If it is meant to answer the notion that one shouldn't be able to patent and own software, it doesn't. That's a moral question for some people. I've been an engineer for 30 years and live through those periods, and I strongly come down on the anti-litigation side.
These editorials are a gospel of cherry picking for the faithful preaching the word that Apple was at the heart of everything. Contributions of others are minimized and Apple is posited to be the cause of the effect. I don't need team of ghost writers to write that.
As mentioned by someone else, if Apple is to win, it should be by market forces, not by courts.
Ask yourself this, why does it make you feel good to have someone write long treatises on why your revered corporation and ex-CEO are near perfection, and all of their critics are wrong and baseless? Doesn't it seem strange to have an addiction which needs a "fix" like this? Again, it's like Fox News or right-wing radio, where people need to tune in everyday to have their hardened beliefs coaxed and reinforced.
I think Apple should not try to win back market share by selling cheap iPhones. Apple is the most innovative company in the world. The reward to Apple is huge profits. Because Apple is able to sell to people that are willing to pay a premium price. Trying to deal with people that can not pay will give Apple all kinds of problems.
But I fully agree with Apple pursuing patent litigations. Because this is what an innovative company should do.
I don't think Nexus 7 is popular due to the reasons you cited. It is due to iPad wifi versions lacking a gps chip. Because when Nexus 7 GPS developed a problem I was surprised there are so many users responded. This means gps usage is very important to Nexus 7 users. They bought Nexus 7 instead of ipad mini probably because of it.
Nexus 7 is more popular than the iPad Mini because, on an overall HW/price evaluation, it is probably a better pad, hopefully setting a new price reference for iPads, including the ridiculous price Apple charges for memory. I am awaiting a Retina Mini, but my son who has to be more price conscious than me bought a Nexus, and I would have too if it had been running iOS.
The reason why Apple investors are nervous is simply because they are struggling to see where future growth comes from, Apple is facing stiff competition, and Apple breakthroughs are unpredictable events. At a certain point, the smartphone revolution will reach saturation, and practically everyone will have one, then growth slows severely and will look more like the PC market did, with competitors fighting over a slowly expanding pie. Will the iWatch or iTV be a runaway hit rivaling the iPhone? There's no guarantee of that. How much higher can Apple revenues go? There are limits to exponential growth.
All companies eventually return to earth. It doesn't mean they fail, it means they go from spectacular growth to sustainable growth. A lot investors believe that's where Apple is headed.
a) China offers virtually no protection for intellectual property (apart from China's ProView trademark on iPad, which it got to sell Apple twice for $MM)
b) China, like Google, has a storied history and official policy of counterfeiting existing, patented Western technology and refusing to pay for it by making its own slightly tweaked version (aka DVD, WiFi, CDMA, LTE, German trains, Italian clothes, American iPhones, etc.)
c) Market research companies like to define markets as including things that are not in the same market ($199 netbooks vs $2000 MacBooks)
d) Market research companies like to define markets as excluding things that are in the same market if it would be flattering to Apple (iPad is not a PC)
e) Apple has all of 8 stores in Red China, 6 of which are in Shanghai or Beijing
f) The market share figure you cite only related to unit volumes shipping. Apple's dollar share is different, which is what engineering and capitalism are actually about.
"Mainland China was up five percent year over year. That's a lower growth rate than we've been seeing, and I attribute that to many things. The economy there clearly doesn't help us and others" - Peter
"In greater China, our revenues were $4.9 billion for the quarter, about 14 percent of the company. A few years ago, that would have been hundreds of millions. In the last 12 months we've done $27 billion on a trailing basis. It's a huge business for us. iPad sell-through in greater China was up 8 percent, in mainland China up 37 percent. In the tablet market, latest figures indicate higher than 50 percent share in China.
"We now have about half a million developers in China working on iOS apps. That's up over 70 percent year over year. We're going to double the number of retail stores in China over the next two years. iPad and iPhone sales are currently lower than where we want and need them to be. I continue to believe in the arc of time that China is a huge opportunity for Apple. I don't get discouraged over a 90 day cycle that could have economic factors." - Tim
Are you saying that the simple fact that China is a developing country where the vast majority is nowhere near being able to afford Apple products is not a part of the explanation?
If it is meant to answer the notion that one shouldn't be able to patent and own software, it doesn't. That's a moral question for some people. I've been an engineer for 30 years and live through those periods, and I strongly come down on the anti-litigation side.
These editorials are a gospel of cherry picking for the faithful preaching the word that Apple was at the heart of everything. Contributions of others are minimized and Apple is posited to be the cause of the effect. I don't need team of ghost writers to write that.
As mentioned by someone else, if Apple is to win, it should be by market forces, not by courts.
Ask yourself this, why does it make you feel good to have someone write long treatises on why your revered corporation and ex-CEO are near perfection, and all of their critics are wrong and baseless? Doesn't it seem strange to have an addiction which needs a "fix" like this? Again, it's like Fox News or right-wing radio, where people need to tune in everyday to have their hardened beliefs coaxed and reinforced.
Perhaps you haven't grasped it yet, but the reason why AppleInsider would publish "iPhone Patent Wars" looking a series of events where, as you astutely point out, "Apple was at the heart of everything," is sort of self explanatory. Do you also write angry letters to "Car & Driver" demanding to know why they write about automobiles and not the equally important subject of swimming pools?
While you can complain in general terms about "cherry picking" of events and Apple being "posited to be the cause of the effect," I can't help but notice that after reading that long article you can't actually present anything material that was left out, or describe any connections that are incorrect.
The article itself points out who said "if Apple is to win...," and put it in the form a video so you couldn't even complain about having to read it, or attack it for being inaccurate. And you still choose instead to mangle the quote to say something else, and then turn around and tell me this article is an affront to true history? Shocking.
If you see a similarity between this outline the history of Apple (which while interesting is not always flattering to the company in general or to the individuals who were running it) or noting how Apple got its current ~75% share of the world's consumer technology related profits, VS. wingnuts who recite propaganda supporting the 30% (whether that's the Tea Party or Android, not sure which you meant), I have to wonder if you might be better served with a different daily medication than whatever you're currently on.
I don't think Nexus 7 is popular due to the reasons you cited. It is due to iPad wifi versions lacking a gps chip. Because when Nexus 7 GPS developed a problem I was surprised there are so many users responded. This means gps usage is very important to Nexus 7 users. They bought Nexus 7 instead of ipad mini probably because of it.
I don't think Nexus 7 is as popular as you think. If it were, Asus would be reporting some sales and, hopefully, some profits.
I don't think there's a casual nexus between "Nexus 7 GPS developing a problem for so many users" and "Nexus 7 is popular."
Nexus 7 is more popular than the iPad Mini because, on an overall HW/price evaluation, it is probably a better pad, hopefully setting a new price reference for iPads, including the ridiculous price Apple charges for memory. I am awaiting a Retina Mini, but my son who has to be more price conscious than me bought a Nexus, and I would have too if it had been running iOS.
Nexus 7 battery life is still poorer than iPad. How can yyou say it is better HW?
Are you saying that the simple fact that China is a developing country where the vast majority is nowhere near being able to afford Apple products is not a part of the explanation?
Mr Dilger, this series is so important I hope it will find its way to your personal site where a few of your works also reside. This will help us find them for refreshing our memories.
You stand tall with a few other honest analysts (& some journalists) with scruples and drive to speak the honest truth; a few off hand are Dediu and Gruber. Compared to you honest analysts, cheap journalists like Dvorac (spit) are but Chimps unleashed upon the world from their canopy over swamps.
These articles are the benchmarks to honest historical facts that we need to know and understand if we are to stand tall against the lies perpetrated by FacsimleSam and Goolies both of whom are bent to undermine the success of Apple, a company that has changed the world of tech. F & G, the hurry companies trying to catch up to Apple spread lies and deceptions through their troops of paid Trolls.Their purpose is to undermine Apple in the public eye and to distort conversation and actual journalism on the sites that follow Apple rendering them useless for good information and discussion.
Heart, strength and honour, that is what I find when I read your articles, Mr Dilger.
off topic but . . .
The BLOCK feature on AI needs be used relentlessly by those who can overcome their anger & frustration for the troll. BLOCKing supports the hard efforts of the writers and posters. Feeding the trolls by answering them only encourages them and slows down true discussions.
If it is meant to answer the notion that one shouldn't be able to patent and own software, it doesn't. That's a moral question for some people. <span style="line-height:1.231;">I've been an engineer for 30 years and live through those periods, and I strongly come down on the anti-litigation side. </span>
These editorials are a gospel of cherry picking for the faithful preaching the word that Apple was at the heart of everything. Contributions of others are minimized and Apple is posited to be the cause of the effect. I don't need team of ghost writers to write that.
As mentioned by someone else, if Apple is to win, it should be by market forces, not by courts.
Ask yourself this, why does it make you feel good to have someone write long treatises on why your revered corporation and ex-CEO are near perfection, and all of their critics are wrong and baseless? Doesn't it seem strange to have an addiction which needs a "fix" like this? Again, it's like Fox News or right-wing radio, where people need to tune in everyday to have their hardened beliefs coaxed and reinforced.
Apple: revolutionary focus on user experience, good taste, ethical approach to biz.
Microsoft: same old American consumer-technology incompetence, focus on user torture, bad taste, bad ethics.
Samsung: bad taste, very bad ethics, focus on user distraction.
I guess it's to counter mindset like yours. While this article may paint Apple in a perfect light, it's refreshing to be reminded of history because many people don't realize or acknowledge how much Apple has influenced almost every CE product sold in the last 30+ years.
Lots of companies have had wide ranging influences major CE devices over the years. This is what I mean by minimizing the contributions of others and viewing history through a narrow lens. I can construct similar "Microsoft was behind everything" narratives if I want. For example, the GPU that makes the iPhone even possible can be traced directly back to Microsoft's investment into DirectX and the PC gaming market. SGI plays the role of Xerox here, creating OpenGL, but failing to make it relevant for everyday consumers. Enter the savior, Microsoft, rescuing the HW industry from the ineffective ARB, pushing forward a baseline spec that got better every 18 months, and enabling a competitive GPU market for the desktop that allowed other vendors to sell compatible hardware into a ready made market. This lead to an advancement in GPU capabilities that surpassed Moore's Law on CPUs. PowerVR began as a desktop class GPU, but tile-based-deferred-renderers, designed for low memory bandwidth, could not compete on the desktop where immediate mode renderers were getting faster and faster GDDR coupled with ginormous 256, 384, and 512-bit memory busses. So PowerVR rescued their IP by pivoting to mobile, where tile-based-deferred-rendering shines, leading to the introduction of the series of GPUs that sit in mobile today.
No Microsoft investment in DirectX making the PC a competitive gaming market, and OpenGL would be stagnant, likely delaying the timeline of GPUs by years, and in 2007, the iPhone would have had a much less powerful graphics chip.
Anyway can play this game. Just watch James Burke's "Connections" series on PBS.
The reason why Apple investors are nervous is simply because they are struggling to see where future growth comes from, Apple is facing stiff competition, and Apple breakthroughs are unpredictable events. At a certain point, the smartphone revolution will reach saturation, and practically everyone will have one, then growth slows severely and will look more like the PC market did, with competitors fighting over a slowly expanding pie. Will the iWatch or iTV be a runaway hit rivaling the iPhone? There's no guarantee of that. How much higher can Apple revenues go? There are limits to exponential growth.
All companies eventually return to earth. It doesn't mean they fail, it means they go from spectacular growth to sustainable growth. A lot investors believe that's where Apple is headed.
In hindsight, Apple's "breakthoughs" seems to be quite predictable: iOS & OS X come out every year, and new hardware cycles though on a regular clip.
Compare Google's "breakthroughs" for Android:
1.0 Illuminated trackball?
2.0 Works more like iPhone with virtual keyboard?
3.0 Tablets?
4.0 NFC/Wallet? Hey we have a Siri too?
You have such an articulate understanding of the troubles facing Apple. But imagine if those same risks were also faced by a company with much less cash, much less experience in managine platforms, much less profitability and a business model firmly rooted to the no-longer-growing PC market.
Essentially Apple was the R&D dept for Microsoft and the Cloners and now has expanded to include Google and the Smartphone manufactures. Samsung is the only one making money and only because it has the brass balls to almost complelety copy everything down to the dress and accessories of iPhone and now iPad, the rest can't match Apple's supply chain effiencies. IF Apple hadn't sued Samsung there would be other players making identical copies of the iPhone therefore Apple has limited the damage only to Samsung. So it not a complete repeat of PC clone wars.
For the last few years Apple has found a way of protecting its R&D costs and now makes money off it's inventions The PC cloners and now smartphone/tablet manufactures are annoyed they lost their R&D dept. and are using loopholes in the patent system to benefit their own parasitic ends.
Morally I don't think they have a leg to stand on , but this is business there are no moral values in place - only misguided business ethics.
Look up the definition of Ethics and Morals to comphrehend the difference.
Nexus 7 battery life is still poorer than iPad. How can yyou say it is better HW?
Because for me the battery life is good enough, for the iPad Mini the price point, particularly for memory, and the screen is not.
I can even live with the battery life of my iPhone 5 which is pretty bad compared to what it could be if it wasn't considered more important by Apple to shave of a mm of thickness compared to the 4s, in my opinion a totally wrong decision.
The BLOCK feature on AI needs be used relentlessly by those who can overcome their anger & frustration for the troll. BLOCKing supports the hard efforts of the writers and posters. Feeding the trolls by answering them only encourages them and slows down true discussions.
Blocking actually benefits the 'troll" more than the forum IMO.
Letting FUD pass as fact by ignoring it only reinforces it's power to deceive. Unless you're here only to read "feel good" posts anyway, blocking actually works against the forum interests. Of course there are probably some members that aren't knowledgeable enough to counter falsehoods or ignor4nce in the first place so their blocking of certain members doesn't affect AI one way or the other. The more connected members here don't do anyone a favor by ignoring misstatements, or worse outright falsehoods. Just my 2 cents.
Lots of companies have had wide ranging influences major CE devices over the years. This is what I mean by minimizing the contributions of others and viewing history through a narrow lens. I can construct similar "Microsoft was behind everything" narratives if I want. For example, the GPU that makes the iPhone even possible can be traced directly back to Microsoft's investment into DirectX and the PC gaming market. SGI plays the role of Xerox here, creating OpenGL, but failing to make it relevant for everyday consumers. Enter the savior, Microsoft, rescuing the HW industry from the ineffective ARB, pushing forward a baseline spec that got better every 18 months, and enabling a competitive GPU market for the desktop that allowed other vendors to sell compatible hardware into a ready made market. This lead to an advancement in GPU capabilities that surpassed Moore's Law on CPUs. PowerVR began as a desktop class GPU, but tile-based-deferred-renderers, designed for low memory bandwidth, could not compete on the desktop where immediate mode renderers were getting faster and faster GDDR coupled with ginormous 256, 384, and 512-bit memory busses. So PowerVR rescued their IP by pivoting to mobile, where tile-based-deferred-rendering shines, leading to the introduction of the series of GPUs that sit in mobile today.
No Microsoft investment in DirectX making the PC a competitive gaming market, and OpenGL would be stagnant, likely delaying the timeline of GPUs by years, and in 2007, the iPhone would have had a much less powerful graphics chip.
Anyway can play this game. Just watch James Burke's "Connections" series on PBS.
So you're crediting Apple having beat Microsoft's DirectX by leveraging OpenGL in mobile because... Microsoft tried, back when it had a monopoly, but failed?
Interesting that your sole example (which I've now seen you repeat multiple times) is also an example of breathlessly cheerleading for a loser just because you like their team colors. Also, if Microsoft hadn't introduced DirectX, the industry would have invested in OpenGL rather than wasting half of its time duplicating efforts and pursuing Microsoft's dead end.
The reality is that Microsoft advanced DirectX because it wanted to crush open standards for GPU technology, forcing all tech to require Windows.
Apple has backed open technologies (WebKit, OpenGL, Cal/CardDAV, HTML5, H.264) in iOS & OS X that allowed other platforms to compete on a level playing field. That has helped Android considerably, and enabled Palm/WP/BB and others to at least attempt to deliver brand new platforms that could at least access content and take advantage of interoperable technologies, even if they weren't successful.
And Apple still won.
Meanwhile, Google crows about being open but it backs technologies that are FOSS but non-standard and tied to proprietary stuff from Google (Adobe Flash, Google Contacts/Calendar APIs, VP8/WebM video, WebP images). It's nearly as bad as Microsoft was.
Blocking actually benefits the 'troll" more than the forum IMO.
Letting FUD pass as fact by ignoring it only reinforces it's power to deceive. Unless you're here only to read "feel good" posts anyway, blocking actually works against the forum interests. Of course there are probably some members that aren't knowledgeable enough to counter falsehoods or ignor4nce in the first place so their blocking of certain members doesn't affect AI one way or the other. The more connected members here don't do anyone a favor by ignoring misstatements, or worse outright falsehoods. Just my 2 cents.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
If it is meant to answer the notion that one shouldn't be able to patent and own software, it doesn't. That's a moral question for some people. I've been an engineer for 30 years and live through those periods, and I strongly come down on the anti-litigation side.
These editorials are a gospel of cherry picking for the faithful preaching the word that Apple was at the heart of everything. Contributions of others are minimized and Apple is posited to be the cause of the effect. I don't need team of ghost writers to write that.
As mentioned by someone else, if Apple is to win, it should be by market forces, not by courts.
Ask yourself this, why does it make you feel good to have someone write long treatises on why your revered corporation and ex-CEO are near perfection, and all of their critics are wrong and baseless? Doesn't it seem strange to have an addiction which needs a "fix" like this? Again, it's like Fox News or right-wing radio, where people need to tune in everyday to have their hardened beliefs coaxed and reinforced.
I think Apple should not try to win back market share by selling cheap iPhones. Apple is the most innovative company in the world. The reward to Apple is huge profits. Because Apple is able to sell to people that are willing to pay a premium price. Trying to deal with people that can not pay will give Apple all kinds of problems.
But I fully agree with Apple pursuing patent litigations. Because this is what an innovative company should do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
I don't think Nexus 7 is popular due to the reasons you cited. It is due to iPad wifi versions lacking a gps chip. Because when Nexus 7 GPS developed a problem I was surprised there are so many users responded. This means gps usage is very important to Nexus 7 users. They bought Nexus 7 instead of ipad mini probably because of it.
Nexus 7 is more popular than the iPad Mini because, on an overall HW/price evaluation, it is probably a better pad, hopefully setting a new price reference for iPads, including the ridiculous price Apple charges for memory. I am awaiting a Retina Mini, but my son who has to be more price conscious than me bought a Nexus, and I would have too if it had been running iOS.
The reason why Apple investors are nervous is simply because they are struggling to see where future growth comes from, Apple is facing stiff competition, and Apple breakthroughs are unpredictable events. At a certain point, the smartphone revolution will reach saturation, and practically everyone will have one, then growth slows severely and will look more like the PC market did, with competitors fighting over a slowly expanding pie. Will the iWatch or iTV be a runaway hit rivaling the iPhone? There's no guarantee of that. How much higher can Apple revenues go? There are limits to exponential growth.
All companies eventually return to earth. It doesn't mean they fail, it means they go from spectacular growth to sustainable growth. A lot investors believe that's where Apple is headed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Since you asked:
a) China offers virtually no protection for intellectual property (apart from China's ProView trademark on iPad, which it got to sell Apple twice for $MM)
b) China, like Google, has a storied history and official policy of counterfeiting existing, patented Western technology and refusing to pay for it by making its own slightly tweaked version (aka DVD, WiFi, CDMA, LTE, German trains, Italian clothes, American iPhones, etc.)
c) Market research companies like to define markets as including things that are not in the same market ($199 netbooks vs $2000 MacBooks)
d) Market research companies like to define markets as excluding things that are in the same market if it would be flattering to Apple (iPad is not a PC)
e) Apple has all of 8 stores in Red China, 6 of which are in Shanghai or Beijing
f) The market share figure you cite only related to unit volumes shipping. Apple's dollar share is different, which is what engineering and capitalism are actually about.
Also:
Comments from Apple execs on China last Q3 2013 from Notes of interest from Apple's Q3 2013 conference call:
"Mainland China was up five percent year over year. That's a lower growth rate than we've been seeing, and I attribute that to many things. The economy there clearly doesn't help us and others" - Peter
"In greater China, our revenues were $4.9 billion for the quarter, about 14 percent of the company. A few years ago, that would have been hundreds of millions. In the last 12 months we've done $27 billion on a trailing basis. It's a huge business for us. iPad sell-through in greater China was up 8 percent, in mainland China up 37 percent. In the tablet market, latest figures indicate higher than 50 percent share in China.
"We now have about half a million developers in China working on iOS apps. That's up over 70 percent year over year. We're going to double the number of retail stores in China over the next two years. iPad and iPhone sales are currently lower than where we want and need them to be. I continue to believe in the arc of time that China is a huge opportunity for Apple. I don't get discouraged over a 90 day cycle that could have economic factors." - Tim
Are you saying that the simple fact that China is a developing country where the vast majority is nowhere near being able to afford Apple products is not a part of the explanation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
If it is meant to answer the notion that one shouldn't be able to patent and own software, it doesn't. That's a moral question for some people. I've been an engineer for 30 years and live through those periods, and I strongly come down on the anti-litigation side.
These editorials are a gospel of cherry picking for the faithful preaching the word that Apple was at the heart of everything. Contributions of others are minimized and Apple is posited to be the cause of the effect. I don't need team of ghost writers to write that.
As mentioned by someone else, if Apple is to win, it should be by market forces, not by courts.
Ask yourself this, why does it make you feel good to have someone write long treatises on why your revered corporation and ex-CEO are near perfection, and all of their critics are wrong and baseless? Doesn't it seem strange to have an addiction which needs a "fix" like this? Again, it's like Fox News or right-wing radio, where people need to tune in everyday to have their hardened beliefs coaxed and reinforced.
Perhaps you haven't grasped it yet, but the reason why AppleInsider would publish "iPhone Patent Wars" looking a series of events where, as you astutely point out, "Apple was at the heart of everything," is sort of self explanatory. Do you also write angry letters to "Car & Driver" demanding to know why they write about automobiles and not the equally important subject of swimming pools?
While you can complain in general terms about "cherry picking" of events and Apple being "posited to be the cause of the effect," I can't help but notice that after reading that long article you can't actually present anything material that was left out, or describe any connections that are incorrect.
The article itself points out who said "if Apple is to win...," and put it in the form a video so you couldn't even complain about having to read it, or attack it for being inaccurate. And you still choose instead to mangle the quote to say something else, and then turn around and tell me this article is an affront to true history? Shocking.
If you see a similarity between this outline the history of Apple (which while interesting is not always flattering to the company in general or to the individuals who were running it) or noting how Apple got its current ~75% share of the world's consumer technology related profits, VS. wingnuts who recite propaganda supporting the 30% (whether that's the Tea Party or Android, not sure which you meant), I have to wonder if you might be better served with a different daily medication than whatever you're currently on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
I don't think Nexus 7 is popular due to the reasons you cited. It is due to iPad wifi versions lacking a gps chip. Because when Nexus 7 GPS developed a problem I was surprised there are so many users responded. This means gps usage is very important to Nexus 7 users. They bought Nexus 7 instead of ipad mini probably because of it.
I don't think Nexus 7 is as popular as you think. If it were, Asus would be reporting some sales and, hopefully, some profits.
I don't think there's a casual nexus between "Nexus 7 GPS developing a problem for so many users" and "Nexus 7 is popular."
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPT
Nexus 7 is more popular than the iPad Mini because, on an overall HW/price evaluation, it is probably a better pad, hopefully setting a new price reference for iPads, including the ridiculous price Apple charges for memory. I am awaiting a Retina Mini, but my son who has to be more price conscious than me bought a Nexus, and I would have too if it had been running iOS.
Nexus 7 battery life is still poorer than iPad. How can yyou say it is better HW?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPT
Are you saying that the simple fact that China is a developing country where the vast majority is nowhere near being able to afford Apple products is not a part of the explanation?
Could factor in, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
He gets paid by the word.
a) no
b) editing actually happens
c) lots of words never get printed
also
c) on a mission to force the Internet read and think more.
You stand tall with a few other honest analysts (& some journalists) with scruples and drive to speak the honest truth; a few off hand are Dediu and Gruber. Compared to you honest analysts, cheap journalists like Dvorac (spit) are but Chimps unleashed upon the world from their canopy over swamps.
These articles are the benchmarks to honest historical facts that we need to know and understand if we are to stand tall against the lies perpetrated by FacsimleSam and Goolies both of whom are bent to undermine the success of Apple, a company that has changed the world of tech. F & G, the hurry companies trying to catch up to Apple spread lies and deceptions through their troops of paid Trolls.Their purpose is to undermine Apple in the public eye and to distort conversation and actual journalism on the sites that follow Apple rendering them useless for good information and discussion.
Heart, strength and honour, that is what I find when I read your articles, Mr Dilger.
off topic but . . .
The BLOCK feature on AI needs be used relentlessly by those who can overcome their anger & frustration for the troll. BLOCKing supports the hard efforts of the writers and posters. Feeding the trolls by answering them only encourages them and slows down true discussions.
Apple: revolutionary focus on user experience, good taste, ethical approach to biz.
Microsoft: same old American consumer-technology incompetence, focus on user torture, bad taste, bad ethics.
Samsung: bad taste, very bad ethics, focus on user distraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
I guess it's to counter mindset like yours. While this article may paint Apple in a perfect light, it's refreshing to be reminded of history because many people don't realize or acknowledge how much Apple has influenced almost every CE product sold in the last 30+ years.
Lots of companies have had wide ranging influences major CE devices over the years. This is what I mean by minimizing the contributions of others and viewing history through a narrow lens. I can construct similar "Microsoft was behind everything" narratives if I want. For example, the GPU that makes the iPhone even possible can be traced directly back to Microsoft's investment into DirectX and the PC gaming market. SGI plays the role of Xerox here, creating OpenGL, but failing to make it relevant for everyday consumers. Enter the savior, Microsoft, rescuing the HW industry from the ineffective ARB, pushing forward a baseline spec that got better every 18 months, and enabling a competitive GPU market for the desktop that allowed other vendors to sell compatible hardware into a ready made market. This lead to an advancement in GPU capabilities that surpassed Moore's Law on CPUs. PowerVR began as a desktop class GPU, but tile-based-deferred-renderers, designed for low memory bandwidth, could not compete on the desktop where immediate mode renderers were getting faster and faster GDDR coupled with ginormous 256, 384, and 512-bit memory busses. So PowerVR rescued their IP by pivoting to mobile, where tile-based-deferred-rendering shines, leading to the introduction of the series of GPUs that sit in mobile today.
No Microsoft investment in DirectX making the PC a competitive gaming market, and OpenGL would be stagnant, likely delaying the timeline of GPUs by years, and in 2007, the iPhone would have had a much less powerful graphics chip.
Anyway can play this game. Just watch James Burke's "Connections" series on PBS.
It maybe difficult to do so especially with so many moles and spys watching the company take positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
That's just how it is, all the time. Google and Android loved, Apple and iOS hated.
Because of guys like you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
The reason why Apple investors are nervous is simply because they are struggling to see where future growth comes from, Apple is facing stiff competition, and Apple breakthroughs are unpredictable events. At a certain point, the smartphone revolution will reach saturation, and practically everyone will have one, then growth slows severely and will look more like the PC market did, with competitors fighting over a slowly expanding pie. Will the iWatch or iTV be a runaway hit rivaling the iPhone? There's no guarantee of that. How much higher can Apple revenues go? There are limits to exponential growth.
All companies eventually return to earth. It doesn't mean they fail, it means they go from spectacular growth to sustainable growth. A lot investors believe that's where Apple is headed.
In hindsight, Apple's "breakthoughs" seems to be quite predictable: iOS & OS X come out every year, and new hardware cycles though on a regular clip.
Compare Google's "breakthroughs" for Android:
1.0 Illuminated trackball?
2.0 Works more like iPhone with virtual keyboard?
3.0 Tablets?
4.0 NFC/Wallet? Hey we have a Siri too?
You have such an articulate understanding of the troubles facing Apple. But imagine if those same risks were also faced by a company with much less cash, much less experience in managine platforms, much less profitability and a business model firmly rooted to the no-longer-growing PC market.
What would Google do then?
For the last few years Apple has found a way of protecting its R&D costs and now makes money off it's inventions The PC cloners and now smartphone/tablet manufactures are annoyed they lost their R&D dept. and are using loopholes in the patent system to benefit their own parasitic ends.
Morally I don't think they have a leg to stand on , but this is business there are no moral values in place - only misguided business ethics.
Look up the definition of Ethics and Morals to comphrehend the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Nexus 7 battery life is still poorer than iPad. How can yyou say it is better HW?
Because for me the battery life is good enough, for the iPad Mini the price point, particularly for memory, and the screen is not.
I can even live with the battery life of my iPhone 5 which is pretty bad compared to what it could be if it wasn't considered more important by Apple to shave of a mm of thickness compared to the 4s, in my opinion a totally wrong decision.
Blocking actually benefits the 'troll" more than the forum IMO.
Letting FUD pass as fact by ignoring it only reinforces it's power to deceive. Unless you're here only to read "feel good" posts anyway, blocking actually works against the forum interests. Of course there are probably some members that aren't knowledgeable enough to counter falsehoods or ignor4nce in the first place so their blocking of certain members doesn't affect AI one way or the other. The more connected members here don't do anyone a favor by ignoring misstatements, or worse outright falsehoods. Just my 2 cents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
Lots of companies have had wide ranging influences major CE devices over the years. This is what I mean by minimizing the contributions of others and viewing history through a narrow lens. I can construct similar "Microsoft was behind everything" narratives if I want. For example, the GPU that makes the iPhone even possible can be traced directly back to Microsoft's investment into DirectX and the PC gaming market. SGI plays the role of Xerox here, creating OpenGL, but failing to make it relevant for everyday consumers. Enter the savior, Microsoft, rescuing the HW industry from the ineffective ARB, pushing forward a baseline spec that got better every 18 months, and enabling a competitive GPU market for the desktop that allowed other vendors to sell compatible hardware into a ready made market. This lead to an advancement in GPU capabilities that surpassed Moore's Law on CPUs. PowerVR began as a desktop class GPU, but tile-based-deferred-renderers, designed for low memory bandwidth, could not compete on the desktop where immediate mode renderers were getting faster and faster GDDR coupled with ginormous 256, 384, and 512-bit memory busses. So PowerVR rescued their IP by pivoting to mobile, where tile-based-deferred-rendering shines, leading to the introduction of the series of GPUs that sit in mobile today.
No Microsoft investment in DirectX making the PC a competitive gaming market, and OpenGL would be stagnant, likely delaying the timeline of GPUs by years, and in 2007, the iPhone would have had a much less powerful graphics chip.
Anyway can play this game. Just watch James Burke's "Connections" series on PBS.
So you're crediting Apple having beat Microsoft's DirectX by leveraging OpenGL in mobile because... Microsoft tried, back when it had a monopoly, but failed?
Interesting that your sole example (which I've now seen you repeat multiple times) is also an example of breathlessly cheerleading for a loser just because you like their team colors. Also, if Microsoft hadn't introduced DirectX, the industry would have invested in OpenGL rather than wasting half of its time duplicating efforts and pursuing Microsoft's dead end.
The reality is that Microsoft advanced DirectX because it wanted to crush open standards for GPU technology, forcing all tech to require Windows.
Apple has backed open technologies (WebKit, OpenGL, Cal/CardDAV, HTML5, H.264) in iOS & OS X that allowed other platforms to compete on a level playing field. That has helped Android considerably, and enabled Palm/WP/BB and others to at least attempt to deliver brand new platforms that could at least access content and take advantage of interoperable technologies, even if they weren't successful.
And Apple still won.
Meanwhile, Google crows about being open but it backs technologies that are FOSS but non-standard and tied to proprietary stuff from Google (Adobe Flash, Google Contacts/Calendar APIs, VP8/WebM video, WebP images). It's nearly as bad as Microsoft was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Blocking actually benefits the 'troll" more than the forum IMO.
Letting FUD pass as fact by ignoring it only reinforces it's power to deceive. Unless you're here only to read "feel good" posts anyway, blocking actually works against the forum interests. Of course there are probably some members that aren't knowledgeable enough to counter falsehoods or ignor4nce in the first place so their blocking of certain members doesn't affect AI one way or the other. The more connected members here don't do anyone a favor by ignoring misstatements, or worse outright falsehoods. Just my 2 cents.
Why do you speak of trolls in the third person?