rileyes
Mar 29, 03:47 PM
Oracle's lawsuit against Google is airtight. Android's use of a non-compliant virtual machine (the Dalvik VM) is a clear violation of the Java license agreement. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million back in 2001 when Sun successfully sued them for trying to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java.
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Even if Google loses any patent lawsuit, the phone wont go off the market.
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Even if Google loses any patent lawsuit, the phone wont go off the market.
twostep665
Apr 4, 12:23 PM
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
THANK YOU! It is hard enough making a head shot from 15 yards on the pistol range!
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
THANK YOU! It is hard enough making a head shot from 15 yards on the pistol range!
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OwlsAndApples
Oct 27, 08:45 AM
....it's a computer, what are you going to make it out of? oak leaves and wood?
Yeah, and i know extreme hyperbole when I see it...:D :D
Ummm...
How about this one (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/12/russian-wooden-pc-bigger-than-a-breadbox/)
Or this one (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/suissa-computers-offers-up-custom-wooden-pcs/)
:D
Love the first computer! Wonder if it has a glossy screen..
Yeah, and i know extreme hyperbole when I see it...:D :D
Ummm...
How about this one (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/12/russian-wooden-pc-bigger-than-a-breadbox/)
Or this one (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/suissa-computers-offers-up-custom-wooden-pcs/)
:D
Love the first computer! Wonder if it has a glossy screen..
SiliconAddict
Sep 13, 10:39 PM
I sure hope the headset is on the back. can you imagine the grease from it being pressed up against your head all day long. Shiny black really isn't the way to go with e device that is going to be a phone. Granted that is an artist's rendition so there is still some hope. But I think this may end up being another case of design over practicality. I could only imagine what something like that would look like at the end of a day of use.
Which would warrant putting it in a case which ends up defeating the purpose of the beauty of the device.
Which would warrant putting it in a case which ends up defeating the purpose of the beauty of the device.
DavPeanut
Aug 28, 01:23 PM
Yeah, Apple would NEVER do THAT. :rolleyes:
These are products that are now competing directly with the products or the PC industry. I have been using macs since I was about 4, but now that Apple is using Intel Processors, all they really have going for them are their ability to run OS X and their design, which are huge for most of Apple's current market. The ability to run Windows though has helped recently to increase Apple's sales, but it means that apples are now directly competing with Dell, HP and the like. It used to be that apple boasted about their benchmarks versus PCs, but with the Mac Pro, they have been boasting about their price. The innards of a high-end Dell workstation are almost identical to those of the Mac Pro, and likewise, the MacBook and MacBook Pros are very similar to the offerings of the rest of the computer industry. If apple wants to be able to market their products based solely on their products special features they won't sell. It has been the comparible performance along with the things that make Apples Apples that have caused MacBooks to become backordered.
These are products that are now competing directly with the products or the PC industry. I have been using macs since I was about 4, but now that Apple is using Intel Processors, all they really have going for them are their ability to run OS X and their design, which are huge for most of Apple's current market. The ability to run Windows though has helped recently to increase Apple's sales, but it means that apples are now directly competing with Dell, HP and the like. It used to be that apple boasted about their benchmarks versus PCs, but with the Mac Pro, they have been boasting about their price. The innards of a high-end Dell workstation are almost identical to those of the Mac Pro, and likewise, the MacBook and MacBook Pros are very similar to the offerings of the rest of the computer industry. If apple wants to be able to market their products based solely on their products special features they won't sell. It has been the comparible performance along with the things that make Apples Apples that have caused MacBooks to become backordered.
Full of Win
Apr 20, 11:45 AM
Am I the only person laughing at this? If you didn't know your phone was already tracking you, then you should read up. All phones do it and it is not limited to the iPhone. Most common reason it would be done is for emergency needs. Just go to another cell tower and watch it track you. Next story please.
Reading is fundamental. The point is not tracking the phone, its keeping a usable log of it on the computer and phone that can be accessed by others.
Big difference.
Reading is fundamental. The point is not tracking the phone, its keeping a usable log of it on the computer and phone that can be accessed by others.
Big difference.
OllyW
Apr 20, 10:28 AM
Has to have some back and forth that could be tracked.
So most Sat Navs are safe because they don't transmit back.
So most Sat Navs are safe because they don't transmit back.
dwman
Apr 28, 03:36 PM
This pretty much sums it up.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 01:06 PM
If Steve says it's good, then all will be forgiven.
deannnnn
Mar 29, 11:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
lol. good one.
lol. good one.
breakfastcrew
Aug 28, 07:30 PM
ha ha I predict nothing until after the school rebate in the US is over. ;) at least the consumer products.
marting
Mar 29, 02:30 PM
Are you suggesting that an internationally respected technology analysis firm might have more of a clue than the fans on MacRumours?
I think he is. Too bad IDC isn't one of them.
I think he is. Too bad IDC isn't one of them.
iMouse
Apr 20, 10:03 AM
Looks as if the data is more or less for AT&T's purposes than for Apple's. A lot of the data is in a grid form on the map, possibly using tower triangulation to determine signal issues in a given area.
The dates coincide with the release of iOS 4 for sure.
Still not cool that this is being pushed to backups and appears to keep a never-ending history on the device unless restored and set up as new.
The dates coincide with the release of iOS 4 for sure.
Still not cool that this is being pushed to backups and appears to keep a never-ending history on the device unless restored and set up as new.
justflie
Oct 27, 08:10 AM
They do build in obsolescence into the ipod as you can't replace the battery (easily). It does become a disposable item, although a pricey one at that. I do love the ipod (even though I don't own one) but this puts me off to the point where I just can't go through with actually buying one. My experience with rechargeable batteries in mobile phones and lap top isn't good.
Meh, don't worry about the batteries. Sure, some people have problems, but my 3G ipod is still doing surprisingly well! It may have lost a little bit of charge since I bought it but it still lasts at least 7 hours. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe it knows it needs to behave before the sweet widescreen video ipod comes out. Or else. :D
Meh, don't worry about the batteries. Sure, some people have problems, but my 3G ipod is still doing surprisingly well! It may have lost a little bit of charge since I bought it but it still lasts at least 7 hours. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe it knows it needs to behave before the sweet widescreen video ipod comes out. Or else. :D
gloss
Sep 26, 06:58 AM
Oh man. Verizon early termination fee, here I come.
suzerain
Sep 16, 01:44 PM
Well, here's what I'm hoping for. (Crazy, I know, but I think there's a chance, because Apple's a computer company, and they seem to approach everything with the computer as the center of everything.)
I want a GSM phone with VoIP capabilities, so it will work with either Vonage or Skype. That way, I can pay way less money...
(Obviously, it has to have bluetooth and sync-ability, but I don't undersstand why people here even consider that optional...Apple created iSync, after all.)
I want a GSM phone with VoIP capabilities, so it will work with either Vonage or Skype. That way, I can pay way less money...
(Obviously, it has to have bluetooth and sync-ability, but I don't undersstand why people here even consider that optional...Apple created iSync, after all.)
firsttube
Sep 13, 09:59 PM
Here's the real iPhone:
that's a mockup by that magazine, and nice "new" headphones.
that's a mockup by that magazine, and nice "new" headphones.
bedifferent
May 3, 11:33 AM
Great update� waiting for the usual suspects to come around to list any [unreasonable] cons :p�
davelanger
Mar 30, 11:59 AM
So?
The other company has got Apple trade marked. They are both in common use but are protected when used in the computer industry.
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/general.aspx
Apple isnt using Ms for using the term windows, something apple said way before MS. You also dont see apple using MS for using Word, or OFFICE either.
MS can NEVER be orginial they just steal ideas from apple.
Like I said, they could easily call their app store WinApp Store or even Mobile App Store and it would be fine, but they want to be cute and copy apple and just call it app store.
The other company has got Apple trade marked. They are both in common use but are protected when used in the computer industry.
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/general.aspx
Apple isnt using Ms for using the term windows, something apple said way before MS. You also dont see apple using MS for using Word, or OFFICE either.
MS can NEVER be orginial they just steal ideas from apple.
Like I said, they could easily call their app store WinApp Store or even Mobile App Store and it would be fine, but they want to be cute and copy apple and just call it app store.
zap2
Sep 13, 09:02 PM
You devil you...I'm thinking someone knows more then they are telling MR's public users!
xStep
Oct 27, 03:04 PM
One World. We aren't getting off this rock any time soon.
Perhaps, but the sooner man is extinguished from this planet the sooner the planet can recover to it's equilibrium.
Perhaps, but the sooner man is extinguished from this planet the sooner the planet can recover to it's equilibrium.
haddman
Mar 22, 01:17 PM
Balls! I just bought a new 27in iMac like 3-4 weeks ago! Oh well, I have been wanting replace my PC with a mac for like over a year, and I love it.
bshort
Sep 14, 10:00 AM
New version of Aperture!.. Saweeet
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
You had me up until the magnesium body.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
You had me up until the magnesium body.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
0 comments:
Post a Comment