wizard69

entropys said:

Why anyone would let someone else curate their information is something I do not understand.  It won’t end well. 
I would never use a product like Apple News. Not matter how convienient. It isn’t worth the potential price.
Amalgamation of media ownership is also ultimately detrimental. After all, isn’t that why we are supposed to hate Murdoch?

Part of the reason the old line media is having so much trouble is that nobody in their right mind trusts them.   This isn't a right or left thing it has more to do with ethical behavior.   So yeah concentrating the media even more into large corporations serves the interest of nobody.    I would hope that Apple sees this as a dangerous thing to do with a high potential to reflect negatively on Apple.

Personally if Apple wants to do news, they really should set up a full blown news station to actually compete with the rest of the news sources out there.   Stress ethical reporting and they will have success.   As for the rest of the Conde Nast media i really don't see the point.   Again if people really wanted to read those magazines, some of which serve no useful purpose, they would still be buying the magazines.

In many ways magazines are a relic from the past.   Especially anything dealing with food.    Just a short time ago I spent a couple of minutes looking for Swedish meatball recipes {seriously} and had dozens of recipes and articles at my finger tips.   If there is one thing Google does well it is finding me new ways to taste something good.  Frankly the online sources are sometimes a hang over from the print media and I'd like to see magazine format sites disappear.   For Apple to do that though they really need to break away from the mindset in the old media world.

I could say much the same about a few other entities in the Conde Nast line up.    Basically they are trying to serve a readership that simply isn't there any more.   In the case of Ars, a break away from the print media mindset, the conflict of interest would be overwhelming.   So I'm just not seeing it.   That is where is the pay off in such a purchase for Apple?   Will they pay millions, maybe billions, for businesses that are in decline and likely will not recover?   I'm looking at each magazine as a business here.   To look at tit another way is it prudent to invest in a buggy whip manufacture?

This is surprisingly robust.    Across the board success except for the Mac lineup and there we all know why Mac sales suck.

Now if only Apple would release some new products!    Looking forward to new iPads and Iphone SE models for one.   They might even offer up a Mac that I would buy.

rfrmac said:

I don’t know why we keep talking about this. Tim Cook doesn’t like the Mac so he just lets it go.  He thinks that Apple no longer needs to have a Mac.  Take a look at what has happened to the Macs since Steve died. It continues to break my heart. I haven’t bought a Mac in years.  Not because I didn’t want to, there just wasn’t  a new Mac that could justify the cost.  The new iMac just doesn’t do it for my profession.  Would love a couple of mini's for movie servers but I’m not buying that old of technology. 

Believe me I feel your pain!!    No corporation on the planet could afford to ignore a customer base the way Apple has.   What is worse is the bull crap they have been feeding us with respect to these products.   The drizzle about no chips being available when it is pretty clear that intel has made significant advancements with power and performance over the last 4-5 years. just burns Apples credibility.

Like many I was a bit shocked when Apple got rid of the quad core Mini as I was waiting for the next upgrade to get a quad core machine.    I figured no problem they can refactor the machine into something better next years or event the following year with lower power processors.    Nothing came and nothing in a way of a statement from Apple as to when they would correct the line up.   Now it is pathetically obvious that they simply don't give a damn as there have been at least two significant updates to Intels chip line up that could have made a difference in the Mini.    It is frankly disgusting.

anton zuykov said:

hammeroftruth said:

wood1208 said:

Hope there is a mechanism where court order smartass to pay all the trial related expenses to Apple.

Apple can ask the court to order the plaintiff to pay for their court costs. They may likely use it as a stick to use in case this idiot decides to appeal. 

Big mistake. That should be done immediately following the decision. They knew what they were doing with those toy patents of theirs. Yes, they lost some patents, but so what? They can buy more patents from someone else (thanks to the PO that approves "idea" patents every day because they are under-qualified) and try that again.

You do realize that patents are all about ideas right.  You don't pull a valid patent out if your behind.  You need an idea, an invention, to get a valid patent.  In this case it appears that the ideas expressed where not specific enough to warrant a patent.  

On top of all of this you cant really call these guys patent trolls if their original business was wiped by Apples iPod.  What you might say is that they didn't patent their invention well enough to hold off Apple.  

From my perspective the courts and the patent office worked as one would expect them too.  Sure it cost Apple a little time and money but this is hardly an example of a hard core patent troll.  

I suspect that much if the negativity expressed wih regards to these law suits come from people that have never worked in R&D and seen years of work go down the drain due to being on the loosing end of a legal action.  

Apparently Apple Insider doesn't grasp the concept of low cost.