Further, Apple isn't sue happy. Apple didn't sue Palm over WebOS even though Palm did some brave things like hack into iTunes without Apple's permission. Apple further isn't grumbling over Microsoft Windows Phone. This is because both Palm and Microsoft's offering are different.
There's probably some truth there. The larger fact is both of these guys have a ton of legit patents to back up everything they've done. Palm has more than double the number of mobile telecommunications patents Apple has. Microsoft is about 8x and Nokia 10x. Apple may be bold, and rightly defensive at times, but they aren't stupid.
So...you're saying that Eric Schmidt never served on the board during iTools development.
Is that correct?
No, it's not. Please try to keep up.
Someone claimed that Apple copied the concept from Android because Android had it in 2008 and they claimed that Apple didn't have it before that. I simply showed that they were wrong and Apple had it at least 8 years before it showed up in Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
If you want to get technical on "OS Syncing", Roaming User Profile in ActiveDirectory predates them all.
Which is why I specifically stated that I was not taking the position that Apple was first.
For some reason, I find this very interesting. I must assume this question comes from an honest query concerning a personal bewilderment on how Apple could possibly be viewed by any intelligent person as superior. I must also assume this is a valid point of view, even though I feel (from my perspective) it strains credulity. It is almost as if there are two disparate viewpoints, each founded upon mutually exclusive precepts.
It may be difficult for the poster above to appreciate that the Apple fanbois perspective seems to be one that essentially says "I like what Apple does because I find them to be most in tune to deliver what I need for my digital world. While it is true that, from the perspective of the non-Apple fanbois, it may be said that I have relegated a good deal of autonomy to a trusted source (i.e., Apple) that I might otherwise have reserved to myself, I am more than willing to do so because - up to this point - Apple exceeds the expectations (in delivering the type of desirable products that work really well).
As such, as a member of the Apple fanbois, though I may seem to have waived such tinker rights, in truth my past experiences have shown that there is little or no gain that resulted from my permission and ability to "tinker around with the innards" of a computer and its systems. Truth be told, I am glad that there seems to be a technically superior wellspring (i.e., Apple) which not only produces the products I appreciate, but they do so in an way that I find advantageous to myself.
Given the viral world of most competing non-Apple technology, and the fact that all too often things just don't work right (or at least to the degree I've come to expect from Apple), I would be abhored to learn that Apple suddenly reversed direction and opened their products to the same kind of "individual change" that is the vaunted hallmark of non-Apple products."
To wit the following remarks:
Upon examining it, I almost almost inclined to be sympathetic. From my perspective, were I to buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini, a hallmark of pride in ownership would not be a burning desire to change some aspect of it in an attempt to personalize it. Also, I would not be inclined to feel that the options offered by the factory were somehow limiting, and upon receiving delivery, proceed to dismantle the dash and replace the Blaupunkt sound system with some Sound Ordnance Bass Bunkers.
On the other hand (to continue the automobile analogy), were I to buy an inexpensive Detroit car that, for all intents and purposes, was perceived to be the same 4 wheels as the next one, I would probably care a great deal more to be able to customize it and make it somehow "special" - because as it comes to me new out of the box - there is nothing special about it. So it is somehow fitting that I might naturally want to bolt on certain wheel flares and rear spoilers, adorn it with a different paint job, and customize the look or performance of it, and consider my right to do so as a cherished thing indeed.
The expectations of the Ferrari owner as to what Ferrari will deliver to them as a new Ferrari owner is, after all, very different from the expectations of a Dodge owner as to what Dodge will deliver to them as a new Dodge owner. It is a sad fact that the low cost car buyer will often perceive not only the factory as delivering an incomplete product that needs to be customized, but that the entire service and delivery structure (i.e., the Dodge dealership) is also organized to operate in a manner inconsistent with the Dodge buyer's interests.
To this end, it should be pointed out that Apple is perceived by the Apple fanbois to offer the Ferrari type of product and service support structure, while the HPs and Dells of the world occupy the Dodge level in technology.
It is somehow fitting that the Dodge owner/enthusiast typically sees nothing wrong with copying some innovation advanced by someone else. After all, the Dodge owner is the direct beneficiary from such copying, and adaptation to the platform he is relegated to. To hold otherwise, would be to make all too apparent the widening gap between what he has, and what he cannot (or will not) have.
In this type of thinking (which makes a kind of sense if one were to ignore intellectual property as deserving the protections of ownership), the copying of intellectual property is alright as long as it can be justified by improving upon the original. "Improving" typically means adapting to another platform so it will work, thus bringing the benefit to the PC owner. Since it will invariably not be well thought out, continual change is perceived as a benefit, rather than a concession to the limitations of the platform or an homage to an inferior design.
In fact, the longevity of the Apple/Ferrari/Lamborghini designs will be perceived by the HP/Dodge owner not as the outcome of a superior concept that needs little changing in outward appearance, but a sign of weakness. Or worse, that Lamborghini fails to adopt some passing fad or incorporate a trend that has not yet matured, will likewise be perceived by the Dell/Dodge purist as a shortcoming.
To wit:
I doubt anyone could change your mind, nor should they even try. Given the above, if I were to stand in your shoes, I would be inclined to agree with you. You should understand, though (from your perspective), for those willing to spend too much on an Apple product, it is at least our perception (wrong though it may be) that we are receiving the right balance of user satisfaction when weighed against our loss of input control.
Go forth and prosper, my friend. Best wishes to you!
Fantastically written with apt analogies. Well done!
Oh, but there is just one flaw. Even the guy with the Dodge doesn't have to root it just to reprogram the radio stations! It blew my mind to learn about this from someone at work about his "more customizable" Samsung Galaxy S2 and his preinstalled applications.
...and Larry Page makes a few ineffective gestures in the air and tries to break a chair a la Ballmer.
Endgame is not far off. Apple's lawyers make Steve Jobs look like Mr. Nice Guy in comparison.
I don't think they have to try to make Jobs look like a nice guy. He WAS a nice guy, at least at that point in his life when he chose to mentor the Google boys. I think apple has been straight up with their legal cases. Where they can, they ask nicely first. When other companies want to take the shortcut across your back your company must respond with firm deterrence. Apple has come at this in all propriety, no one can fault them for defending patents they have been working on for ten years.
I worry this is misrepresented in the media at large, like Apple is suddenly evil because they are finally really makin it? Apple does need to worry how the world sees this. A little, anyways. Ah, they will just not give a crap about hype, what can they do really.
well you totally missed the point. Much of the Apple IP is a sham. If Apple did anything right, it was filing trivial (likely to be invalidated in due time) patents and jumping into the lawsuit business early. You Apple guys having been declaring Android doom for years now while the platform's momentum has continued regardless. I don't buy the stolen OS droning, whilst understanding that much of Apple's IP was stolen from other companies in the first place. If i were to guess, Android will continue to thrive and companies will continue to sue each other.
I don't agree with your views. I would like to know since based on your comments you obviously must know, exactly whose IP did Apple steal? If they stole IP why aren't they being sued by the owners of the IP they supposedly stole?. Please sight specific instances not generalities.
I don't agree with your views. I would like to know since based on your comments you obviously must know, exactly whose IP did Apple steal? If they stole IP why aren't they being sued by the owners of the IP they supposedly stole?. Please sight specific instances not generalities.
Apple is currently being sued by many, many companies for theft of IP.
I think he meant to write AbsoluteDesignz since he references piot.
And I have stepped over the line before. I do try to word my digs in such a way that they aren't technically ad hominen attacks and thus are unseen by mod radar sweeps but every now and then I catch a bullet.
You are correct, I meant AbsoluteDesignz. I apologize for that mistake.
Someone claimed that Apple copied the concept from Android because Android had it in 2008 and they claimed that Apple didn't have it before that. I simply showed that they were wrong and Apple had it at least 8 years before it showed up in Android.
Which is why I specifically stated that I was not taking the position that Apple was first.
Sarcasm.
Conveyed well it was not (as Yoda would say).
That was a dig at Eric Schmidt (why does auto-correct change this to 'Shit'?).
For some reason, I find this very interesting. I must assume this question comes from an honest query concerning a personal bewilderment on how Apple could possibly be viewed by any intelligent person as superior. I must also assume this is a valid point of view, even though I feel (from my perspective) it strains credulity. It is almost as if there are two disparate viewpoints, each founded upon mutually exclusive precepts.
It may be difficult for the poster above to appreciate that the Apple fanbois perspective seems to be one that essentially says "I like what Apple does because I find them to be most in tune to deliver what I need for my digital world. While it is true that, from the perspective of the non-Apple fanbois, it may be said that I have relegated a good deal of autonomy to a trusted source (i.e., Apple) that I might otherwise have reserved to myself, I am more than willing to do so because - up to this point - Apple exceeds the expectations (in delivering the type of desirable products that work really well).
As such, as a member of the Apple fanbois, though I may seem to have waived such tinker rights, in truth my past experiences have shown that there is little or no gain that resulted from my permission and ability to "tinker around with the innards" of a computer and its systems. Truth be told, I am glad that there seems to be a technically superior wellspring (i.e., Apple) which not only produces the products I appreciate, but they do so in an way that I find advantageous to myself.
Given the viral world of most competing non-Apple technology, and the fact that all too often things just don't work right (or at least to the degree I've come to expect from Apple), I would be abhored to learn that Apple suddenly reversed direction and opened their products to the same kind of "individual change" that is the vaunted hallmark of non-Apple products."
To wit the following remarks:
Upon examining it, I almost almost inclined to be sympathetic. From my perspective, were I to buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini, a hallmark of pride in ownership would not be a burning desire to change some aspect of it in an attempt to personalize it. Also, I would not be inclined to feel that the options offered by the factory were somehow limiting, and upon receiving delivery, proceed to dismantle the dash and replace the Blaupunkt sound system with some Sound Ordnance Bass Bunkers.
On the other hand (to continue the automobile analogy), were I to buy an inexpensive Detroit car that, for all intents and purposes, was perceived to be the same 4 wheels as the next one, I would probably care a great deal more to be able to customize it and make it somehow "special" - because as it comes to me new out of the box - there is nothing special about it. So it is somehow fitting that I might naturally want to bolt on certain wheel flares and rear spoilers, adorn it with a different paint job, and customize the look or performance of it, and consider my right to do so as a cherished thing indeed.
The expectations of the Ferrari owner as to what Ferrari will deliver to them as a new Ferrari owner is, after all, very different from the expectations of a Dodge owner as to what Dodge will deliver to them as a new Dodge owner. It is a sad fact that the low cost car buyer will often perceive not only the factory as delivering an incomplete product that needs to be customized, but that the entire service and delivery structure (i.e., the Dodge dealership) is also organized to operate in a manner inconsistent with the Dodge buyer's interests.
To this end, it should be pointed out that Apple is perceived by the Apple fanbois to offer the Ferrari type of product and service support structure, while the HPs and Dells of the world occupy the Dodge level in technology.
It is somehow fitting that the Dodge owner/enthusiast typically sees nothing wrong with copying some innovation advanced by someone else. After all, the Dodge owner is the direct beneficiary from such copying, and adaptation to the platform he is relegated to. To hold otherwise, would be to make all too apparent the widening gap between what he has, and what he cannot (or will not) have.
In this type of thinking (which makes a kind of sense if one were to ignore intellectual property as deserving the protections of ownership), the copying of intellectual property is alright as long as it can be justified by improving upon the original. "Improving" typically means adapting to another platform so it will work, thus bringing the benefit to the PC owner. Since it will invariably not be well thought out, continual change is perceived as a benefit, rather than a concession to the limitations of the platform or an homage to an inferior design.
In fact, the longevity of the Apple/Ferrari/Lamborghini designs will be perceived by the HP/Dodge owner not as the outcome of a superior concept that needs little changing in outward appearance, but a sign of weakness. Or worse, that Lamborghini fails to adopt some passing fad or incorporate a trend that has not yet matured, will likewise be perceived by the Dell/Dodge purist as a shortcoming.
To wit:
I doubt anyone could change your mind, nor should they even try. Given the above, if I were to stand in your shoes, I would be inclined to agree with you. You should understand, though (from your perspective), for those willing to spend too much on an Apple product, it is at least our perception (wrong though it may be) that we are receiving the right balance of user satisfaction when weighed against our loss of input control.
Go forth and prosper, my friend. Best wishes to you!
Nice try but wrong. You may like your iPhone the way Apple wants it to be but there's a very large group of iPhone owners that do not and jailbreak their phones and customize the heck out of it. You Dodge analogy doesn't hold water because only a small percentage of them customize. Comparing an iPhone to a Ferrari is asinine, its the best selling phone right? So what's the best selling car? a Toyota Corolla? Why? Because they just work. Low repair rate, and long lasting. That makes more sense.
You are seriously deluded here. Almost everything you say here is factually incorrect or irrelevant. I simply don't understand how you can't see that.
A PenTile display is "The first true HD display"??? (Almost all Nexus's in existence don't even have that).
NFC in the phone is "innovating"??? (the chips have been available for years and NFC is a blended hardware/software thing anyway and not about including a chip in the phone).
iOS 5 has Siri (the first such service of it's kind), but "isn't innovative?"
Google introduces a self-evident manner of doing notifications, that is in fact a copy of the way Palm used to do notifications that is itself a copy of the way Apple used to do notifications and this is "original" and "innovative" and Apple's notifications are somehow a "copy"???? Why? Because whomever copies last is at fault somehow?
I'll agree Siri is innovative but it wasn't Apples innovation, they bought it.
For some reason, I find this very interesting. I must assume this question comes from an honest query concerning a personal bewilderment on how Apple could possibly be viewed by any intelligent person as superior. I must also assume this is a valid point of view, even though I feel (from my perspective) it strains credulity. It is almost as if there are two disparate viewpoints, each founded upon mutually exclusive precepts.
It may be difficult for the poster above to appreciate that the Apple fanbois perspective seems to be one that essentially says "I like what Apple does because I find them to be most in tune to deliver what I need for my digital world. While it is true that, from the perspective of the non-Apple fanbois, it may be said that I have relegated a good deal of autonomy to a trusted source (i.e., Apple) that I might otherwise have reserved to myself, I am more than willing to do so because - up to this point - Apple exceeds the expectations (in delivering the type of desirable products that work really well).
As such, as a member of the Apple fanbois, though I may seem to have waived such tinker rights, in truth my past experiences have shown that there is little or no gain that resulted from my permission and ability to "tinker around with the innards" of a computer and its systems. Truth be told, I am glad that there seems to be a technically superior wellspring (i.e., Apple) which not only produces the products I appreciate, but they do so in an way that I find advantageous to myself.
Given the viral world of most competing non-Apple technology, and the fact that all too often things just don't work right (or at least to the degree I've come to expect from Apple), I would be abhored to learn that Apple suddenly reversed direction and opened their products to the same kind of "individual change" that is the vaunted hallmark of non-Apple products."
To wit the following remarks:
Upon examining it, I almost almost inclined to be sympathetic. From my perspective, were I to buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini, a hallmark of pride in ownership would not be a burning desire to change some aspect of it in an attempt to personalize it. Also, I would not be inclined to feel that the options offered by the factory were somehow limiting, and upon receiving delivery, proceed to dismantle the dash and replace the Blaupunkt sound system with some Sound Ordnance Bass Bunkers.
On the other hand (to continue the automobile analogy), were I to buy an inexpensive Detroit car that, for all intents and purposes, was perceived to be the same 4 wheels as the next one, I would probably care a great deal more to be able to customize it and make it somehow "special" - because as it comes to me new out of the box - there is nothing special about it. So it is somehow fitting that I might naturally want to bolt on certain wheel flares and rear spoilers, adorn it with a different paint job, and customize the look or performance of it, and consider my right to do so as a cherished thing indeed.
The expectations of the Ferrari owner as to what Ferrari will deliver to them as a new Ferrari owner is, after all, very different from the expectations of a Dodge owner as to what Dodge will deliver to them as a new Dodge owner. It is a sad fact that the low cost car buyer will often perceive not only the factory as delivering an incomplete product that needs to be customized, but that the entire service and delivery structure (i.e., the Dodge dealership) is also organized to operate in a manner inconsistent with the Dodge buyer's interests.
To this end, it should be pointed out that Apple is perceived by the Apple fanbois to offer the Ferrari type of product and service support structure, while the HPs and Dells of the world occupy the Dodge level in technology.
It is somehow fitting that the Dodge owner/enthusiast typically sees nothing wrong with copying some innovation advanced by someone else. After all, the Dodge owner is the direct beneficiary from such copying, and adaptation to the platform he is relegated to. To hold otherwise, would be to make all too apparent the widening gap between what he has, and what he cannot (or will not) have.
In this type of thinking (which makes a kind of sense if one were to ignore intellectual property as deserving the protections of ownership), the copying of intellectual property is alright as long as it can be justified by improving upon the original. "Improving" typically means adapting to another platform so it will work, thus bringing the benefit to the PC owner. Since it will invariably not be well thought out, continual change is perceived as a benefit, rather than a concession to the limitations of the platform or an homage to an inferior design.
In fact, the longevity of the Apple/Ferrari/Lamborghini designs will be perceived by the HP/Dodge owner not as the outcome of a superior concept that needs little changing in outward appearance, but a sign of weakness. Or worse, that Lamborghini fails to adopt some passing fad or incorporate a trend that has not yet matured, will likewise be perceived by the Dell/Dodge purist as a shortcoming.
To wit:
I doubt anyone could change your mind, nor should they even try. Given the above, if I were to stand in your shoes, I would be inclined to agree with you. You should understand, though (from your perspective), for those willing to spend too much on an Apple product, it is at least our perception (wrong though it may be) that we are receiving the right balance of user satisfaction when weighed against our loss of input control.
Go forth and prosper, my friend. Best wishes to you!
Everyone stop posting, it's been done to perfection! That was so good it deserves it's own background music!
Comments
I've never noticed his attacks before but if you report them then I can't see why he wouldn't get infractions and banned if he kept doing them.
Ummm...
Really Solipsism? There's no reason you can imagine why that wouldn't happen?
Ummm...
Really Solipsism? There's no reason you can imagine why that wouldn't happen?
None.
Further, Apple isn't sue happy. Apple didn't sue Palm over WebOS even though Palm did some brave things like hack into iTunes without Apple's permission. Apple further isn't grumbling over Microsoft Windows Phone. This is because both Palm and Microsoft's offering are different.
There's probably some truth there. The larger fact is both of these guys have a ton of legit patents to back up everything they've done. Palm has more than double the number of mobile telecommunications patents Apple has. Microsoft is about 8x and Nokia 10x. Apple may be bold, and rightly defensive at times, but they aren't stupid.
Sorry, I'm a little slow here.
So...you're saying that Eric Schmidt never served on the board during iTools development.
Is that correct?
No, it's not. Please try to keep up.
Someone claimed that Apple copied the concept from Android because Android had it in 2008 and they claimed that Apple didn't have it before that. I simply showed that they were wrong and Apple had it at least 8 years before it showed up in Android.
If you want to get technical on "OS Syncing", Roaming User Profile in ActiveDirectory predates them all.
Which is why I specifically stated that I was not taking the position that Apple was first.
For some reason, I find this very interesting. I must assume this question comes from an honest query concerning a personal bewilderment on how Apple could possibly be viewed by any intelligent person as superior. I must also assume this is a valid point of view, even though I feel (from my perspective) it strains credulity. It is almost as if there are two disparate viewpoints, each founded upon mutually exclusive precepts.
It may be difficult for the poster above to appreciate that the Apple fanbois perspective seems to be one that essentially says "I like what Apple does because I find them to be most in tune to deliver what I need for my digital world. While it is true that, from the perspective of the non-Apple fanbois, it may be said that I have relegated a good deal of autonomy to a trusted source (i.e., Apple) that I might otherwise have reserved to myself, I am more than willing to do so because - up to this point - Apple exceeds the expectations (in delivering the type of desirable products that work really well).
As such, as a member of the Apple fanbois, though I may seem to have waived such tinker rights, in truth my past experiences have shown that there is little or no gain that resulted from my permission and ability to "tinker around with the innards" of a computer and its systems. Truth be told, I am glad that there seems to be a technically superior wellspring (i.e., Apple) which not only produces the products I appreciate, but they do so in an way that I find advantageous to myself.
Given the viral world of most competing non-Apple technology, and the fact that all too often things just don't work right (or at least to the degree I've come to expect from Apple), I would be abhored to learn that Apple suddenly reversed direction and opened their products to the same kind of "individual change" that is the vaunted hallmark of non-Apple products."
To wit the following remarks:
Upon examining it, I almost almost inclined to be sympathetic. From my perspective, were I to buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini, a hallmark of pride in ownership would not be a burning desire to change some aspect of it in an attempt to personalize it. Also, I would not be inclined to feel that the options offered by the factory were somehow limiting, and upon receiving delivery, proceed to dismantle the dash and replace the Blaupunkt sound system with some Sound Ordnance Bass Bunkers.
On the other hand (to continue the automobile analogy), were I to buy an inexpensive Detroit car that, for all intents and purposes, was perceived to be the same 4 wheels as the next one, I would probably care a great deal more to be able to customize it and make it somehow "special" - because as it comes to me new out of the box - there is nothing special about it. So it is somehow fitting that I might naturally want to bolt on certain wheel flares and rear spoilers, adorn it with a different paint job, and customize the look or performance of it, and consider my right to do so as a cherished thing indeed.
The expectations of the Ferrari owner as to what Ferrari will deliver to them as a new Ferrari owner is, after all, very different from the expectations of a Dodge owner as to what Dodge will deliver to them as a new Dodge owner. It is a sad fact that the low cost car buyer will often perceive not only the factory as delivering an incomplete product that needs to be customized, but that the entire service and delivery structure (i.e., the Dodge dealership) is also organized to operate in a manner inconsistent with the Dodge buyer's interests.
To this end, it should be pointed out that Apple is perceived by the Apple fanbois to offer the Ferrari type of product and service support structure, while the HPs and Dells of the world occupy the Dodge level in technology.
It is somehow fitting that the Dodge owner/enthusiast typically sees nothing wrong with copying some innovation advanced by someone else. After all, the Dodge owner is the direct beneficiary from such copying, and adaptation to the platform he is relegated to. To hold otherwise, would be to make all too apparent the widening gap between what he has, and what he cannot (or will not) have.
In this type of thinking (which makes a kind of sense if one were to ignore intellectual property as deserving the protections of ownership), the copying of intellectual property is alright as long as it can be justified by improving upon the original. "Improving" typically means adapting to another platform so it will work, thus bringing the benefit to the PC owner. Since it will invariably not be well thought out, continual change is perceived as a benefit, rather than a concession to the limitations of the platform or an homage to an inferior design.
In fact, the longevity of the Apple/Ferrari/Lamborghini designs will be perceived by the HP/Dodge owner not as the outcome of a superior concept that needs little changing in outward appearance, but a sign of weakness. Or worse, that Lamborghini fails to adopt some passing fad or incorporate a trend that has not yet matured, will likewise be perceived by the Dell/Dodge purist as a shortcoming.
To wit:
I doubt anyone could change your mind, nor should they even try. Given the above, if I were to stand in your shoes, I would be inclined to agree with you. You should understand, though (from your perspective), for those willing to spend too much on an Apple product, it is at least our perception (wrong though it may be) that we are receiving the right balance of user satisfaction when weighed against our loss of input control.
Go forth and prosper, my friend. Best wishes to you!
Fantastically written with apt analogies. Well done!
Oh, but there is just one flaw. Even the guy with the Dodge doesn't have to root it just to reprogram the radio stations! It blew my mind to learn about this from someone at work about his "more customizable" Samsung Galaxy S2 and his preinstalled applications.
Here, post 13 then post 18.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...07#post2017807
You sure about that?
You sure about that?
Deleted
...and Larry Page makes a few ineffective gestures in the air and tries to break a chair a la Ballmer.
Endgame is not far off. Apple's lawyers make Steve Jobs look like Mr. Nice Guy in comparison.
I don't think they have to try to make Jobs look like a nice guy. He WAS a nice guy, at least at that point in his life when he chose to mentor the Google boys. I think apple has been straight up with their legal cases. Where they can, they ask nicely first. When other companies want to take the shortcut across your back your company must respond with firm deterrence. Apple has come at this in all propriety, no one can fault them for defending patents they have been working on for ten years.
I worry this is misrepresented in the media at large, like Apple is suddenly evil because they are finally really makin it? Apple does need to worry how the world sees this. A little, anyways. Ah, they will just not give a crap about hype, what can they do really.
You know we can't ever be sure about anything. You be the judge based on the the two posts along with the lack of any language editing by mods.
But what made you think that when you posted #13?
But what made you think that when you posted #13?
EDIT: Just a hunch I suppose
well you totally missed the point. Much of the Apple IP is a sham. If Apple did anything right, it was filing trivial (likely to be invalidated in due time) patents and jumping into the lawsuit business early. You Apple guys having been declaring Android doom for years now while the platform's momentum has continued regardless. I don't buy the stolen OS droning, whilst understanding that much of Apple's IP was stolen from other companies in the first place. If i were to guess, Android will continue to thrive and companies will continue to sue each other.
I don't agree with your views. I would like to know since based on your comments you obviously must know, exactly whose IP did Apple steal? If they stole IP why aren't they being sued by the owners of the IP they supposedly stole?. Please sight specific instances not generalities.
I don't agree with your views. I would like to know since based on your comments you obviously must know, exactly whose IP did Apple steal? If they stole IP why aren't they being sued by the owners of the IP they supposedly stole?. Please sight specific instances not generalities.
Apple is currently being sued by many, many companies for theft of IP.
I've never noticed his attacks before but if you report them then I can't see why he wouldn't get infractions and banned if he kept doing them.
I'm sure as hell not going to report him! I'd rather keep my account thank you very much!
I think he meant to write AbsoluteDesignz since he references piot.
And I have stepped over the line before. I do try to word my digs in such a way that they aren't technically ad hominen attacks and thus are unseen by mod radar sweeps but every now and then I catch a bullet.
You are correct, I meant AbsoluteDesignz. I apologize for that mistake.
<Whoosh>
Did you just flush yourself down the toilet?
No, it's not. Please try to keep up.
Someone claimed that Apple copied the concept from Android because Android had it in 2008 and they claimed that Apple didn't have it before that. I simply showed that they were wrong and Apple had it at least 8 years before it showed up in Android.
Which is why I specifically stated that I was not taking the position that Apple was first.
Sarcasm.
Conveyed well it was not (as Yoda would say).
That was a dig at Eric Schmidt (why does auto-correct change this to 'Shit'?).
For some reason, I find this very interesting. I must assume this question comes from an honest query concerning a personal bewilderment on how Apple could possibly be viewed by any intelligent person as superior. I must also assume this is a valid point of view, even though I feel (from my perspective) it strains credulity. It is almost as if there are two disparate viewpoints, each founded upon mutually exclusive precepts.
It may be difficult for the poster above to appreciate that the Apple fanbois perspective seems to be one that essentially says "I like what Apple does because I find them to be most in tune to deliver what I need for my digital world. While it is true that, from the perspective of the non-Apple fanbois, it may be said that I have relegated a good deal of autonomy to a trusted source (i.e., Apple) that I might otherwise have reserved to myself, I am more than willing to do so because - up to this point - Apple exceeds the expectations (in delivering the type of desirable products that work really well).
As such, as a member of the Apple fanbois, though I may seem to have waived such tinker rights, in truth my past experiences have shown that there is little or no gain that resulted from my permission and ability to "tinker around with the innards" of a computer and its systems. Truth be told, I am glad that there seems to be a technically superior wellspring (i.e., Apple) which not only produces the products I appreciate, but they do so in an way that I find advantageous to myself.
Given the viral world of most competing non-Apple technology, and the fact that all too often things just don't work right (or at least to the degree I've come to expect from Apple), I would be abhored to learn that Apple suddenly reversed direction and opened their products to the same kind of "individual change" that is the vaunted hallmark of non-Apple products."
To wit the following remarks:
Upon examining it, I almost almost inclined to be sympathetic. From my perspective, were I to buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini, a hallmark of pride in ownership would not be a burning desire to change some aspect of it in an attempt to personalize it. Also, I would not be inclined to feel that the options offered by the factory were somehow limiting, and upon receiving delivery, proceed to dismantle the dash and replace the Blaupunkt sound system with some Sound Ordnance Bass Bunkers.
On the other hand (to continue the automobile analogy), were I to buy an inexpensive Detroit car that, for all intents and purposes, was perceived to be the same 4 wheels as the next one, I would probably care a great deal more to be able to customize it and make it somehow "special" - because as it comes to me new out of the box - there is nothing special about it. So it is somehow fitting that I might naturally want to bolt on certain wheel flares and rear spoilers, adorn it with a different paint job, and customize the look or performance of it, and consider my right to do so as a cherished thing indeed.
The expectations of the Ferrari owner as to what Ferrari will deliver to them as a new Ferrari owner is, after all, very different from the expectations of a Dodge owner as to what Dodge will deliver to them as a new Dodge owner. It is a sad fact that the low cost car buyer will often perceive not only the factory as delivering an incomplete product that needs to be customized, but that the entire service and delivery structure (i.e., the Dodge dealership) is also organized to operate in a manner inconsistent with the Dodge buyer's interests.
To this end, it should be pointed out that Apple is perceived by the Apple fanbois to offer the Ferrari type of product and service support structure, while the HPs and Dells of the world occupy the Dodge level in technology.
It is somehow fitting that the Dodge owner/enthusiast typically sees nothing wrong with copying some innovation advanced by someone else. After all, the Dodge owner is the direct beneficiary from such copying, and adaptation to the platform he is relegated to. To hold otherwise, would be to make all too apparent the widening gap between what he has, and what he cannot (or will not) have.
In this type of thinking (which makes a kind of sense if one were to ignore intellectual property as deserving the protections of ownership), the copying of intellectual property is alright as long as it can be justified by improving upon the original. "Improving" typically means adapting to another platform so it will work, thus bringing the benefit to the PC owner. Since it will invariably not be well thought out, continual change is perceived as a benefit, rather than a concession to the limitations of the platform or an homage to an inferior design.
In fact, the longevity of the Apple/Ferrari/Lamborghini designs will be perceived by the HP/Dodge owner not as the outcome of a superior concept that needs little changing in outward appearance, but a sign of weakness. Or worse, that Lamborghini fails to adopt some passing fad or incorporate a trend that has not yet matured, will likewise be perceived by the Dell/Dodge purist as a shortcoming.
To wit:
I doubt anyone could change your mind, nor should they even try. Given the above, if I were to stand in your shoes, I would be inclined to agree with you. You should understand, though (from your perspective), for those willing to spend too much on an Apple product, it is at least our perception (wrong though it may be) that we are receiving the right balance of user satisfaction when weighed against our loss of input control.
Go forth and prosper, my friend. Best wishes to you!
Nice try but wrong. You may like your iPhone the way Apple wants it to be but there's a very large group of iPhone owners that do not and jailbreak their phones and customize the heck out of it. You Dodge analogy doesn't hold water because only a small percentage of them customize. Comparing an iPhone to a Ferrari is asinine, its the best selling phone right? So what's the best selling car? a Toyota Corolla? Why? Because they just work. Low repair rate, and long lasting. That makes more sense.
You are seriously deluded here. Almost everything you say here is factually incorrect or irrelevant. I simply don't understand how you can't see that.
A PenTile display is "The first true HD display"??? (Almost all Nexus's in existence don't even have that).
NFC in the phone is "innovating"??? (the chips have been available for years and NFC is a blended hardware/software thing anyway and not about including a chip in the phone).
iOS 5 has Siri (the first such service of it's kind), but "isn't innovative?"
Google introduces a self-evident manner of doing notifications, that is in fact a copy of the way Palm used to do notifications that is itself a copy of the way Apple used to do notifications and this is "original" and "innovative" and Apple's notifications are somehow a "copy"???? Why? Because whomever copies last is at fault somehow?
I'll agree Siri is innovative but it wasn't Apples innovation, they bought it.
For some reason, I find this very interesting. I must assume this question comes from an honest query concerning a personal bewilderment on how Apple could possibly be viewed by any intelligent person as superior. I must also assume this is a valid point of view, even though I feel (from my perspective) it strains credulity. It is almost as if there are two disparate viewpoints, each founded upon mutually exclusive precepts.
It may be difficult for the poster above to appreciate that the Apple fanbois perspective seems to be one that essentially says "I like what Apple does because I find them to be most in tune to deliver what I need for my digital world. While it is true that, from the perspective of the non-Apple fanbois, it may be said that I have relegated a good deal of autonomy to a trusted source (i.e., Apple) that I might otherwise have reserved to myself, I am more than willing to do so because - up to this point - Apple exceeds the expectations (in delivering the type of desirable products that work really well).
As such, as a member of the Apple fanbois, though I may seem to have waived such tinker rights, in truth my past experiences have shown that there is little or no gain that resulted from my permission and ability to "tinker around with the innards" of a computer and its systems. Truth be told, I am glad that there seems to be a technically superior wellspring (i.e., Apple) which not only produces the products I appreciate, but they do so in an way that I find advantageous to myself.
Given the viral world of most competing non-Apple technology, and the fact that all too often things just don't work right (or at least to the degree I've come to expect from Apple), I would be abhored to learn that Apple suddenly reversed direction and opened their products to the same kind of "individual change" that is the vaunted hallmark of non-Apple products."
To wit the following remarks:
Upon examining it, I almost almost inclined to be sympathetic. From my perspective, were I to buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini, a hallmark of pride in ownership would not be a burning desire to change some aspect of it in an attempt to personalize it. Also, I would not be inclined to feel that the options offered by the factory were somehow limiting, and upon receiving delivery, proceed to dismantle the dash and replace the Blaupunkt sound system with some Sound Ordnance Bass Bunkers.
On the other hand (to continue the automobile analogy), were I to buy an inexpensive Detroit car that, for all intents and purposes, was perceived to be the same 4 wheels as the next one, I would probably care a great deal more to be able to customize it and make it somehow "special" - because as it comes to me new out of the box - there is nothing special about it. So it is somehow fitting that I might naturally want to bolt on certain wheel flares and rear spoilers, adorn it with a different paint job, and customize the look or performance of it, and consider my right to do so as a cherished thing indeed.
The expectations of the Ferrari owner as to what Ferrari will deliver to them as a new Ferrari owner is, after all, very different from the expectations of a Dodge owner as to what Dodge will deliver to them as a new Dodge owner. It is a sad fact that the low cost car buyer will often perceive not only the factory as delivering an incomplete product that needs to be customized, but that the entire service and delivery structure (i.e., the Dodge dealership) is also organized to operate in a manner inconsistent with the Dodge buyer's interests.
To this end, it should be pointed out that Apple is perceived by the Apple fanbois to offer the Ferrari type of product and service support structure, while the HPs and Dells of the world occupy the Dodge level in technology.
It is somehow fitting that the Dodge owner/enthusiast typically sees nothing wrong with copying some innovation advanced by someone else. After all, the Dodge owner is the direct beneficiary from such copying, and adaptation to the platform he is relegated to. To hold otherwise, would be to make all too apparent the widening gap between what he has, and what he cannot (or will not) have.
In this type of thinking (which makes a kind of sense if one were to ignore intellectual property as deserving the protections of ownership), the copying of intellectual property is alright as long as it can be justified by improving upon the original. "Improving" typically means adapting to another platform so it will work, thus bringing the benefit to the PC owner. Since it will invariably not be well thought out, continual change is perceived as a benefit, rather than a concession to the limitations of the platform or an homage to an inferior design.
In fact, the longevity of the Apple/Ferrari/Lamborghini designs will be perceived by the HP/Dodge owner not as the outcome of a superior concept that needs little changing in outward appearance, but a sign of weakness. Or worse, that Lamborghini fails to adopt some passing fad or incorporate a trend that has not yet matured, will likewise be perceived by the Dell/Dodge purist as a shortcoming.
To wit:
I doubt anyone could change your mind, nor should they even try. Given the above, if I were to stand in your shoes, I would be inclined to agree with you. You should understand, though (from your perspective), for those willing to spend too much on an Apple product, it is at least our perception (wrong though it may be) that we are receiving the right balance of user satisfaction when weighed against our loss of input control.
Go forth and prosper, my friend. Best wishes to you!
Everyone stop posting, it's been done to perfection! That was so good it deserves it's own background music!