|
trustnoone
6 December 2011
|
Good, had enough of Apple bullying other companies. Then again I wish these products would just get over all this an just start concentrating on their products.
They all just copy each other, so they should stop the bitching!!
Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Apple fails to get Samsung products banned in the US?
Judge refuses Apple's request for sales ban on Samsung products.
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
amcmo
6 December 2011
|
Again, accusing Apple of bullying, what about Samsung trying to get Apple banned all over the world? Google 'lending' patents to Amazon mfrs to try to bully Apple, HTC buying patents to try to block Apple, then when they fail trying to welsh on the deal.
Samsung are using FRAND patents to attempt it which is even worse. At least thus far the courts have seen through it and refused to go along with Samsung.
The whole patent thing is a bit ridiculous, however get sick of everyone accusing Apple of being the bully when the so-called 'victims' are even worse. |
|
j876
6 December 2011
|
Just a question, wasn't it the late Steve Jobs who said he wanted to go "thermonuclear" against Android (and therefore Google) who started the fire?
Apple started suing Android manufacturers left right and centre for apparent patent breaches but when the fire gets returned its not okay? |
|
amcmo
6 December 2011
|
Actually Jobs comments were made in the context of Schmidt having had early information about the iPhone. Suggestion from some circles (ex Google staff?) was that, yes Google were looking at a phone before Schmidt heard about the iPhone which was already several years into development, however there was a drastic change of direction as soon as he saw what was comming in the iPhone.
Jobs also made the thermo comment in the past year when the suits were already flying thick and fast.
Apple was not the first with a suit as I understand the sequence of events.
Also recent info from the US, Apple did actually offer to licence patents to Samsung, just as they did to others. While others took up the offer Samsung refused. The US rejection of the injunction is based partly on Apple being prepared to licence.
As usual with PC&T_, the report on the case omits this important fact that was one of the reasons given for refusing the injunction. |
|
photohounds
6 December 2011
|
Schmidt heard about LG and Samsung's forerunners to the iphone too, I expect.
RETALIATORY BS is always invited by being a smart-ass ... and NOW? They all use patents to stiff-arm each other.
That puerile, QUASI-RELIGIOUS "thermonuclear" quote started an avalanche. Lesson: don't set fire to someone else's kitchen AND THEN expect to carve the deal YOU want on their FRAND tech.
Anyone know if apple manufactured before seeking a license?
|
|
amcmo
6 December 2011
|
Actually the Themonuclear comment came long after it was all happening.
What was LG's forerunner , 6 months earlier. By then Apple and Google were well committed to their respective products.
And yes, they were well into iPhone 4 territory before they asked for the licence. Jobs personally tried to sort things out with Samsung a year ago.
Don't know how much truth however one commentator pointed out that the original Galaxy looked somewhat like the iPad 1, however within 6 weeks of the launch of IPad 2 Samsung displayed a prototype of the current iPad2 look alike. If any company could move that fast it would be Samsung (even down to the 30 pin connector:d ) |
|
photohounds
7 December 2011
|
The phone LG made with the PRADA brand on it - OUT and IN PRODUCTION while Apple was still copying the idea. Prada proved phones could be sold to style monkeys, charging a high price. Have a good look at Samsung F700 I think it is. Pre Ja Vu???
Now, copy the "minimalist kitchen appliance" look of the late 1990s and bingo the iphone. Not innovative, just a slightly different tack and look from another appliance.
Their gear used (and will use) using the latest hardware, designed, tested and made by others.
Stop &*%^*&V worshipping at a hardware maker's feet - it ain't a Ferrari or a Porsche ... it's a phone.
|
|
amcmo
7 December 2011
|
Having driven both, I can tell you the iPhone is better made and easier to use than either.
I don't worship at anyone's feet, hardware, software or other. |
|
photohounds
8 December 2011
|
amcmo wrote:Having driven both, I can tell you the iPhone is better made and easier to use than either.
I don't worship at anyone's feet, hardware, software or other.
Does its job better than a good car? Of course. Phones have (iphone AND Android) have a much simpler job to do, ergo FAR less skill involved in driving. No physics involving tonnes of metal and precious cargo to keep safe to start with.
I'd still like to drive a GT3 FAR more than a phone-toy.
I see Apple are now included in that Carrier IQ class action. It demonstrates that this isn't a "my brand vs. yours" issue and never was - unless you want to consider who had it FIRST. They should ALL hang for it and it will hopefully be a dead duck before it arrives here. The idea that Carrier IQ violates your privacy far more than is currently done is ridiculous and no doubt, there'll be a better-hidden replacement soon. Anti-Android fanboy crap merchants now tarred with their OWN brush.
This is not even an important issue. There is a MUCH wider privacy issue here.
Every text you send, every call you make, when, to whom and from WHERE is information available to (and presumably stored by) your friendly telco.
Your personal information now becomes "Business Confidential" data and can be sold. Look at your phone agreement for all the loopholes!
As we have long had prodigious processing power, the CONTENTS of calls are already being 'listened to' for keywords by electronic eavesdropping. Voice recognition makes it EASIER because you are letting a piece of software listen to what you say! Somewhere along the chain, Apple engineered (or turns a blind eye to) SIRI vetting words like 'abortion'. That is THE VISIBLE EXAMPLE only. It shows how simply changing listened-for keywords, from words related to crime or terrorism, to any politically (or business or 'morally') sensitive issue like 'abortion' and voila - we 'progress' from 'service' to 'spying'.
SIRI is spying on its users far more than Carrier IQ. The 'abortion' gaffe has demonstrated this and we've just scratched the surface, SIRI will be listening to other searches - it is simply not giving that fact away to the user, instead silently recording/reporting them. This is saleable data - better get off your "evil Google" hobby horse. Either they are ALL already doing this - or are planning to. The piles of money to be made are irresistible.
FACT: Voice recognition is turning out to be more sinister than the possibilities that Carrier IQ opens up. Couple call harvesting with telco location data (impossible to avoid) and you're pretty well 'talking to anyone prepared to pay'.
I'm sorry Dave .... it seems that those black, rectangular monoliths have returned to haunt us once more. They are just smaller.
That wider privacy issue? Scott McNealy is already correct- you HAVE ZERO PRIVACY. Keep private conversations off the networks and ANY voice recognition system.
|
|
amcmo
8 December 2011
|
US class action being what it is, I'm not surprised to find the lawyers casting their net as far as possible in a fishing expidition.
The fact still remains that the data (supposedly) sent back to Apple (or the carrier?) was cell location, signal strength. All thrashed out 12 months ago.
Pointing the finger at Apple because in the past they had a watered down version of the program that had no hidden impact is just attempting to divert from the fact that a number of Andorid mfr's (and RIM?) went out of their way to hide it, make it impossible to disable (always possible on the Apple), and allow root access to the phone.
At no stage was the install in the iPhone able to send the details of your texts. There is even some suggestion that the Samsung version cannot do that.
How do you possibly stretch the Siri abortion issue to a spying issue? Siri does not 'VET' words, that's all been addressed and not just by Apple.
Siri works with search engines. You speak a search you want and it goes out to the search engine for that information. The problem was a combination of the Siri algorithm still being developed and mainly the search engine response. Information coming to light shows that the search engines, through their advertising will in fact return more of the supposed advice clinics which are anti-abortion groups hiding behind the image of a full service support clinic. Being funded by the extreme right in the US, they have huge funding for advertising that ensures they are in the top of all returns for anyone requesting that information. Again, this information is in the public domain.
Siri/Apple do not keep any identifyable information from a Siri search.
Sorry, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel in trying to tie Apple into the current CarrierIQ debacle that goes far beyond any Apple implementation, and sounds like you're just trying scare mongering on Siri.
BTW, the GT3 is highly overated. It's far too much work to drive fast and bloody uncomfortable on anything rougher than a billiard table. If you want truly fast yet comfortable and controllable (and much cheaper) there's an E Class V8 (Mercs equiv of an M5) that's the dogs bollocks. I passed a Ferrari on a curve at the Nurburgring at approaching 300kph in the Merc. I would not have tried that in the GT3.
Edited by amcmo: 8/12/2011 10:34:08 AM
Edited by amcmo: 8/12/2011 10:35:55 AM |
|
photohounds
8 December 2011
|
Not me AM. The journos reporting that the class action has fruitily widened may be 'scraping the bottom of the barrel'. What did they find there? Apple.
Their C IQ implementation (and its impact) WAS hidden from consumers until 'outed'.
There's no proof (yet) that C IQ is used the way it supposedly COULD be used. However this is all is somewhat moot compared to the real issue, ANY unencrypted voice or text comms is completely insecure, period. You're just SHOUTING into the cloud, hoping no one's listening.
Even if encrypted, these comms are only as secure as the snooper's inability to break the encryption. If they think you are of interest they WILL break it. I'm probably safe on that score:)
Using voice conversion (to text for search comparisons) IS more dangerous than voice, as it is now text, text is VERY easily parsed.
Also, this issue is NOT a brand thing, it just IS.
Glad you like the Merc - me too :)
Either way, a good car has a job to do that makes a phone an extremely trivial exercise.
Edited by photohounds: 8/12/2011 04:05:31 PM |
|
amcmo
8 December 2011
|
Like the Merc, you'd have liked working for the company I was with, we had over 60 of them on fleet in Europe, which is why we got to play boy racer at the Nurburgring and Mercs nearby skidpad.
Personal training with several Merc team drivers.:lol: |
|
photohounds
8 December 2011
|
amcmo wrote:Like the Merc, you'd have liked working for the company I was with, we had over 60 of them on fleet in Europe, which is why we got to play boy racer at the Nurburgring and Mercs nearby skidpad.
Personal training with several Merc team drivers.:lol:
Turning bright green here ... still you need skills for a good car.
:-" |
|
photohounds
9 December 2011
|
Apple's ban request has been squashed in OZ
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16104325
Samsung's ban request has been denied in France.
So...
You can get the better-screen tablet in OZ.
(but it is as nobbled as the ipad is)
You can keep buying the iphone in France.
Stopping others from selling a product where the case is YET TO BE PROVEN is inappropriate (from either side) IMO.
Edited by photohounds: 9/12/2011 03:48:10 PM |
