[citation][nom]subaru41[/nom]What is wrong with Apple. All they want is a communist world where they are the only phone manufacturer and everyone bows down to them. Seriously, don't they have enough money already. Why don't they focus on treating their workers with respect in China and actually pay them more than a $1 an hour. This shows they don't care about anyone except themselves and money. I am glad that Steve Handjobs is rotting in Hell.[/citation]
Apple don't pay workers in China. They pay a supplier for a service. The supplier decides on the wages. Samsung and various other Android manufacturers do the same, to get the same cheap prices.
[citation][nom]primalgecko[/nom]Exactly my point to Apple supporters. A friend of mine constantly posts on boards and FB about how being free is something everyone should fight for, yet uses an iPhone from a company that is the most restrictive and wants to control 100% of everything you do with their manufacturered goods. The hypocrisy of Apple users is astounding.[/citation]
Using an iPhone doesn't mean you don't get to choose what to do with it. In fact, in many cases there are certain apps and features (Sky Sports, Siri) which are simply not available on Android. Given that previous versions of Android didn't have source code released, and that you can Jailbreak an iPhone just as easily as rooting an Android, what's your problem. You have an incorrect perception of 'control' which doesn't impact the end user at all.
[citation][nom]zzz_b[/nom]It is sad to see somenoe trying to sue, because of being afraid of competition.Make great products instead, so the other guy can't sell, so they go out of business the real capitalist way![/citation]
So therefore Motorola and Samsung are suing Apple because they can't make great products?
[citation][nom]Kamab[/nom]none of those patented ideas are non-obvious.[/citation]
If the court agrees with you, the court cases will fail for Apple. I think they all seem obvious after the fact, like gravity, but maybe not so obvious before they come out.
[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]The patent system needs to be fixed. I say maximum lifetime on a patent/copyright needs to be reduced to say 4 years. I can understand Trademarks lasting a long time though.[/citation]
Yes, I think if you disagree that these patents should exist, it is the patent system with which you should have anger, not Apple. Samsung recently tried to sue Apple over FRAND patents, was rejected, and is now under investigation for FRAND abuse. That is the system working. If you people believe these patents are obvious, or that there was prior art, the system should never have granted them. So either the system is to blame, or people on here are mistaken about prior art and disagree with the court over whether it's obvious or not. Either way, you can't expect Apple not to try if they have a chance to get money off a competitor. Exactly the same way Motorola are doing over 3G patents which are absolutely essential to any phone - it's no different.[citation]
[nom]zippyzion[/nom]Oh wow, you know, you are really wrong. I can think of a company called Handspring that made PDA's with mobile data and later voice capabilities based on Palm OS, Blackberry, HP and HTC with some others made great Windows CE and mobile phones. Those are just from memory... I'm sure just a little research will turn up some others.The only special thing about the iPhone is that it came out right about the time that mobile data was becoming practical for the average Joe. After that fact Apple marketing, some clever features, and an app store were all it took to cause wide spread "ooh, what's that?" to happen in schools, offices, and supermarkets. Apple may have worked hard but they were far more lucky that the iPhone came out when it did. Truth be told all Palm or Microsoft needed to do at that time was open an app store and the mobile market would be drastically different from what we see today. That is why I consider the iPhone nothing special at all.[/citation]
Sorry, but first of all - your post proves that Apple innovates. Microsoft and Palm failed to be innovative enough to come up with an App store.
As for devices from Palm, Handspring, pre-iPhone? Please. They were ridiculously awkward to use, their screens and touch detection were laughable, they were ugly, bulky and slow. They were not at all comparable, which is why their sales were not at all comparable. To describe Apple as being 'lucky' for coming up with an innovative product which would revolutionise phones, is laughable. Disliking the patent system is one thing, but trying to dismiss what Apple has achieved? Takes away any credibility.
[citation][nom]stryfe1986[/nom]If Apple is the sole provider of these type of phones, wouldn't that be monopolizing?[/citation]
Only if Microsoft, Samsung, Motorola are also monopolizing, given that they too hold patents (FRAND or otherwise) which have to be licensed on every phone.
Bottom line, guys - don't hate the player, hate the game. Apple doesn't make the rules - it's the system which is flawed and is causing all kinds of frivolous lawsuits on ALL sides. Any company in Apples situation, holding patents for technology which was later incorporated into a rival operating system, would do exactly the same thing. Your argument lies with the fact that the patent was ever granted - which is not Apples decision.
/www.tecca.com/news/2011/08/01/foxconn-robots/
Facebook
Twitter