- Missing folders to sort Application-side of Dock.
You don’t comprehend the Dock.
- Missing feature to prevent disk mounting at startup.
What, optical discs?
- Missing convenient Finder search engine like in Mac OS 9 (Sherlock).
Yeah, your completely subjective nonsense that ignores Spotlight sure is “missing”¡
- Missing light pocketable Mac for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations.
Your refusal to accept existing solutions ? missing.
- Missing disk activity light on Macs.
You’re completely insane. Why would this have EVER been something that anyone would want, and now that there aren’t any moving parts to the disks, why would anyone ever want it again?
- Missing power-on key on keyboard.
- Missing frontal ports on Mac.
- Missing numeric keyboard with USB 3 hub.
You don’t get Apple.
- Missing 3D displays and 3D playback.
- Missing Blu-ray playback.
- Missing Full Picture-in-Picture (two Digital Terrestrial Television tuners inside)
Apple doesn’t do gimmicks.
- Missing Thunderbolt 2 Display 4K with USB 3
“It isn’t out yet” = “missing” these days? Good for you.
I love Apple's design. But sometimes they went over too much emphasizing design over endurance. My mbp charger was so flimsy. I think it was designed to break when it's more than a year old. I'm on my third one starting last week.
I love Apple's design. But sometimes they went over too much emphasizing design over endurance. My mbp charger was so flimsy. I think it was designed to break when it's more than a year old. I'm on my third one starting last week.
Sony seems to be the only one of the direct competitors that have the capacity to understand this *and* execute on it?
Really? So I take it you have never heard of a little company called HTC? Which has be alluded for years for it's design and build quality and over all user experience. And even more so with the release of the HTC One which was awarded by several outlets smartphone of the year last year, GSMA to name just one.
So to say only Sony ha the capacity to understand and execute this is bs. Do some actually research.
The HTC One is only not a copy because they had a license?
HTC One is not a copy because it looks and acts nothing like an iPhone. The only thing they have similar to each other is they are both metal and have a touchscreen. Other than that. Nothing. HTC One is still a superior device. The iPhone is great but not as great as the One.
But the world doesn’t. “Good enough” is the standard. It’s why Windows dominates the desktop OS universe. It’s why Android is on all of the cheap phones. It’s why textiles, electronics, steel, moved to China.
This just kills me. I'm 54 and there was a time when buying American made products was common. These products lasted for years and quality control was top priority. Then everything went outsourced to other countries like China. It's not that these countries can't make long lasting products, it's that the corporations don't care anymore and only want cheap with the highest profits.
So many of the well made products of the past still have the same names but are now garbage and break in a short amount of time. People don't understand why I still buy the well made products when I could just buy another cheap one when one of those breaks. I would probably save money but I just depise having to deal with failure and all the headaches and lost time that goes with it.
That is one reason I bought my first Mac in the mid 80s and never looked back.
The whole droid ecosystem is based on stolen parts, it's like putting together a car based on a truck load of stolen parts then marketing the crap out of it:
- Android was stolen by Google from Sun now Oracle Java - court case ongoing
- Hardware designs and UI stolen from Apple - 2 convictions - more pending in court
On principle alone I am always amazed at the number of people that jump up to blow Samsung's trumpet.
IMO the only other company making a genuine effort to innovate on its own is probably BlackBerry.
For this reason, if I were ever to move from iPhone my choice would probably be BlackBerry.
Sounds like you need a bit of an education mate.
Java was originally developed by Sun Microsystems starting in 1991. It included a new programming language, a virtual machine, and a set of libraries for use with the language
Android, Inc. was founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White to develop a mobile phone platform. Google purchased Android in 2005 and continued developing the Android platform. Google released a beta of the Android platform on November 5, 2007, noting that it would use some Java technologies. Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz responded the same day, congratulating Google and saying they had "strapped another set of rockets to the community's momentum - and to the vision defining opportunity across our (and other) planets. Google released the Android SDK on November 12, 2007. Android included Google's own implementations of some of the APIs from Java SE. Google negotiated with Sun about possible partnership and licensing deals for Java, but no agreement was reached.
Oracle purchased Sun in January 2010, and continued developing Java. Oracle continued discussing a possible licensing deal, but an agreement again was not reached. Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement in August 2010.
So see it wasn't until Sun was bought by Oracle that Google was sued. Sun seemed to have no problem with Google using Java as they did not sue them. And in the court case which is still on-going because of Oracle appealing the case but Google still won the case as the Courts declared that Code is not copyrightable, which is a good thing for innovation. If the decision is reverse all hell is going to break lose. And experts see this case going in favour of Google again.
The only people being accused of stealing hardware designs an UI designs from Apple are third party OEMS like Samsung. Not Google. Stock Google Android looks nothing and behaves nothing like iOS (why Apple has never sued Google directly) because Stock Android is not patent infringing. It is third party skins where the infringements are almost always found. And hardware design all phones pretty much look the same. Not many ways to design a phone. That would be like Ford suing GM for similar design or Sony suing LG for making tvs.
Android is more than just Samsung. There are many great Android OEMS. Such as HTC.
But the world doesn’t. “Good enough” is the standard. It’s why Windows dominates the desktop OS universe. It’s why Android is on all of the cheap phones. It’s why textiles, electronics, steel, moved to China.
Steve Jobs said Android is a stolen product. How is that not an accusation?
Because Steve Jobs didn't know what he was talking about. And he had no problem with Android until they became dominate. Those are the facts. When Android first came to the scene he welcomed it.
Because Steve Jobs didn't know what he was talking about. And he had no problem with Android until they became dominate. Those are the facts. When Android first came to the scene he welcomed it.
1) Do you have any proof that Android was "dominate" in 2009 when Schmidt was forced to step down from Apple's board or in 2008 when Schdmit's role on the board was being minimized?
2) Really?! Steve Jobs didn't know what he's talking about? His many successes in life over 4 decades and multiple product categories and companies were all just dumb luck?
Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia have been making mobile phones for a long time, so by the same token it would be silly to think a newcomer like Apple can ship smartphones without violating some Motorola or Nokia or Ericsson patent pertaining to mobile phones. Wouldn't that be right? IMO all the manufacturers benefit from innovations and inventions that might have originated with a competitor.
If you believe an infringed patent should be sufficient for a product to be banned from the market if the holder doesn't want to licence it then no current smartphone could probably be sold IMHO.
Your last sentence is true EXCEPT for patents that are necessary to patent to participate in a market. For example, any patent that must be used to make a functional cell phone operational on a public system. These patents must be licensed and fall under that rules of FRAND. However, Apple patent that makes a list "bounce" when it scrolls to the end is part of trade dress and not required to scroll a list, therefore is not required to scroll a list, and Apple can refuse to license it to another company. This is one of the patents Samsung copied that is not essential and they do not want to pay Apple to use... see the diff??
And every TV looks the same so should Sony sue LG Emerson and Samsung?
Every car looks the same should Ford sue since they were the first to make cars?
Your example fails. Every car and TV have details or style elements that set them apart. If they all look the same to you it is because you have no taste and can not discern quality or details. What does make SOME TVs look the same is that SOME brands have a few other companies manufacture products for them and do not specify unique details for their brands. So, TVs, refrigerators and washers and dryers roll out the back door of Samsung in boxes marked with different brands on them. In addition, Samsung has been slavishly copying appliances made my other companies for decades... they didn't just start with iPhones. That unbridled copying of products has led to Samsung products being confused with other products, but that doesn't mean it was right since the original designer did not sue for economic reasons. This is why Samsung is so determined to not pay Apple for stealing Apple's designs, it sets a precedent that will affect Samsung out into the future in all kinds of markets other than phones.
That's what Standard Essential Patents are for. Samsung abused these by trying to use them as leverage to force Apple to license their bread and butter patents which were never part of the SEP agreements.
@freediverx: that's totally false. According to last ITC ruling (the Commission Opinion) p.60-p.61:
"...
Apple also criticizes Samsung's attempt to negotiate a cross-license of both parties' mobile telephone patent portfolios. We cannot say that Samsung's offers in this regard are unreasonable. The record contains evidence ofmore than 30 Samsung licenses that cover the '348 and '644 patents. See RX-173C, RX-178C, RX-188, RX-189C, RX-191C, RX-193C to -209C, RX-421C, RX-423C. All ofthose licenses include a cross-license to the licensee's portfolio. That evidence supports a conclusion a portfolio cross-license offer is typical in the industry and reasonable.
Apple has offered no evidence to suggest that such portfolio cross-licenses are atypical in the industry. 19 In fact, Apple's own witness on ETSI policies affirmed that ETSI anticipates cross-licensing may be part of the process of negotiating a FRAND license between two parties. Additionally, the negotiating history recounted above shows that Apple has made cross-license offers to Samsung. We also note that commentators have stated that an offer to cross-license both parties' patents may be consistent with a FRAND obligation, for example:
The obligation to make a FRAND offer does not prevent the standard-essential patent owner from entering into an alternative licensing arrangement, such as a portfolio cross license, with an implementer of the standard. It will often make sense for private parties to enter into a deal that reflects their specific circumstances.
***
[A] FRAND offer to a party that owns standard-essential patents can be made conditional on the would-be licensee itselfmaking a reciprocal FRAND offer.
Lemley, Mark A. and Shapiro, Carl, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royaltiesfor Standard-Essential Patents Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2243026, 5-6, 17 (March 30, 2013), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2243026. That approach appears consistent with the expectations ofETSI, as has been explained on the record in this investigation. See Tr. at 1443 (Walker). Moreover, the ETSI declarations Samsung executed specifically contemplate that a FRAND license will invoive "terms and conditions," not just a royalty rate. See RX-723.
..."
Apple was never forced to cross-license their patents, they asked for unilateral FRAN license. Apple refused to cross-license; yet they demanded a rate that enjoyed by Samsung's cross-licensees.
Dyson resoundingly won a court case in the UK over Samsung's attempt to patent "triple-cyclone technology" that Dyson invented.
"Britain's High Court upheld Dyson's principal claims that it had already invented and patented the system." Dyson was successful in entirely invalidating one patent and successfully attacking part of another. Samsung was ordered to pay US $852,600.
You're confusing this with a separate case where the issue was the steering mechanism in a vacuum cleaner Samsung introduced at a Berlin consumer electronics show last summer. Dyson declared it a rip-off of a patented feature in their DC cylinder vacuums. Samsung had documentation to show it had been working its steering mechanism for more than a year, so the Dyson suit was dismissed. Now Samsung - a company with a clear track record of copying products - is so insulted that they're suing Dyson for the accusation.
First, Dyson's lawsuit is akin to Google/Samsung requesting USPTO to review and invalidate the multitouch screen patent a couple of years ago -- that was not an infringement case.
Second, " Now Samsung - a company with a clear track record of copying products - is so insulted that they're suing Dyson for the accusation." Sure, why not? Apple gets away with it all the time. Take this excerpt from Jonathan Schwartz, former CEO of Sun Micro (http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/):
"I feel for Google – Steve Jobs threatened to sue me, too. In 2003, after I unveiled a prototype Linux desktop called Project Looking Glass*, Steve called my office to let me know the graphical effects were “stepping all over Apple’s IP.” (IP = Intellectual Property = patents, trademarks and copyrights.) If we moved forward to commercialize it, “I’ll just sue you.”
My response was simple. “Steve, I was just watching your last presentation, and Keynote looks identical to Concurrence – do you own that IP?” Concurrence was a presentation product built by Lighthouse Design, a company I’d help to found and which Sun acquired in 1996. Lighthouse built applications for NeXTSTEP, the Unix based operating system whose core would become the foundation for all Mac products after Apple acquired NeXT in 1996. Steve had used Concurrence for years, and as Apple built their own presentation tool, it was obvious where they’d found inspiration. “And last I checked, MacOS is now built on Unix. I think Sun has a few OS patents, too.” Steve was silent."
This is one of the main reasons why I can't support Apple's legal strategy -- it's all based on delusion that everything they are doing is original and Apple accuses everyone else of copying, even as they shamelessly copy .
Honestly, Apple does indeed often gives an insane level of detail to its products.
But there are departments of Apple that also show insane levels of neglect, especially in software. Example: try using a modern Mac with mobile accounts (portable home directories) and run into software that is bug-ridden and that has been neglected for years and years. There, they just don't give a damn.
Comments
- Missing scroll arrows.
Not needed. That’s why they’re not there.
And this means what?
Never happened, ever.
Get over it.
I’m pretty sure this has never happened.
You don’t comprehend the Dock.
What, optical discs?
Yeah, your completely subjective nonsense that ignores Spotlight sure is “missing”¡
Your refusal to accept existing solutions ? missing.
You’re completely insane. Why would this have EVER been something that anyone would want, and now that there aren’t any moving parts to the disks, why would anyone ever want it again?
You don’t get Apple.
Apple doesn’t do gimmicks.
“It isn’t out yet” = “missing” these days? Good for you.
Just shut up.
I love Apple's design. But sometimes they went over too much emphasizing design over endurance. My mbp charger was so flimsy. I think it was designed to break when it's more than a year old. I'm on my third one starting last week.
I don't doubt you're on your third one but it seems that Apple does care about the bit that you can't see: http://www.righto.com/2012/05/apple-iphone-charger-teardown-quality.html
Sony seems to be the only one of the direct competitors that have the capacity to understand this *and* execute on it?
Really? So I take it you have never heard of a little company called HTC? Which has be alluded for years for it's design and build quality and over all user experience. And even more so with the release of the HTC One which was awarded by several outlets smartphone of the year last year, GSMA to name just one.
So to say only Sony ha the capacity to understand and execute this is bs. Do some actually research.
The HTC One is only not a copy because they had a license?
HTC One is not a copy because it looks and acts nothing like an iPhone. The only thing they have similar to each other is they are both metal and have a touchscreen. Other than that. Nothing. HTC One is still a superior device. The iPhone is great but not as great as the One.
This just kills me. I'm 54 and there was a time when buying American made products was common. These products lasted for years and quality control was top priority. Then everything went outsourced to other countries like China. It's not that these countries can't make long lasting products, it's that the corporations don't care anymore and only want cheap with the highest profits.
So many of the well made products of the past still have the same names but are now garbage and break in a short amount of time. People don't understand why I still buy the well made products when I could just buy another cheap one when one of those breaks. I would probably save money but I just depise having to deal with failure and all the headaches and lost time that goes with it.
That is one reason I bought my first Mac in the mid 80s and never looked back.
If you really want "honesty" then here it goes.
The whole droid ecosystem is based on stolen parts, it's like putting together a car based on a truck load of stolen parts then marketing the crap out of it:
- Android was stolen by Google from Sun now Oracle Java - court case ongoing
- Hardware designs and UI stolen from Apple - 2 convictions - more pending in court
On principle alone I am always amazed at the number of people that jump up to blow Samsung's trumpet.
IMO the only other company making a genuine effort to innovate on its own is probably BlackBerry.
For this reason, if I were ever to move from iPhone my choice would probably be BlackBerry.
Sounds like you need a bit of an education mate.
Java was originally developed by Sun Microsystems starting in 1991. It included a new programming language, a virtual machine, and a set of libraries for use with the language
Android, Inc. was founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White to develop a mobile phone platform. Google purchased Android in 2005 and continued developing the Android platform. Google released a beta of the Android platform on November 5, 2007, noting that it would use some Java technologies. Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz responded the same day, congratulating Google and saying they had "strapped another set of rockets to the community's momentum - and to the vision defining opportunity across our (and other) planets. Google released the Android SDK on November 12, 2007. Android included Google's own implementations of some of the APIs from Java SE. Google negotiated with Sun about possible partnership and licensing deals for Java, but no agreement was reached.
Oracle purchased Sun in January 2010, and continued developing Java. Oracle continued discussing a possible licensing deal, but an agreement again was not reached. Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement in August 2010.
So see it wasn't until Sun was bought by Oracle that Google was sued. Sun seemed to have no problem with Google using Java as they did not sue them. And in the court case which is still on-going because of Oracle appealing the case but Google still won the case as the Courts declared that Code is not copyrightable, which is a good thing for innovation. If the decision is reverse all hell is going to break lose. And experts see this case going in favour of Google again.
The only people being accused of stealing hardware designs an UI designs from Apple are third party OEMS like Samsung. Not Google. Stock Google Android looks nothing and behaves nothing like iOS (why Apple has never sued Google directly) because Stock Android is not patent infringing. It is third party skins where the infringements are almost always found. And hardware design all phones pretty much look the same. Not many ways to design a phone. That would be like Ford suing GM for similar design or Sony suing LG for making tvs.
Android is more than just Samsung. There are many great Android OEMS. Such as HTC.
But the world doesn’t. “Good enough” is the standard. It’s why Windows dominates the desktop OS universe. It’s why Android is on all of the cheap phones. It’s why textiles, electronics, steel, moved to China.
Ignorant comment.
Steve Jobs said Android is a stolen product. How is that not an accusation?
Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad?
*facepalm*
ONLY EVERY FREAKIN' PHONE AFTER 2007
*facepalm*
ONLY EVERY FREAKIN' PHONE AFTER 2007
And every TV looks the same so should Sony sue LG Emerson and Samsung?
Every car looks the same should Ford sue since they were the first to make cars?
Steve Jobs said Android is a stolen product. How is that not an accusation?
Because Steve Jobs didn't know what he was talking about. And he had no problem with Android until they became dominate. Those are the facts. When Android first came to the scene he welcomed it.
1) Do you have any proof that Android was "dominate" in 2009 when Schmidt was forced to step down from Apple's board or in 2008 when Schdmit's role on the board was being minimized?
2) Really?! Steve Jobs didn't know what he's talking about? His many successes in life over 4 decades and multiple product categories and companies were all just dumb luck?
Your last sentence is true EXCEPT for patents that are necessary to patent to participate in a market. For example, any patent that must be used to make a functional cell phone operational on a public system. These patents must be licensed and fall under that rules of FRAND. However, Apple patent that makes a list "bounce" when it scrolls to the end is part of trade dress and not required to scroll a list, therefore is not required to scroll a list, and Apple can refuse to license it to another company. This is one of the patents Samsung copied that is not essential and they do not want to pay Apple to use... see the diff??
Your example fails. Every car and TV have details or style elements that set them apart. If they all look the same to you it is because you have no taste and can not discern quality or details. What does make SOME TVs look the same is that SOME brands have a few other companies manufacture products for them and do not specify unique details for their brands. So, TVs, refrigerators and washers and dryers roll out the back door of Samsung in boxes marked with different brands on them. In addition, Samsung has been slavishly copying appliances made my other companies for decades... they didn't just start with iPhones. That unbridled copying of products has led to Samsung products being confused with other products, but that doesn't mean it was right since the original designer did not sue for economic reasons. This is why Samsung is so determined to not pay Apple for stealing Apple's designs, it sets a precedent that will affect Samsung out into the future in all kinds of markets other than phones.
That's what Standard Essential Patents are for. Samsung abused these by trying to use them as leverage to force Apple to license their bread and butter patents which were never part of the SEP agreements.
@freediverx: that's totally false. According to last ITC ruling (the Commission Opinion) p.60-p.61:
"...
..."
Apple was never forced to cross-license their patents, they asked for unilateral FRAN license. Apple refused to cross-license; yet they demanded a rate that enjoyed by Samsung's cross-licensees.
How's that working out for them?
They won't be around long enough for that possibility.
Dyson resoundingly won a court case in the UK over Samsung's attempt to patent "triple-cyclone technology" that Dyson invented.
"Britain's High Court upheld Dyson's principal claims that it had already invented and patented the system." Dyson was successful in entirely invalidating one patent and successfully attacking part of another. Samsung was ordered to pay US $852,600.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/02/13/dysontechnology-idUKLD64172920090213
You're confusing this with a separate case where the issue was the steering mechanism in a vacuum cleaner Samsung introduced at a Berlin consumer electronics show last summer. Dyson declared it a rip-off of a patented feature in their DC cylinder vacuums. Samsung had documentation to show it had been working its steering mechanism for more than a year, so the Dyson suit was dismissed. Now Samsung - a company with a clear track record of copying products - is so insulted that they're suing Dyson for the accusation.
First, Dyson's lawsuit is akin to Google/Samsung requesting USPTO to review and invalidate the multitouch screen patent a couple of years ago -- that was not an infringement case.
Second, " Now Samsung - a company with a clear track record of copying products - is so insulted that they're suing Dyson for the accusation." Sure, why not? Apple gets away with it all the time. Take this excerpt from Jonathan Schwartz, former CEO of Sun Micro (http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/):
"I feel for Google – Steve Jobs threatened to sue me, too. In 2003, after I unveiled a prototype Linux desktop called Project Looking Glass*, Steve called my office to let me know the graphical effects were “stepping all over Apple’s IP.” (IP = Intellectual Property = patents, trademarks and copyrights.) If we moved forward to commercialize it, “I’ll just sue you.”
My response was simple. “Steve, I was just watching your last presentation, and Keynote looks identical to Concurrence – do you own that IP?” Concurrence was a presentation product built by Lighthouse Design, a company I’d help to found and which Sun acquired in 1996. Lighthouse built applications for NeXTSTEP, the Unix based operating system whose core would become the foundation for all Mac products after Apple acquired NeXT in 1996. Steve had used Concurrence for years, and as Apple built their own presentation tool, it was obvious where they’d found inspiration. “And last I checked, MacOS is now built on Unix. I think Sun has a few OS patents, too.” Steve was silent."
This is one of the main reasons why I can't support Apple's legal strategy -- it's all based on delusion that everything they are doing is original and Apple accuses everyone else of copying, even as they shamelessly copy .
But there are departments of Apple that also show insane levels of neglect, especially in software. Example: try using a modern Mac with mobile accounts (portable home directories) and run into software that is bug-ridden and that has been neglected for years and years. There, they just don't give a damn.