Quote:
Originally Posted by pinhead
HTC manufactured touchscreen PDA's and phones for HP and Compaq years before the iPhone.
As well, the Google/Apple split occured after Apple pulled Google Voice from their apps store under pressure from AT&T which did not like the competition Google Voice provided.
Now Apple responds with a lawsuit because of the competition Google Android on HTC phones provides.
Most consumers like choices and drop in prices that competition brings. It appears Apple does not like competition.
Apple may be using accepted business practices but their press is going from bad to worse. Except for fanboys, the response to the ipad has been underwhelming. Now the forums are buzzing about the Apple/HTC lawsuit with the support is overwhelmingly on the side of HTC.
What I posted in the other Mac vs. Apple thread a few weeks ago is even more pertinent considering the lawsuit.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18377...red-apple.html
And as far as other companies not being innovative, the first pictures of the The Microsoft Courier has been released.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/m...ctures-and-de/
Finally, This is is what I did with my $1400 1st generation imac when the powersupply died. I couldn't drop in a new one because it was part of the mainboard and as with most Apple products design and appearance is more important than functionality.
 |
Where do we start
So HTC made touchscreen devices. Whoopdeedoo. Touchscreen devices have existed for a very long time. My wife has a Samsung Instinct touchscreen phone and I can tell you it is a piece of s*^t compared to the iPhone. My wife actually calls it her iSuck. What is at issue seems to go beyond that into the specific implementation of multi touch and perhaps other technical details. I haven't read all the patents in question (several are cited apparently) and I don't know the technical details of the HTC phones or Google Android but it is quite possible that the phones and Android OS do actually infringe some of Apple's patents. Why would Apple have to stand by and allow that infringement when every other similar company enforces their patents? Does Apple have to abide by some double standard? Are people sh*&ing all over Nokia and Xerox for their lawsuits? Who cares what the press says. Are they experts in patent law and the technical details of the devices and software in question? The press can be notoriously anti-Apple and you have to take what they say with a grain of salt. Are you a patent expert?
Did the press support or slam Palm for their shady implementation of iTunes syncing? Rather then use the approved ways to sync with Apple's media library Palm took the lazy and shady route of fooling iTunes into thinking it was an Apple iPod. This is not allowed according to the USB rules (each vendor has a unique ID and only that vendor can use it, Palm used Apples unique ID in their device which is not allowed). Palm could have made the effort to write the software to sync properly but they were to lazy or incompetent. But Apple is made to look like the bad guy eve though Palm was at fault.
As for the Google Apple splt this had nothing to do with Google voice but with Google's CEO probably using insider information to try to compete with Apple. When he joined Apple's Board Google did not compete with Apple. This came later and Eric Schmidt most likely took some of that inside info about the iPhone to help create Android. He could not ethically, and probably legally, continue to serve on Apple's Board when they became direct competitors to Apple and had to excuse himself.
I guess time will tell with the iPad. You can either see the potential or you don't have the vision to imagine the possibilities. I stand by my statement that Apple has likely not shown all its cards and the full potential is yet to be seen. I suspect the iPad will be a raging success and Apple will sell many of them.
Also, that article you link to is complete and utter nonsense. It has no facts, no accurate information and no substance. It is pure FUD and if you believe it well I guess you have your biases. Is cracked.com really considered an accurate and respected media source?
Point 5. How many other cell phones and networks support you modifying your phone and doing what you want with it? Personally, I like the fact Apple vets the software on the app store and have no interest in Jailbreaking the phone. That opens it up to all sorts of potential problems, malware, viruses etc. You seriously think Apple is evil because they want to ensure a stable user experience by having some control over the devices? Are the 100,000 or so approved Apps not enough for you? Do you think the cellphone networks will be happy with all sorts of unknown software running on phones connected to their networks? While remote there is a possibility that malware could crash the cell network.
Point 4. Seriously? You're going to critisize Apple for taking action against a site that was publishing confidential information that was not obtained legally? The first amendment does not protect the media when they illegally acquire information.
Point 3. Totally Bulls$%t. Nobody was tortured because they lost an iPhone prototype. Yes, the guy in China committed suicide which is sad but there were obviously deeper issues then a lost iPhone prototype. Really, this type of sensationalism belongs in the National Enquirer. The real story is more likely that this guy, who had "misplaced" prototypes several times before was actually letting Chinese counterfeiting companies look at them and knew the jig was up. Fearful of criminal charges he killed himself. Sad but not Apple's doing. And if he was beat up a bit by a security guard it wasn't authorized or accepted because that security guard was turned over to the police as well. Read this for more info:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56T0BL20090730
Point 2. Google Voice was not blocked at the request of AT&T, AT&T had nothing to do with it. It was blocked because of issues with the software that Apple asked Google to address and resubmit the application. Stuff like google voice accessing the iPhones contact list and uploading it to Google's server with obvious confidentiality implications. This was investigated by the FCC and it was found that there was no collusion between Apple and AT&T. This again is incorrect information.
Point 1. Really doesn't merit any comment. Complete ridiculous speculation based on patent. Plenty of stuff gets patented that never gets used and even if Apple did use that tech there is no way to ascertain how they would use it. The writer simply takes the absolute worst possible scenario and says we should fear Apple. Give me a break.
That article is nothing but nonsense and bulls*&t.
Finally, the Courier. Is there any evidence those are official pics from Microsoft or somebody else's rendering? And all the user interface shots and videos are also still just concept animations and not any video of the real thing. I will grant you the concept looks great but I will believe it when I see the real thing. I have little confidence Microsoft can actually pull this off. The reality will pale compared to the concept.
I like your iMac aquarium. Did you see my iReef? Are you quite sure about the power supply being the problem? I seem to remember the power supply being a separate assembly when I dismantled the computer for my iReef. Maybe repair wasn't a DIY job like your typical PC tower power supply replacement but I doubt it was completely impossible.