal for Samsung.
Can you translate that into English? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne_contact
There is no way a phone manufacturer can make a phone without violating Nokia and Samsung's telecommunication-related patents last 20 years. Who was involved in developing 1, 2, 3, 4G data transmission standards? Apple has nothing but suing all the IT companies to negotiate better loyalties.
That's not what has happened - at least in the case of Nokia. What we know is that Nokia is actually the one who sued Apple over the data transmission standards.
The unverified part is that several sources claimed that Apple had agreed to pay the standard licensing fees, but Nokia wanted more. Some of Nokia's statements later supported that.
by the time these idiotic companies get done suing each other they'll be luck any real money will get exchanged in the end except to paying the lawyers... This is beyond getting old.. Both companies need to grow up....
It's because while the current competitors are junk, eventually the competitors will learn to make a decent product. If Apple doesn't stop them from stealing its trade dress today, they'll be able to do it once they have a decent product - and it COULD hurt Apple's sales.
Yeah, that's true. The whole Android thing started with lookalike iPhones. They don't want that happening again..
Comments
Step 1: Copy Apple and the black frame as opposed to coming up with some new cool design that doesn't have a matte black or white
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!!
I was gonna say that Step 2 was to license android, but then I remembered the HP Touch Pad.
Manufacturing isn't coming back to the United States as long as the NLRB and the federal governments try to dictate terms to the free market.
Hell, one only has to look at the most recent Boeing case to see why manufacturing will continue fleeing the country.
It doesn't matter if people are unemployed because the markets do not dictate wages. Even if those people *wanted* to work for lower wages instead of simple not working, the federal government wont allow them to do so.
During the great depression, when wage controls were implemented, elevator operators were priced out of the market. It became apparent that the automated systems would be cheaper than paying the operators the new federally imposed minimum wage. The building owners didn't want to fire these people. The people *wanted* to continue to work for their wages, they appreciated being employed. Sadly FDRs court packing scheme turned over years of precedent and the exploration of alternative labor markets began.
It seems as if the federal government would rather have people unemployed then working for lower wages. Its quite sad actually.
Q: What's the difference between Korean businesses and Al Qaeda?
A: You can reason with Al Qaeda
Generalizing Samsung tactics as Korean tactics is a slippery slope to racism.
Manufacturing isn't coming back to the United States as long as the NLRB and the federal governments try to dictate terms to the free market.
"try to ensure a fair living wage for Americans" you mean. FTFY.
It doesn't matter if people are unemployed because the markets do not dictate wages. Even if those people *wanted* to work for lower wages instead of simple not working, the federal government wont allow them to do so.
Riiiiiight. The government doesn't want people working. Go ahead, tell us that again so we can get another good laugh. Oh, by the way, your tinfoil hat is on a bit crooked.
During the great depression, when wage controls were implemented, elevator operators were priced out of the market. It became apparent that the automated systems would be cheaper than paying the operators the new federally imposed minimum wage. The building owners didn't want to fire these people. The people *wanted* to continue to work for their wages, they appreciated being employed. Sadly FDRs court packing scheme turned over years of precedent and the exploration of alternative labor markets began.
It seems as if the federal government would rather have people unemployed then working for lower wages. Its quite sad actually.
What's sad is how you keep trying to convince everyone that fair, living wages are somehow evil. And you are somehow claiming that FDR destroyed our manufacturing base, completely ignoring all the manufacturing that took place in the U.S. in the decades following his 1932 New Deal policies. We built stuff all through the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s. If FDR were truly to blame for the exodus of manufacturing, those wouldn't have happened.
What really happened was corporate greed and irresponsibility. A penny cheaper manufacturing costs is all it takes for a greedy corporate beancounter to outsource jobs to India/Taiwan/China etc. There is no forethought at all at the corporate level as to who exactly is going to be buying their products if they put Americans out of work.
So how about we stop blaming government for sticking up for the working class and put the blame on greedy businessowners, where it belongs!
Manufacturing isn't coming back to the United States as long as the NLRB and the federal governments try to dictate terms to ....
What I heard:
"Blah-blah-blah ... ancient right wing rant ... blah blah .... outdated economic ideas ... blah-blah blah ... tea party ... blah-blah."
Generalizing Samsung tactics as Korean tactics is a slippery slope to racism.
Associating generalisation with racism is equally bad in my book.
Are you denying that countries behave in general ways?
Are you suggesting a country is a race?
Are you unnecessarily using the race card and subsequently watering down it's effectiveness to deter real racism? Sorry but yes.
Generalizing Samsung tactics as Korean tactics is a slippery slope to racism.
Slippery slopes are fun if you're skiing.
So Samsung wants to stop the export of products containing components they make to the USA???
0_o
but Apple will be selling how many products with this ban?
i bet its less than Samsung....
still, this whole thing makes me lmao.
"don't let them import because they are suing us, if they can bring products in than, um, uh, we can copy them, so don't let them bring any in, because it will make our case harder,
Manufacturing isn't coming back to the United States as long as the NLRB and the federal governments try to dictate terms to the free market.
Not even close. There are a great number of reasons why we've lost jobs here - and the NLRB is responsible for only a tiny portion. Just a few examples:
- Environmental rules
- Exchange rate manipulation by other countries
- People in other countries being willing to work for lower wages than Americans
- Substantially higher retirement costs in the U.S.
- Liablity laws
- Desire to have safe working environments
- And many, many more
[
It doesn't matter if people are unemployed because the markets do not dictate wages. Even if those people *wanted* to work for lower wages instead of simple not working, the federal government wont allow them to do so.
That's a dumb argument. The government sets only the minimum wage. How does that explain why you can't get a machinist for under about $15 or an engineer for under about $20 an hour in the US?
During the great depression, when wage controls were implemented, elevator operators were priced out of the market. It became apparent that the automated systems would be cheaper than paying the operators the new federally imposed minimum wage. The building owners didn't want to fire these people. The people *wanted* to continue to work for their wages, they appreciated being employed. Sadly FDRs court packing scheme turned over years of precedent and the exploration of alternative labor markets began.
Uh huh. During the 1940s, the U.S. had the strongest manufacturing economy in the world. Obviously, the wage controls didn't hurt very much.
It seems as if the federal government would rather have people unemployed then working for lower wages. Its quite sad actually.
It seems as if right-wing radicals can't think logically. It's quite sad, actually.
But I guess if you've got money to throw away why not? Not like anyone will really flock to anything after the SGSII for you much....
Do I honestly think that Samsung is in the wrong here? - yes. Do I think this will actually happen? - No. Is this starting to get absolutely ridiculous? - Yes!!!!!! At this point, if I were the judge, I'd tell both companies (Apple/Samsung) to grow the hell up, quit whining, and knock it off - and dismiss the entire case.
So, you're suggesting that Samsung should be able to duplicate any Apple product, and the huge investment and risk borne by Apple should be swept under the rug in a effort to play nice? Bull$hit.
Sadly FDRs court packing scheme turned over years of precedent and the exploration of alternative labor markets began.
Huh? FDR's court packing scheme failed. Or are there more than nine justices now?
Anyway, I don't know why Apple's bothering going after Samsung's lookalike tablets. Yes, they DO look like iPads, other than their dimensions. Walk into any Staples and tell me the average non-techie person would be able to tell them apart at a mere glance. But who cares? The market seems to be taking care of that problem for them -- despite being marketed by major tech companies, they're seen by the public at large as inferior knockoffs and ignored.
There is no way a phone manufacturer can make a phone without violating Nokia and Samsung's telecommunication-related patents last 20 years. Who was involved in developing 1, 2, 3, 4G data transmission standards? Apple has nothing but suing all the IT companies to negotiate better loyalties.
Save your breath... the world revolves around Apple
You can make it entirely metal. You can make it have different designs on the side. You can place the buttons whereever you want. There are lots of different ways. Think of the different ways people distinguish picture frames. It's the same concept, there's tons of ways to get creative with the shape, despite it being in a "rectangle" format. They'd just rather not experiment, however, because they're betting that people will associate it with an iPad if it looks similarly. And no, no tablet currently looks like an iPad. The Android 3.0 tablets are the closest things that come close to imitating Apple's interface, and they don't look anything like it. The actual hardware on the other hand...
And so their business logic goes something like this:
Step 1: Copy Apple and the black frame as opposed to coming up with some new cool design that doesn't have a matte black or white
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!!
1. Designs on side? No. Because if you're looking at a display, the last thing you want is some design distracting your eyes from what's on the screen. Current screen tech needs a border both to make the device functional, and because you want something to hold that doesn't cover up the screen.
2. volume buttons and the like are experimented with different places. Heck, the Xoom put it on the back right next to the camera. Problem is, that doesn't work. The best place for a power button is somewhere along the edge or sides. This is a pretty common theme in ALL electronics, not just tablets/phones.
3. As for the shape, what do you think they would do? Give it a triangle back? that makes it a pain to hold. Make the back have a more rounded look? This increases the bulk, and makes it harder to rest on a surface..
The fact of the matter is, is that ALL that is required for a device to be considered "Like an iphone" for the general consumer is the following:
1: It is a touchscreen
2: It doesn't have a physical keyboad.
That's it. And sometimes that second point isn't even a requirement because they'll think it is an iphone with a keyboard. Yes, this is how most consumers think. They will know it's "not an iphone" because of the lack of the logo (usually) but they'll refer to it as the "Motorola iphone/ipad" just the same.
That's not to say that Samsung is innocent here. Touchwiz (at least up until the latest version) is a direct attempt to mimic iOS look and feel, and the GalaxyS line is pretty much a parroting of iphone design. That being said, Apple's also going after devices like the Nexus S, the Transform, etc. Devices that don't really look like an iphone device AT ALL besides that they are touchscreen smartphones and they come in black (or white)
IMO, webOS mimics the look and feel of iOS a lot more than stock android does, and yet HP/Palm are seemingly both safe. For that reason alone Apple shouldn't get the Nortel patents. They're using their current patents (even ones that have merit) to go after potential threats first and formost, and not just anyone who violates them.
As for on topic.. I think this is just a delay tactic by samsung, or they may possibly be doing this to try and point out just how crazy patent law gets, hoping that popular opinion will turn against it.
lolwut.
What if Apple just moves manufacturing to the U.S.?
900 dollar Iphones and no iphone for 2 years because of strikes...I'll pass.
Anyway, I don't know why Apple's bothering going after Samsung's lookalike tablets. Yes, they DO look like iPads, other than their dimensions. Walk into any Staples and tell me the average non-techie person would be able to tell them apart at a mere glance. But who cares? The market seems to be taking care of that problem for them -- despite being marketed by major tech companies, they're seen by the public at large as inferior knockoffs and ignored.
It's because while the current competitors are junk, eventually the competitors will learn to make a decent product. If Apple doesn't stop them from stealing its trade dress today, they'll be able to do it once they have a decent product - and it COULD hurt Apple's sales.
Apple pays $5 for a iPhone sold to Nokia. Now Samsung wants its share. Another $5 goes to Samsung. Better deal for Samsung.
Can you translate that into English? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
There is no way a phone manufacturer can make a phone without violating Nokia and Samsung's telecommunication-related patents last 20 years. Who was involved in developing 1, 2, 3, 4G data transmission standards? Apple has nothing but suing all the IT companies to negotiate better loyalties.
That's not what has happened - at least in the case of Nokia. What we know is that Nokia is actually the one who sued Apple over the data transmission standards.
The unverified part is that several sources claimed that Apple had agreed to pay the standard licensing fees, but Nokia wanted more. Some of Nokia's statements later supported that.
It's because while the current competitors are junk, eventually the competitors will learn to make a decent product. If Apple doesn't stop them from stealing its trade dress today, they'll be able to do it once they have a decent product - and it COULD hurt Apple's sales.
Yeah, that's true. The whole Android thing started with lookalike iPhones. They don't want that happening again..