holyone
About
- Banned
- Username
- holyone
- Joined
- Visits
- 138
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 218
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 398
Reactions
-
Apple adds ChargePoint EV stations & app links to Maps coverage
Funnylostkiwi said:Great idea.
I hope Apple will also add SuperCharger sites at some point as well.
You know, for after I win the lottery and can afford a Tesla....
, yeah seems Apple is going all blatant on the Apple car, I'm finding it odd, never has any Apple product in development been so publicized at such early stages, or maybe they trying to make it look like they are really only interested on the car OS, then bammm 
-
Supreme Court sides with Samsung over Apple, says payments shouldn't cover whole device profits [u]
Good point and I agree to a degree but I think in this case this particular matter would have to be viewed as a completely special case as there is no other example I know off where one party so drastically changed an industry's trajectory as the iPhone did, I think on the grand scheme of the law that'll have tremendously fare reaching consequences some of which will affect Apple it self, this single instance could not be separated and viewed as the anomaly that it is by the Supreme Court, I'm not saying Sammy should not pay just that if they are made to pay this way then Apple some day too might have to, and no company profits on devices more than Apple, that's kinda their thing, how OK would we all be if the situation was reversed ?retrogusto said:The point that some may be missing here is that a small number of features determine purchasing decisions for complex items. For example, if Apple was selling cars, and they held the patent for pneumatic rubber tires whereas everybody else was using wooden or metal wheels, how would you penalize a company that infringed Apple's patent to remain competitive? The penalty should be large enough that it is in their best interest to *not* infringe, it shouldn't just be the difference between what they made and what they would have made, because there would be no incentive to not break the law. And tires may be only one of many technologies in a car, but if a significant percentage of people would not have bought a car without the rubber tires, this needs to be factored in. It may seem like an exaggerated analogy, but I do believe that smartphone shopping can be difficult for the average consumer, so they end up looking for small concrete differences to help them differentiate between models and vendors. Samsung is one of the only vendors other than Apple who has made a lot of money from smartphones over the last 9 years, and they are also the biggest copier. If we can agree that this is not just a mysterious coincidence, it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that the copying is largely responsible for their relative success.
-
Supreme Court sides with Samsung over Apple, says payments shouldn't cover whole device profits [u]
Actually this was a very good decision, as much as I loath Sammy this verdict benefits Apple of any corporation today. To explain : the patent system protects implementation not ideas (which is good) because if ideas where what the protection covered then Apple would be bankrupt by now, sure this sucks as it lets sucky Sammy off the hook and Sammy didnt steal just an idea but road on Apple's trand settings, but again sumsung isn't sued as much as Apple if Apple was found infringing on some dumb patent that probably shouldn't have never been granted the holder can ask for all the billions of profits Apple made on the entirety of a device, imagine some one claimed violation on a patent that affected a tiny part of an iPhone, chamfered edgies for an example, Apple would have to pay on all profits made on every device with said edges, that's not a accurate if though that way. Sammy gets to dodge a bullet this time around but, Apple is the richest company in the world that's not too bad I think, Sammy will get what's coming to her, if she'll still be around in the next 10yearsgatorguy said:
No you do not have it straight.berndog said:So let me get this straight. If you are contracted to build something for someone and you think it's a good idea and will make a fortune. It's okay by the US Supreme Court to set up a parallel production line and put you logo on the products?
-
Independent Galaxy Note 7 analysis theorizes that too-tight battery led to inevitable failures
Wow galaxy even ugly on the "inside"
-
Apple AirPort Extreme claims top marks in consumer-grade wireless router survey
You've just so eloquently stated my thoughts and fears on post Jobs Apple, well done , the problem is that Steve structured Apple around tacit-knowledge, skills and instincts that only he possed and now that he's gone there's a huge and visible vacancy that just can't be filled, I think to give so much power to Jony was an error, a justifiable and more importantly one that could never be avoided, but an error non the less, one that's likely to erode large chunks of Apple esque, Jony was always going to be what he is At Apple it's like the conductor is gone so the best violinist is now running the orchestra.blastdoor said:
I generally agree.melgross said:It seems as though Apple is getting the idea that the only products they want to have are major sellers that are iconic products. They don't want to deal with anything else such as monitors, routers, printers, etc.
thats a shame, because even a business the size of Apple needs products that sell in small numbers and for less sales dollars overall. I think this is a mistake. I read that Apple has only so many resources, etc, but that's nonsense. A company that's much smaller, but yet has many more products, such as Sony, also has much less resources, but manages to have numerous product lines.
the reason Apple doesn't persue more products is because they don't want to, not that they can't. An apparent step back is the auto business. If what we read is true, then Apple spendt a lot of money buying and leasing property, mostly for the purpose of coming out with a car, but because they though it would be difficult, they abandoned much of the project. This worries me. They need to do the most difficult things, not the easiest.
In some ways they are starting to look like IBM -- running away from anything that's difficult.
But I also suspect there's a uniquely Apple problem here which is that the way they are structured, there may very well be a shortage of a key resource: the attention of senior management. Their management structure was built around a CEO who wanted to weigh in on almost every single product they sold before it went out the door. That worked well 10 years ago when their CEO was a product genius and workaholic. I doubt that Tim Cook is trying to take on that role -- instead, it's probably Ive's job. But Ive is not Steve Jobs. He's a good designer, but that's just one aspect of making a great product. Jobs also had a pretty good intuition for the needs of a lot of his customers, he could "see where the puck is going", and he could see how all the products and features fit together into a coherent whole. I'm not sure Ive has that. Jobs was also very passionate about his work -- Ive seems bored.
So I suspect that a big part of the reason that Apple is abandoning good products and markets is that Jony Ive just doesn't have the time or interest, and that leaves the products withering. Apple may need to figure out how to tweak their structure so that one guy (or a small number of guys) don't become major bottle necks.
