Samsung, your lemonade is not convincing.

In defeat....victory!

I'm going to take a final in 24 minutes, but I'm going to predict what this thread will contain when I get back around noon:

1) A bunch of ranting and raving over whether Android or iOS is better, which is more or less par for the course

2) Apple apologists pretending Apple isn't using predatory (and possibly illegal) legal tactics to maintain a monopoly on the tablet market

3) Android fans honestly believing that the iPad will be irrelevant because of Android tablets.

That, and of course, a few rational people.

NOSTRADAMUS HAS SPOKEN.

So now Apple learns of the Streisand Effect... huh?

/If only they'd Googled it

Marine1: 3) Android fans honestly believing that the iPad will be irrelevant because of Android tablets.

I love my Android phone to death, but even as a Android fanboy I must concede that no tablet (regardless of OS) can touch the iPad2. It's just great.

Marine1: 2) Apple apologists pretending Apple isn't using predatory (and possibly illegal) legal tactics to maintain a monopoly on the tablet market

Sooo, lemme guess, your final isn't in antitrust law or intellectual property?

Just got my iPad 2 a couple days ago. I'm not even going to try to get all hyperbolic but I'll just say that it is farking great.

The main reason I went with iPad 2 was because of the 3g/WiFi. I don't want to be bothered LOOKING for a wifi hotspot.


My beef with the Androids is that there are too many versions. WTF is "ice cream"? if I get a phone or tablet with an ice cream and they come out with the macaroni version, can I upgrade? Too much market confusion with the the non Apple products.

I'll stick with the stability and consistency of Apple iOS.

Why are they going after this specific Android tablet? Multiple ones already existed and already copied Apple's iPad look, and Samsung had a touch tablet out before the iPad that had a very similar look as well.

It just seems weird to target Samsung in particular.

flaminio: Marine1: 3) Android fans honestly believing that the iPad will be irrelevant because of Android tablets.

I love my Android phone to death, but even as a Android fanboy I must concede that no tablet (regardless of OS) can touch the iPad2. It's just great.

Android is just so damn clunky. It's made many improvements, but the flaws are those that you see in most open-source software; not anywhere near all of them, granted, but a nice example nonetheless.

Marine1: 1) A bunch of ranting and raving over whether Android or iOS is better, which is more or less par for the course

iOS devices simply offer a much more refined, smoother experience and Android devices (except carrier-crippled ones) offer a much more open and customizable experience.

Anything else comes down to tiny personal preferences.

I wish Windows Mobile would give me as much (operational) freedom as Android so there would be a clear winner. Some of the quirks are just so bloody annoying.

redmond24:
My beef with the Androids is that there are too many versions. WTF is "ice cream"? if I get a phone or tablet with an ice cream and they come out with the macaroni version, can I upgrade? Too much market confusion with the the non Apple products.


[notsureifserious.jpg]

redmond24: WTF is "ice cream"?

Bear in mind that Apple's OSX branding isn't a ton better... Lion? Panther? Sex kitten? Tiger? Which one's the latest?

I did just find out via Wiki, however, that Android's names are alphabetical for versions... So "Ice Cream Sandwich" comes after "Honeycomb" which came after "Gingerbread" which came after "Froyo", etc. So, I guess that's a help.

Theaetetus: Sooo, lemme guess, your final isn't in antitrust law or intellectual property?

You cannot say that Apple is not being predatory. They are using patents as a cudgel to beat down their competitors, and half the reason is spite. Global thermonuclear war and all that.

I assume he says "possibly illegal" as there are various cases pending internationally and they look like they're abusing a system meant to protect inventors and foster development and innovation (snicker).

redmond24: Just got my iPad 2 a couple days ago. I'm not even going to try to get all hyperbolic but I'll just say that it is farking great.

The main reason I went with iPad 2 was because of the 3g/WiFi. I don't want to be bothered LOOKING for a wifi hotspot.


My beef with the Androids is that there are too many versions. WTF is "ice cream"? if I get a phone or tablet with an ice cream and they come out with the macaroni version, can I upgrade? Too much market confusion with the the non Apple products.

I'll stick with the stability and consistency of Apple iOS.


This just in, you DON'T have to upgrade

*That is to say, their use of a shell company to use patent trolls like DigiTech to insulate themselves and sue, well, everyone by proxy is shady, to say the least.

Theaetetus: redmond24: WTF is "ice cream"?

Bear in mind that Apple's OSX branding isn't a ton better... Lion? Panther? Sex kitten? Tiger? Which one's the latest?


Sir, I dare say you owe me a new keyboard. I needed a good laugh, but goodness.

nervoust: This just in, you DON'T have to upgrade

Not for OS updates, unless you're in corporate environment that requires the latest updates.

You sort of "have" to upgrade certain apps, like the Marketplace, which have an exponential decline in usability, stability and overall speed on older phones, and you can't use older versions; the updates for these are forced.

tomcatadam: *That is to say, their use of a shell company to use patent trolls like DigiTech to insulate themselves and sue, well, everyone by proxy is shady, to say the least.

What's my whammy pedal have to do with this patent mess?

Marine1: 1) A bunch of ranting and raving over whether Android or iOS is better, which is more or less par for the course

It's moot on the phone side but there's no argument on the tablet end. Honeycomb is shiat.

tomcatadam: Why are they going after this specific Android tablet? Multiple ones already existed and already copied Apple's iPad look, and Samsung had a touch tablet out before the iPad that had a very similar look as well.

It just seems weird to target Samsung in particular.

flaminio: Marine1: 3) Android fans honestly believing that the iPad will be irrelevant because of Android tablets.

I love my Android phone to death, but even as a Android fanboy I must concede that no tablet (regardless of OS) can touch the iPad2. It's just great.

Android is just so damn clunky. It's made many improvements, but the flaws are those that you see in most open-source software; not anywhere near all of them, granted, but a nice example nonetheless.

I've been hoping that 4.0 will address a lot of the clunkiness and "fragmentation" issues, and in the end give a better user experience because of it.

LasersHurt: I've been hoping that 4.0 will address a lot of the clunkiness and "fragmentation" issues, and in the end give a better user experience because of it.

Doesn't help those who were promised 4.0 and then told that, due to Google wanting a cheap laugh, we aren't going to be able to use it. :\

Desquamation: tomcatadam: *That is to say, their use of a shell company to use patent trolls like DigiTech to insulate themselves and sue, well, everyone by proxy is shady, to say the least.

What's my whammy pedal have to do with this patent mess?

Slip of the keyboard. I meant Digitude.

All the digitech pedals I've used have died under mysterious circumstances. Really great value, but real easy to break.
Better than cheap Behringer stuff though.

tomcatadam: Theaetetus: Sooo, lemme guess, your final isn't in antitrust law or intellectual property?

You cannot say that Apple is not being predatory. They are using patents as a cudgel to beat down their competitors, and half the reason is spite. Global thermonuclear war and all that.

Spite? Really?
They're motivated by profit and market share, just like any other company.

... well, actually, except Samsung. Samsung appears to be acting out of spite in some of their counterclaims, which is why the EU's antitrust division is investigating them, not Apple.

I assume he says "possibly illegal" as there are various cases pending internationally and they look like they're abusing a system meant to protect inventors and foster development and innovation (snicker).

1) they've got patents in different country. How is it illegal to file suit in said different countries?

2) You don't think there's been any innovation? I have a device in my pocket that lets me to real time video chat with my nieces across the country. And I don't even have to push buttons, but can just ask it to connect. It looks like development and innovation are doing wonderfully.

nervoust: redmond24: Just got my iPad 2 a couple days ago. I'm not even going to try to get all hyperbolic but I'll just say that it is farking great.

The main reason I went with iPad 2 was because of the 3g/WiFi. I don't want to be bothered LOOKING for a wifi hotspot.


My beef with the Androids is that there are too many versions. WTF is "ice cream"? if I get a phone or tablet with an ice cream and they come out with the macaroni version, can I upgrade? Too much market confusion with the the non Apple products.

I'll stick with the stability and consistency of Apple iOS.

So there's iOS 1-5, right? Not that complicated? Ice cream sandwich is android 3.0. It's really not that hard. The codenames start with letters and the order is alphabetical. Eclair Froyo Gingerbread Honeycomb Ice Cream Sandwich. And users don't need to care about any of this, because the next version is never coming out for your phone.


This just in, you DON'T have to upgrade

I did the ios upgrade on the ipad, what a farking pain in the ass. A dozen options that are not explained (wtf is icloud, exactly?), stupid apple only password, pointless "next" buttons that move around, and in the end, what do i get? Tabs in the browser. woo hoo. When the ASUS tablet has an upgrade it says "hey, do you want to upgrade?" I say yes, and ten minutes later the thing is back on the home screen.

It's bad enough the app store wants my password for free apps and app upgrades, (and ios updates) but does it have to be in an impossible to remember format and a pain in the ass to enter on a touch screen?



Dear apple, my life does not revolve around you. I can't remember a special password just for you.

oh fark i said 3 where i should have said 4 someone crucify me

Theaetetus: Samsung appears to be acting out of spite in some of their counterclaims

It seems more like amazingly stupendous incompetence to me.

Spite? Really?

Profit is always behind everything for a corporation.
The rest seems to be spite. A company missive of Global Thermonuclear War and all that.

they've got patents in different country. How is it illegal to file suit in said different countries?

Dunno. He said "possibly". Presumably, nobody on Fark truly knows all the nuances of patent law for all of the individual countries that Apple does business in. They have been heavy-handed as of late, and dickish software corporations have been smacked down through vague interpretations of such laws in the past.

You don't think there's been any innovation?

They are seeming to stifle competitors through their patents rather than using them for the sake of innovation and protection therein;
That is to say, the patents have filled a more litigious role than anything else, irrespective of whether they have or think they have the legal or moral rights to do so.

Of course, nowhere near on par with Microsoft's outright extortion with claims like "drawing an image before rendering text OR drawing an image after rendering text" but it seems to be of a similar mindset.

Marine1:
2) Apple apologists pretending Apple isn't using predatory (and possibly illegal) legal tactics to maintain a monopoly on the tablet market

I predict a bunch of people will attempt to draw similes to Microsoft's various anti-trust cases.

I also predict you'll be one of the people who are confused by why that's nonsense.

I also predict we'll spot at least one person praising an Apple device of some description yet blatantly hasn't used the device in question.

RexTalionis:
I predict that the next version of Android will be called Jellybean, in that case.

You looked that up, right?

RexTalionis: tomcatadam: RexTalionis:
I predict that the next version of Android will be called Jellybean, in that case.

You looked that up, right?

No, it's just the only dessert or sweet that I can think of that starts with the letter J that isn't trademarked already.

Well, it appears that your guess was accurate.

tomcatadam: Theaetetus: Samsung appears to be acting out of spite in some of their counterclaims

It seems more like amazingly stupendous incompetence to me.

Spite? Really?

Profit is always behind everything for a corporation.
The rest seems to be spite. A company missive of Global Thermonuclear War and all that.

Not sure where spite comes into it, though. Unless it's just a "how dare they sue us for infringement... it must really be because they're evil."

they've got patents in different country. How is it illegal to file suit in said different countries?

Dunno. He said "possibly". Presumably, nobody on Fark truly knows all the nuances of patent law for all of the individual countries that Apple does business in. They have been heavy-handed as of late, and dickish software corporations have been smacked down through vague interpretations of such laws in the past.

I'm going to need a bit more than that. If "possibly illegal" is just to be read as "well, I don't actually know all the laws, and I can't even point to anything that's potentially illegal, but we can't say with 100% certainty that they haven't broken any law anywhere," then it becomes meaningless. You're doing something possibly illegal by posting here on Fark. Breathing right now? That's possibly illegal. The other day, I saw a turtle... a possibly illegal turtle.
Means nothing at that point.

You don't think there's been any innovation?

They are seeming to stifle competitors through their patents rather than using them for the sake of innovation and protection therein;
That is to say, the patents have filled a more litigious role than anything else, irrespective of whether they have or think they have the legal or moral rights to do so.

What other roles do you think a patent would have, than litigation*? It's not like they're made of gold.
The patent system encourages innovation... no individual patent has to do so. It's like the American dream of owning a house encourages developing property... but I can still kick you off my lawn.


*and cross-licensing, marketing, etc., but those are all based on the threat of litigation

Arrogance worked well for Apple.

RexTalionis: tomcatadam: RexTalionis:
I predict that the next version of Android will be called Jellybean, in that case.

You looked that up, right?

No, it's just the only dessert or sweet that I can think of that starts with the letter J that isn't trademarked already.

I'm waiting for Android Kugel.

Theaetetus: 2) You don't think there's been any innovation? I have a device in my pocket that lets me to real time video chat with my nieces across the country. And I don't even have to push buttons, but can just ask it to connect. It looks like development and innovation are doing wonderfully.

Apple didn't invent mobile video conferencing though, if that's what you're implying.

GameSprocket: [aaplinvestors.net image 400x542]

Arrogance worked well for Apple.

Not only that, they learned their lesson. They got burned by the competition after Apple II and Mac went mainstream. They created whole new industries, only to see their market share get snatched up to nothing not long afterwards. So now they finally figured out you gotta play dirty and underhanded at least until you have the next big thing lined up ready to go.

the samsung galaxy tab is a household name?

Rent is too damn high: Theaetetus: 2) You don't think there's been any innovation? I have a device in my pocket that lets me to real time video chat with my nieces across the country. And I don't even have to push buttons, but can just ask it to connect. It looks like development and innovation are doing wonderfully.

Apple didn't invent mobile video conferencing though, if that's what you're implying.

No, not at all... I'm saying that while anti-patent people keep complaining that software patents are "stifling innovation," I look around and see amazing and wondrous developments over the past 30 years, with technology increasing at exponential rates, and ask where all this alleged stifling is.

AdamK: the samsung galaxy tab is a household name?


Yes, but not the one they're thinking.

Theaetetus: Rent is too damn high: Theaetetus: 2) You don't think there's been any innovation? I have a device in my pocket that lets me to real time video chat with my nieces across the country. And I don't even have to push buttons, but can just ask it to connect. It looks like development and innovation are doing wonderfully.

Apple didn't invent mobile video conferencing though, if that's what you're implying.

No, not at all... I'm saying that while anti-patent people keep complaining that software patents are "stifling innovation," I look around and see amazing and wondrous developments over the past 30 years, with technology increasing at exponential rates, and ask where all this alleged stifling is.

Most of those 30 years, Apple hasn't been suing Samsung, so I can say the same thing except more like "look how great things have been without Apple suing Samsung" :)

Theaetetus: Not sure where spite comes into it, though.

Global Thermonuclear War and all that.

I'm going to need a bit more than that. If "possibly illegal" is just to be read as "well, I don't actually know all the laws, and I can't even point to anything that's potentially illegal, but we can't say with 100% certainty that they haven't broken any law anywhere," then it becomes meaningless

I never made the claim, I was just trying to point out the possible rationale for it.

We have Patents for a reason. The whole point of patents is so someone can't make something that looks exactly like your thing but with their logo on it. That's not innovation, it's infringement.

From the sound of some of you, no one should ever be able to patent anything. If someone invents something and it becomes popular, it should be fair game for anyone who wants to copy it and sell their version. Well, what's the incentive then to ever come up with anything new if I can't protect my invention thereafter? Talk about stifling innovation.

Rent is too damn high: Theaetetus: Rent is too damn high: Theaetetus: 2) You don't think there's been any innovation? I have a device in my pocket that lets me to real time video chat with my nieces across the country. And I don't even have to push buttons, but can just ask it to connect. It looks like development and innovation are doing wonderfully.

Apple didn't invent mobile video conferencing though, if that's what you're implying.

No, not at all... I'm saying that while anti-patent people keep complaining that software patents are "stifling innovation," I look around and see amazing and wondrous developments over the past 30 years, with technology increasing at exponential rates, and ask where all this alleged stifling is.

Most of those 30 years, Apple hasn't been suing Samsung, so I can say the same thing except more like "look how great things have been without Apple suing Samsung" :)

Fair enough... provided innovation stops right now and we never see a new product until these suits are over. ;)

Theaetetus: I'm saying that while anti-patent people keep complaining that software patents are "stifling innovation,"

It's not all or nothing.
Also, the whole "waging corporate war via software patents" thing has sort of only really exploded into its own business over the past decade. Which is not to say we didn't see litigation as a main directive in the 90s; but that, what is seen today is a bit of a different beast.
Although the problem comes down to a mix of copyrights as well.

The Homer Tax: We have Patents for a reason. The whole point of patents is so someone can't make something that looks exactly like your thing but with their logo on it. That's not innovation, it's infringement.

From the sound of some of you, no one should ever be able to patent anything. If someone invents something and it becomes popular, it should be fair game for anyone who wants to copy it and sell their version. Well, what's the incentive then to ever come up with anything new if I can't protect my invention thereafter? Talk about stifling innovation.

Well, yes and no. That's the practical result of patents, but if your invention gives you a marketplace advantage, you'll still innovate, provided you can retain exclusivity of that advantage, even without patents... in other words, trade secrets.
The point of patents is to destroy the incentive to keep trade secrets. Tell the world about your idea so that we don't have to independently invent it, and we'll grudgingly give you a time-limited monopoly. This encourages innovation because we aren't wasting effort, re-inventing the same inventions over and over because each company keeps them locked away in secret labs. Instead, inventors can spend their time on newer innovations and improvements.

The Homer Tax: The whole point of patents is so someone can't make something that looks exactly like your thing but with their logo on it.

How does a patent that covers both "rendering an image after rendering text" and "rendering an image before rendering text" fit into this?

tomcatadam: Theaetetus: I'm saying that while anti-patent people keep complaining that software patents are "stifling innovation,"

It's not all or nothing.

Oh, I agree, but tell that to the all-or-nothing "abolish patents" people.

Also, the whole "waging corporate war via software patents" thing has sort of only really exploded into its own business over the past decade. Which is not to say we didn't see litigation as a main directive in the 90s; but that, what is seen today is a bit of a different beast.
Although the problem comes down to a mix of copyrights as well.

Eh, not so sure. Patent litigation has been around since the first patents. I think we're seeing it so much in the past decade because of better access to news, particularly international news. But the same claim of "waging corporate war via ______ patents" has been made in every industry at some point, from the steam engine to the airplane to the internal combustion engine to the video cassette recorder, etc.

tomcatadam: The Homer Tax: The whole point of patents is so someone can't make something that looks exactly like your thing but with their logo on it.

How does a patent that covers both "rendering an image after rendering text" and "rendering an image before rendering text" fit into this?

Do you have a citation or link to that patent?

Theaetetus: Not sure where spite comes into it, though.

Read up a little on Steve Jobs' reaction to Android. It went well beyond business. Contrast with how Microsoft is handling Android. Now that Jobs is gone, I'm hoping Apple decides to dial back a little from their thermonuclear campaign.

Theaetetus: Fair enough... provided innovation stops right now and we never see a new product until these suits are over. ;)

I don't know man, there wasn't much innovation from Apple since they started suing Samsung in what, April 2011? the 4S is a 4 with the iPad 2 processor and Siri which they bought up from someone else. I'd say it looks like Apple's not been innovating too much since starting to sue Samsung :)

Fish in a Barrel: I'm hoping Apple decides to dial back a little from their thermonuclear campaign.

I'm hoping they dial it up, dial it WAY up. Dial it up to the point where governments go "Ya know? Perhaps we ought to make these old laws a little more sensible for the modern age".