If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Apple: We lost billions in profits due to Samsung patent infringement. Judge: OK, well then you are ordered to disclose details of sales, earnings, and profit margins on iPhones so we can just verify that assertion. Apple: oops   (news.cnet.com) divider line 224
    More: Amusing, Samsung, Judge Koh, iPhones, patent infringements, profit margins, u.s. patent, account of profits  
•       •       •

22868 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2012 at 12:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-18 12:44:43 PM

misthop: What I said or the law?


The law.

Haha! Boy, I looked like a real dick there, didn't I?
 
2012-10-18 12:44:55 PM

stonicus: Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.


You should email your response to his "[nospam-﹫-backwards]c­am­*com" address.
 
2012-10-18 12:46:38 PM

Rev.K: misthop: What I said or the law?

The law.

Haha! Boy, I looked like a real dick there, didn't I?


No worries, that law does make the brain short circuit for a while
 
2012-10-18 12:48:33 PM
Mr Guy:
I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?

Well for one thing the trial was held in the US...that should explain it
 
2012-10-18 12:50:13 PM

JPSimonetti: I like Apple products a lot, but I am just so sick of Apple. I am ashamed to admit I own them. You know?


You can come over and hang out in our Zune club. We have jackets. We meet every Thursday at 6. Bring snacks.
 
2012-10-18 12:50:13 PM
I see Samsung is still spreading anti-Apple propaganda instead of paying for better lawyers.
 
2012-10-18 12:51:25 PM

bingethinker: I see Samsung is still spreading anti-Apple propaganda instead of paying for better lawyers.


Sometimes it's cheaper to buy the judges.

/what?
 
2012-10-18 12:52:09 PM

Kit Fister: AlgertMan: fark Apple.

Because they are successful? Because they are aggressive about protecting their patents? Because they don't "play fair" and allow other companies to license their IP to make competing products? Because they make a device and bundle with it software and services that comprise a user experience, and instead of just selling the device and saying "have fun", they want to keep the overall experience of the device uniform for everyone and thus put up roadblocks that reasonably limit what you can do to that device and subsequently then continue to use the device with their services and software?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and software, some that worked well, some that was crap. And the consumer kinda had to dig through it and figure out what worked well and what didn't.

Apple took the approach back in the day that they didn't trust third parties to write quality software, so they kept as much control over the process as they could.

And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

Here's a hint: if you don't like it, then DON'T farkING BUY IT.


I appreciate apple tech. It is good tech. I dont buy apple due to problems with their business practices, so I dont support apple.

Yet apple is still dicking around with my consumer choices available. That is why I rant on them.
 
2012-10-18 12:52:30 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


Bad lawyers?
 
2012-10-18 12:53:42 PM

KierzanDax: You can come over and hang out in our Zune club. We have jackets. We meet every Thursday at 6. Bring snacks.


Ah, and theeeere's the catch. Always a catch ...
 
2012-10-18 12:55:06 PM

Aarontology: yet more proof that this is about eliminating competition, not copyright infringement.


I think Apple is doubly stupid for going this route. Prior to going for Samsung's throat, they had a working relationship with Samsung in some areas (Samsung made hardware for them). All they really did was prove to HTC, Google, and everyone else who held patents in this arena that Apple was the douchebag who was going to exploit the flaws in patent system. Now you have HTC buying up LTE radio patents so they can fark Apple. Google has Motorola Mobility, which currently they're just using a defense portfolio, but if they went on the offense with it they could do some serious damage.

Under Jobs Apple was skilled at getting into an emerging or fragmented market and selling a very nicely packaged product that was seen a status symbol. Jobs also realized eventually the commodity guys would step their game up and undercut Apple (hence Apple moving on like decreasing their focus on computers in favor of phones and then tables, etc). Apple could remain in the market as a status symbol device, but they'd get pushed out of the corporate enterprisey type stuff and commodity level devices. Now though it seems like Apple has decided rather than accept that happening in phones and tablets, they're going to make their stand. I remember them trying that against Microsoft in the 1990s over desktops and I bet Google can do what MS did.
 
2012-10-18 12:55:33 PM
Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.
 
2012-10-18 12:55:54 PM

Kit Fister: AlgertMan: fark Apple.

Because they are successful? Because they are aggressive about protecting their patents? Because they don't "play fair" and allow other companies to license their IP to make competing products? Because they make a device and bundle with it software and services that comprise a user experience, and instead of just selling the device and saying "have fun", they want to keep the overall experience of the device uniform for everyone and thus put up roadblocks that reasonably limit what you can do to that device and subsequently then continue to use the device with their services and software?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and software, som ...


I like my tech made with the blood, sweat, and tears of children.
 
2012-10-18 12:56:17 PM

scottydoesntknow: stonicus: Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.

You should email your response to his "[[nospam-﹫-backwards] image 7x13]cam[* image 7x13]com" address.


Yep, the same @mac.com address I've had since I got it free about 10 years ago.

I own Macs, I'm a certified WINDOWS and LINUX sysadmin, and I generally hate all of them. Then again, I also pretty much hate all the butthurt because a company is aggressive in how they pursue their IP.
 
2012-10-18 12:57:09 PM

ha-ha-guy: All they really did was prove to HTC, Google, and everyone else who held patents in this arena that Apple was the douchebag who was going to exploit the flaws in patent system. Now you have HTC buying up LTE radio patents so they can fark Apple. Google has Motorola Mobility, which currently they're just using a defense portfolio, but if they went on the offense with it they could do some serious damage.


They have all been patent-wielding douchebags forever. You just didn't hear about it until the story was 'Apple's picking on someone.'
 
2012-10-18 12:57:37 PM
Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?
 
2012-10-18 12:58:05 PM

poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.


Apple is contending it could have sold X million more units for Y profit without Samsung. So the judge is demanding to see the profit as proof X * Profit Per Unit = Y. Basically he's demanding Apple show their work for calculating their damages.
 
2012-10-18 12:59:43 PM

poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.


Because damages that are being sought are not about revenue lost but rather lost profit and therefore what it would have cost Apple to make the revenue (their costs to manufacture, market, etc.) is highly relevant.
 
2012-10-18 01:00:44 PM

poot_rootbeer: ha-ha-guy: All they really did was prove to HTC, Google, and everyone else who held patents in this arena that Apple was the douchebag who was going to exploit the flaws in patent system. Now you have HTC buying up LTE radio patents so they can fark Apple. Google has Motorola Mobility, which currently they're just using a defense portfolio, but if they went on the offense with it they could do some serious damage.

They have all been patent-wielding douchebags forever. You just didn't hear about it until the story was 'Apple's picking on someone.'


this.
 
2012-10-18 01:06:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.

The GS3 is thinner with a wider screen. You really think the iPhone 5 is so super advanced?


Actually, the GS3 is both thicker and heavier than the iPhone 5.
 
2012-10-18 01:08:12 PM

ha-ha-guy: poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.

Apple is contending it could have sold X million more units for Y profit without Samsung. So the judge is demanding to see the profit as proof X * Profit Per Unit = Y. Basically he's demanding Apple show their work for calculating their damages.


But they're Apple. Can't they just say somethings true and it will be?
 
2012-10-18 01:09:00 PM
I guess I never really understood the whole wooey "Apple experience" thing. It's a farking phone. The only "experience" I require from a smart phone is being able to talk to people, text, use Google Maps when I get lost, check my email, listen to Pandora, play Angry Birds, and Google trivial facts that my kids are arguing about in the car to get them to shut up. I can do all this and more perfectly well on my Android, and save a bunch of money.
 
2012-10-18 01:10:54 PM

Ordinary Genius: cameroncrazy1984: hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.

The GS3 is thinner with a wider screen. You really think the iPhone 5 is so super advanced?

I don't think you read his comment correctly...


Or because they're quality products?? Why do people pay a lot more for a Mercedes when they could spend half as much on a Chevy?
 
2012-10-18 01:11:21 PM

StoPPeRmobile: OgreMagi: I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.

You're farking crazy.


It's crazy enough to work.
 
2012-10-18 01:13:26 PM

nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?


Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.
 
2012-10-18 01:13:30 PM

HortusMatris: I guess I never really understood the whole wooey "Apple experience" thing. It's a farking phone. The only "experience" I require from a smart phone is being able to talk to people, text, use Google Maps when I get lost, check my email, listen to Pandora, play Angry Birds, and Google trivial facts that my kids are arguing about in the car to get them to shut up. I can do all this and more perfectly well on my Android, and save a bunch of money.


I'm not sure how big the long-term savings really are. Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost. Sure, it resets my two-year "contract clock" with AT&T each time, but I've been happy with their service and wasn't likely to be changing carriers anyway.

So in essence, I paid $200 for an iPhone once, back in 2008, and all of the subsequent upgrades have been free.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-18 01:13:46 PM
"Apple has not established that public availability of its product-specific unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin, and cost data would actually provide its competitors with an advantage"

One of the things I hated about working for a megacorporation was the "everything is a secret" mentality. Spending less than .01% of your quarterly profit to buy technology from a small company is not a legitimate "die before you give up the secret" deal. But to corporate lawyers it is. Don't you dare tell a soul, not even your family, that you'll be in (city) next week. The perceived cost of disrupting employees' lives is zero, so they don't think twice about making stupid rules.
 
2012-10-18 01:14:09 PM

bingethinker: I see Samsung is still spreading anti-Apple propaganda instead of paying for better lawyers.


How much does Apple pay you?

1. Iphone 4, shoddy product when released, consumers were told they were holding it wrong, then Apple finally had to send everyone out a rubber bumper.

2. Iphone 5, battery life worse than the 4s in every day use, many defects out of the box. Nothing really groundbreaking about it, especially for its 750$ full retail price. other than the processor speed it ain't nothing to write home about. The Samsung S2 is a year older and has 4g, an 8 meg pixel camera, and can take panoramic pics, and has google maps out of the box. and a larger screen..

I support Apple users on a daily basis, and have for years between the telecom and the computer industry. Maybe 5% know how to actually use the product more than just making calls, but when they need support they are the worst, because they fail to see their inability to try and learn anything not as a personal failing or an Apple failing but as everyone elses fault.

The Samsung ruling will be overturned, I have no doubt of that, but when that day comes I am sure you will not be commenting.
 
2012-10-18 01:16:05 PM

ZAZ: "Apple has not established that public availability of its product-specific unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin, and cost data would actually provide its competitors with an advantage"

One of the things I hated about working for a megacorporation was the "everything is a secret" mentality. Spending less than .01% of your quarterly profit to buy technology from a small company is not a legitimate "die before you give up the secret" deal. But to corporate lawyers it is. Don't you dare tell a soul, not even your family, that you'll be in (city) next week. The perceived cost of disrupting employees' lives is zero, so they don't think twice about making stupid rules.


Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business. I honestly want to know just what irreparable harm was done to their company by Samsung producing the Galaxy series.
 
2012-10-18 01:16:18 PM

Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.


Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?
 
2012-10-18 01:16:21 PM

ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.


Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?
 
2012-10-18 01:17:05 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


It helps having a jury foreman with an axe to grind against Samsung.

I don't think it will make it that far though, either it will be thrown out on appeal or apple will settle for a third so they don't have to release profit data.
 
2012-10-18 01:17:15 PM

kpaxoid: ha-ha-guy: poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.

Apple is contending it could have sold X million more units for Y profit without Samsung. So the judge is demanding to see the profit as proof X * Profit Per Unit = Y. Basically he's demanding Apple show their work for calculating their damages.

But they're Apple. Can't they just say somethings true and it will be?


That's what they thought too. The judge disagreed.
 
2012-10-18 01:22:47 PM

ScottRiqui: Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?


I can't cite a case, but are you really trying to argue that prior art doesn't qualify as prior art?
 
2012-10-18 01:22:57 PM
Fun development.

Link

Apple has to say 'I was wrong.' At least in Britain. They lost the Appeal.
 
2012-10-18 01:23:12 PM

Rev.K: ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.

Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?


Yep - throughout its history, the carrier-subsidized price of the entry-level iPhone has always been right around $200. Look on eBay, and you'll find that out-of-contract iPhone 4 and 4s models are selling for significantly more than that. Buyers, especially overseas buyers, want unlocked, contract-free iPhones.

Just last week, I sold my iPhone 4 (not the 4S) on eBay for $275. The listing was up for less than two hours before it was sold, and when I put up the listing, mine was the lowest-priced one on there by almost $5.

It was the same two years ago, when the money I made selling my and my wife's iPhone 3G models more than paid for two of the iPhone 4 models. My wife wasn't planning on getting the iPhone 5, but since it's basically a free upgrade, she probably will.
 
2012-10-18 01:23:17 PM

JPSimonetti: I like Apple products a lot, but I am just so sick of Apple. I am ashamed to admit I own them. You know?


You know this could be the beginning of a shift from the "Apple - cool company with cool stuff" to "Apple AKA The Microsoft of the 90's era". More and more people are beginning to be fed up with Apple's antics in court. In the end, it might even be good for Samsung, yes they have to pay a bazillion of dollars to Apple, but

1. this amount as huge as it seems is not big enough to make Samsung go out of business
2. more people see Samsung as the company that makes products as good as Apple with the bonus that you don't have to drink the Apple Kool-Aid and pay the Apple tax.

So in the end Samsung might be the big winner after all.
 
2012-10-18 01:23:18 PM

hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.


From what I understand Apple get the outlandish profits from iTunes and the App store. Apple's business strategy for the past 10 years has been building the most attractive walled garden around.
 
2012-10-18 01:26:45 PM

Bored Horde: hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.

From what I understand Apple get the outlandish profits from iTunes and the App store. Apple's business strategy for the past 10 years has been building the most attractive walled garden around.


This. And the Galaxy line still didn't stop them from getting enough profit to oust 1999 Microsoft as the most valuable company ever.

Apple sued Samsung on the grounds that the Galaxy line had copied from Apple and had caused irreparable harm to their company. This is akin to saying that the United States was irreparably harmed by the founding of South Sudan a few years ago.
 
2012-10-18 01:27:18 PM

Girion47: ScottRiqui: Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?

I can't cite a case, but are you really trying to argue that prior art doesn't qualify as prior art?


I guess I can see it from a design standpoint, although there are design limitations that you don't have to follow when all you're doing is building a studio prop. But on the whole, it smacks of someone trying to patent a plasma rifle based on something they put together for one of the "Terminator" movies.
 
2012-10-18 01:29:39 PM

Marine1: ZAZ:

Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business.


I will be honest. This fact astouds me. Apple products are not at all necessary for life or the economy. When exxon mobil was the biggest company, I could understand it. Oil runs the world, not iPhones. I have a hard time grasping the fact that a company that makes doo dads can be so important.

And you know, I wonder how long it will last. Competitors are putting out better products with far more innovations and taking far more chances. The app store is a cesspool. It seems like every app you download does nothingnmore than attempt to make itself more money. Ads for other shiatty apps on your screen, pop ups telling you to "unlock this feature for 20 dollars, buy a digital item for 50 bucks" ( this is of course a problem in the android store, but the apple app store has more exposure ). I don't think I have ab app not made by google that hasn't tried to hit me up for money. I just wonder if people will start to push back against the bullshiat.

/typing this on my iPad tethered to my samsung galaxy.
 
2012-10-18 01:31:40 PM

Teknowaffle: Marine1: ZAZ:

Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business.

I will be honest. This fact astouds me. Apple products are not at all necessary for life or the economy. When exxon mobil was the biggest company, I could understand it. Oil runs the world, not iPhones. I have a hard time grasping the fact that a company that makes doo dads can be so important.

And you know, I wonder how long it will last. Competitors are putting out better products with far more innovations and taking far more chances. The app store is a cesspool. It seems like every app you download does nothingnmore than attempt to make itself more money. Ads for other shiatty apps on your screen, pop ups telling you to "unlock this feature for 20 dollars, buy a digital item for 50 bucks" ( this is of course a problem in the android store, but the apple app store has more exposure ). I don't think I have ab app not made by google that hasn't tried to hit me up for money. I just wonder if people will start to push back against the bullshiat.

/typing this on my iPad tethered to my samsung galaxy.


It's why the terrorists hate us, really...
 
2012-10-18 01:32:11 PM

DORMAMU: Kit Fister: AlgertMan: fark Apple.

Because they are successful? Because they are aggressive about protecting their patents? Because they don't "play fair" and allow other companies to license their IP to make competing products? Because they make a device and bundle with it software and services that comprise a user experience, and instead of just selling the device and saying "have fun", they want to keep the overall experience of the device uniform for everyone and thus put up roadblocks that reasonably limit what you can do to that device and subsequently then continue to use the device with their services and software?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and s ...


Yes the argument "OMG, just don't farking buy them!111!111" is invalid because Apple tries to remove the option of buying a competing product, I tought anyone could see that...
 
2012-10-18 01:32:16 PM
As a tech-mercenary, I really don't give a crap about Apple. Are their computers nice? Sure, they have some cool features, but then again, it get annoying that while I can install a program from the pc into apple, I can't do it the other way around. Also, the problem with the iPhones is very notorious, their PR without Jobs sucks even more when he was still kicking. And, if you have an iPhone, like I do, you really can't seem to be compelles to get the iPad, or even the new iPhones (I have the iPhone 2, it still works for me) because they're freakin' expensive.

Hell, even the gigantic phone-tablet hybrid I've seen (can't remember the name) while unwieldy as a phone, it's a pretty cool piece of tech.
 
2012-10-18 01:32:46 PM

KierzanDax: JPSimonetti: I like Apple products a lot, but I am just so sick of Apple. I am ashamed to admit I own them. You know?

You can come over and hang out in our Zune club. We have jackets. We meet every Thursday at 6. Bring snacks.


WHAT!? I was told there would be pie!
 
2012-10-18 01:35:19 PM

Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: stonicus: Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.

You should email your response to his "[[nospam-﹫-backwards] image 7x13]cam[* image 7x13]com" address.

Yep, the same @mac.com address I've had since I got it free about 10 years ago.


I have an email addy at aol.com from 15 years ago but you don't see me still using it. You use the address you want people to see for a reason. I went to gmail as my main because I was in beta and got my name at gmail plus gmail is the shiat.
 
2012-10-18 01:37:43 PM

CygnusDarius: Hell, even the gigantic phone-tablet hybrid I've seen (can't remember the name) while unwieldy as a phone, it's a pretty cool piece of tech.


Probably the Note. I played with it when I was looking for a new phone, and it was pretty slick. Looked a bit silly holding it up to my ear though.
 
2012-10-18 01:39:07 PM

ScottRiqui: Rev.K: ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.

Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?

Yep - throughout its history, the carrier-subsidized price of the entry-level iPhone has always been right around $200. Look on eBay, and you'll find that out-of-contract iPhone 4 and 4s models are selling for significantly more than that. Buyers, especially overseas buyers, want unlocked, contract-free iPhones.

Just last week, I sold my iPhone 4 (not the 4S) on eBay for $275. The listing was up for less than two hours before it was sold, and when I put up the listing, mine was the lowest-priced one on there by almost $5.

It was the same two years ago, when the money I made selling my and my wife's iPhone 3G models more than paid for two of the iPhone 4 models. My wife wasn't planning on getting the iPhone 5, but since it's basically a free upgrade, she probably will.


Now compare the price for a service only plan to the price of your service + phone plan. Notice the price difference? You are paying for the phone either way.
 
2012-10-18 01:40:05 PM
At some point if a jury intentionally ignores the law and jury instructions it should become a civil and/or criminal matter to the members of the jury that do so.
 
2012-10-18 01:40:14 PM

HotWingConspiracy: CygnusDarius: Hell, even the gigantic phone-tablet hybrid I've seen (can't remember the name) while unwieldy as a phone, it's a pretty cool piece of tech.

Probably the Note. I played with it when I was looking for a new phone, and it was pretty slick. Looked a bit silly holding it up to my ear though.


Lol, this. A friend has one, and while she uses it to look at CAD files, I she says she feels like a hobbit grabbing a cellphone when making or taking a call XD.
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report