UKBouldering.com
technical => computers, technology and the internet => Topic started by: petejh on August 25, 2012, 11:36:50 pm
-
Apple wins US legal battle against Samsung: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/25/apple-crushes-samsung-quest-global-tech-domination (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/25/apple-crushes-samsung-quest-global-tech-domination)
That seems very fucked-up, claiming an obvious concept like double-tapping a screen as your company's sole intellectual property and aggressively pursuing any competitors (Android); whatever next - Microsoft patenting left-clicking a mouse? Patenting 'rectangles with rounded corners' says it all.
I'm supposed to be releasing a definitive guide app for North Wales Limestone, anyone with a more informed opinion on Apple than me care to enlighten me as to why I would want to have anything to do with this dictatorship company, as I'm considering whether I really want to do anything, no matter how miniscule, that supports their brand? I might look at releasing the NW Lime app just for Android as I don't need to make any money out of it.
-
Part of my reasoning behind choosing an HTC Android phone, over an iPhone (aside from price, not wanting to copy everyone else) was the fact that Apple were getting a bit big for their boots.
-
What I found interesting was that according to the equivalent bbc article, Apple buy a lot of parts from Samsung including computer chips and possibly screens. Interesting approach to dealing with your suppliers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261)
-
What I found interesting was that according to the equivalent bbc article, Apple buy a lot of parts from Samsung including computer chips and possibly screens. Interesting approach to dealing with your suppliers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261)
My thought exactly but Apple's gripe is the firmware not the hardware.
I think at the end of the day apple just want total market share, my wife has the iPhone and compared to my Samsung s3 (not used by apple in their arguement) I much prefer mine
I do love apple computers.
Still, cunts in my view (as I type this on an iPad)
-
Granted that it's firmware/design that Apple have the issue with, but at the end of the day it's still the same company isn't it...
-
What I found interesting was that according to the equivalent bbc article, Apple buy a lot of parts from Samsung including computer chips and possibly screens. Interesting approach to dealing with your suppliers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261)
Apple got out of the chips designed specifically for Apple products a while back as it was too expensive running their own fab plant (or paying someone else to design and fab one) when there were perfectly good Intel chips out there that do the job just as well if not better and this is just a logical extension of that. Samsung build a huge fab plant and then sell to one and all to pay for it and all the associated R&D costs that go along with something like that no doubt. Also regardless of the ruling yesterday there is not much chance of them cutting Apple off the supplier list as not only it is a massive regular order and income for them but also the contract is probably covered by more caveats than you could shake a bushel of sticks at...
-
My tuppence...
Anyone used an android phone and think its not based on iOS?
Apple changed the market with a series of innovations that they patented and others followed. It's a fine line between imitation and flattery and this case seemed to revolve around this..
Normal practice is to pay a fee to the co who developed the idea and Apple offered Samsung such a deal at £30 a unit in 2009.. They declined..
If I came up with a new idea, patented it, and someone else came along and started making as much ££ from it as me, I'd be pissed off and want a slice of their action...
I don't really buy this apple is big nasty company etc... They are ALL big nasty corporate plc's... Just because google 'gives' you things for free doesn't make it any better - it's just a canny business/domination plan. Samsung is a huge company.. Larry Ellison (CEO of oracle) who s one of the original jobs/gates silicone valley startup folks etc.. Used to use a Gengis Khan quote frequently to describe his companies position "in order to truly succeed, all others must fail"...
-
These are the patents that Samsung violated:
Utility Patents
163 Enlarging documents by tapping the screen
381 'Bounce-back' feature when scrolling beyond the edge of a page
915 Distinguishes between single-touch and multi-touch gestures
Design Patents
087 Ornamental design of the iPhone (white color)
305 Rounded square icons on interface
677 Ornamental design of the iPhone (black color)
889 Relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer
It's trival and pathetic - patenting "rounded square icons" ffs? "Enlarging documents by tapping the screen"? Really? They've already tried to fight over "slide to unlock".
The real loser here is the consumer - Apple are just attempting to stifle innovation and competition by patenting fundamental parts of any touch OS.
As for the "ornamental design" patents, Apple are being equally cuntish - anyone who produces a thin, flat phone with a centred screen on the front and rounded corners is now open to being sued by Apple. So now everyone else has to make bumpy phones with sharp edges? It's ridiculous.
Fuck Apple, I will never buy another one of their products because of this needless greed and attempts to put a stranglehold on an exciting era of product innovation.
-
915's quite important..
You're right though that it is trivial and pathetic, but that's business! They've just scored a £1bn + hit on Samsung..
Gotta love capitalism eh!
-
If I came up with a new idea, patented it, and someone else came along and started making as much ££ from it as me, I'd be pissed off and want a slice of their action...
Brad Bird must be sitting on a fucking fortune then:
(http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/story/70/00/000404/original/13tablet-620x.jpg?hash=BJH0LJV3Zz)
-
What is easily forgotten is that Apple didn't invent many of the technologies that made them successful. They didn't invent the MP3 player, they dramatically improved the user interface and created a way of easily purchasing content. They didn't create the first touch screen smart phones. Nokia and Ericsson got there first before 2000. The iPhone didn't arrive til 2007. Their first effort was undoubtedly a better attempt than other models around at the time but I'm betting they learnt a lot from the development/failure of the other models. They didn't invent online tablets, Nokia did a internet tablet before them. The point is this is not a situation like Dyson had where he had developed a brand new technology in isolation to the other manufacturers, offered to sell it to them, been rejected by all of them then they ripped him off when his product was successful. Apple are very good at refining existing products then brilliant marketing makes them very popular, quirks and all. They then use their size and power to protect their investment. Sure Google/Samsung etc have borrowed many iOS ideas for Android products, but they have improved on many elements, giving Apple a taste of its own medicine which it doesn't like hence the lawsuits. Google bought Motorola's mobile legacy of intellectual property to leverage against some of the lawsuits against Android.
-
Hmmm… :-\
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390)
-
Part of the problem to me seems to be the patent system is allowing companies to patent ridiculous things which can really be considered as innovations. Companies are just exploiting that as much as possible.
-
Yep, I agree that the patent system itself is the real problem.
-
These are the patents that Samsung violated:
...
915 Distinguishes between single-touch and multi-touch gestures
...
Fuck Apple, I will never buy another one of their products because of this needless greed and attempts to put a stranglehold on an exciting era of product innovation.
I agree with TomTom. 915 is actually a big deal, as anyone who tried to use a touchscreen phone before the iPhone will testify. Also, did you miss the patent on the "pinch to zoom" action, or is this part of 915?
I must say, I'm baffled by your anti-Apple rhetoric. After all, even in this case alone, Samsung were also suing Apple for violating patents, for patents which are as indefensible as the Apple ones, IMO - including emailing photos from a camera phone, and multitasking with music playing in the background!
The smartphone market has grown massively in the last few years, and there's a pitched battle for those customers. Suing and counter-suing over patents, valid and ridiculous, is one way companies are trying to get an advantage. I can't see why you think Apple are so much worse than any other company in this respect.
-
Be nice if the Zulu nation sued Apple over the use of "i-" as a prefix to all their products (putting "i" in front of a word in Zulu is like using "the"). They thought of it first, but probably never thought to patent it.
-
RE Patent law etc....
I think I've had a class on this ages ago or been to a seminar on it once.. and if memory is correct there is a whole series of precedents for this sort of thing from the car/motor industry... right the way from spark plugs to fuel injection etc.. there is a system of licencing, so X allows Y to use their idea for a fee etc..
What seems to have gone off the rails here is either a. their adherence to existing rules/methods or b. that they feel that tech is somehow different and that ideas are more globally owned.. Maybe this way of thinking - in IT/Software - is spawned from the whole open source ethos? which is a pretty different business/industry model from many other industries (thinking specifically of engineering..).
Another anecdote but not related to patents.. My brother in law worked for Nokia until 3 years ago when he jumped ship, designing cases/buttons/hardware for their phones... When the first Ifern came out I remember having a chat with him at Xmas and he was saying how much of a game changer it was with the hardware and software.. For example, the capacitive touch - he explained to me at great length how they could tell how hard or soft you were tappping according to the area of finger pad in contact and its speed of response (or something) and how this type of thing was just stuff people had simply not thought of before. Alongside his admiration of the innovation bought in with the ifern was how well they'd managed to keep all this under wraps from others in the industry (i.e. himself and co-workers..).
-
I agree with TomTom. 915 is actually a big deal, as anyone who tried to use a touchscreen phone before the iPhone will testify. Also, did you miss the patent on the "pinch to zoom" action, or is this part of 915?
Apple didn't invent multi-touch, they "stole" the idea (talking in their terms) and patented it. They also didn't invent "pinch to zoom", again they copied it and patented it. Both features were present on the DiamondTouch table which was released before Apple were granted these patents.
I must say, I'm baffled by your anti-Apple rhetoric.
Can't stand them, I'm sorry - I just don't like the way they steal ideas, patent them and aggressively try to stifle competition. Yes, Samsung are also guilty of pursuing Apple but who started it? The other thing I find insane is that Samsung are a huge supplier to Apple; it's insane.
For me, the following Steve Jobs quote sums up why I hate Apple: “Picasso had a saying - 'good artists copy, great artists steal' - and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”
I can't see why you think Apple are so much worse than any other company in this respect.
Because I don't see any other company trying to patent insane things like a flat phone with rounded edges. I may well be misinformed and will have to burn my Samsung phone and start ranting about them too though ;)
-
I'm supposed to be releasing a definitive guide app for North Wales Limestone, anyone with a more informed opinion on Apple than me care to enlighten me as to why I would want to have anything to do with this dictatorship company, as I'm considering whether I really want to do anything, no matter how miniscule, that supports their brand? I might look at releasing the NW Lime app just for Android as I don't need to make any money out of it.
Do it, if more people do it will make a difference (although I'm afraid there will still be enough fanboi's) that it won't make a difference.
I'm phone & can't find link (may already be in the IT news thread) but there was one prominent US judge who made an effort to be on an earlier patent dispute & the it out fir being fucking stupid. Shame he wasn't over seeing this one.
(Shouldn't this be in the computers, tech & net sub-forum?)
-
Yes it should, I'll move it now...
-
News report I was thinking of, title says it all... http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120623/00213319445/judge-posner-rips-apart-apples-patent-litigation-strategy-being-really-annoyed-is-no-reason-to-sue.shtml (http://[url=http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120623/00213319445/judge-posner-rips-apart-apples-patent-litigation-strategy-being-really-annoyed-is-no-reason-to-sue.shtml)] being 'really annoyed' is no rain to sue [/url]
Hopefully UK courts will http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18709232 (http://[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18709232)] continue to see sense [/url]
(http://d.asset.soup.io/asset/2503/2525_1e70.jpeg)
My view...its all convergent design evolution and shouldn't be patentable, it stifles innovation and at the root of it all competition is the source of new innovation. Plus as said apple are cunts who ripped off the tech from others in the first place.
Now based on my last post anyone who can develop a keyboard UI that corrects spelling and grammar to make sense would have a great open source project on their hands.
-
To Bubba:
Nope, I still don't get it. Apple didn't "steal" multi-touch. They bought the technology at a fair price from fingerworks, who were developing multi touch devices in 1999.
With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple were the first to make a capacitive, multi touch device. It has clearly been revolutionary. The diamond touch was released commercially a war after the iPhone IIRC? Anyway, apple successfully patented the technology and are now defending their technology. I don't agree with it, but they are hardly alone in this strategy.
With regards to your comments about other companies not patenting ridiculous things, do you really think a patent on sending emails from a phone with a camera (Samsung) is any better?
-
Sorry - should read "the diamond touch was released commercially *after* the iPhone".
Bloody iPhone keyboard.
-
Ok, good point re Fingerworks getting there first but should Apple have ever been allowed to patent the technology when others clearly had the same tech? Irrespective of whether or not the DiamondTouch was commercially released, there were videos showing pinch to zoom, etc in action on the DiamondTouch before Apple gained the patent.
I'm not saying that Samsung are angels but can you blame them for fighting back? It was Apple that started all this.
I'm interested as to whether Apple will still pursue Jobs' threat of spending every penny that Apple have in order to destroy Android.
Bloody iPhone keyboard.
See! If you used Android you could have Swype :)
-
I don't want to get in the position of defending apples litigation. I don't really agree with patenting round rectangles, it's just that I don't see apple as any worse than anyone else. Apple did kick off this round of suing, but Samsung had already taken out these stupid patents, so they must have thought they might defend them one day.
I have some sympathy with apple going nuclear on android phones. The situation must have seemed horribly reminiscent of the dawn of the PC, with Microsoft replaced by Google as the company that would take many of apples 'innovations' and take the commercial success. Especially give the close relations apple and google had at the time. At the same time, their strategy of suing the phone makers, rather than google is interesting and I'd like to know why they are doing that...
-
P.s had they lost this suit I think they'd have quietly dropped the jihad against android. Not sure now.
I do wish they'd buy Swype.
-
God I don't, then Android would lose Swype which would be a disaster!
Weren't Apple's early innovations all robbed from Xerox anyway?
-
The whole software industry would be better off if companies didn't have to buy each other, patent stuff etc.
Just look at how well the Linux kernel on which Android is built has done without the need for such wastes of time. One could say its ubiquitous being in so many phones, running virtually everyones wireless routers and NASs, the most prevalent servers on the net etc. etc.
If companies took a step back they'd see that the would actually all benefit from co-operating, but I guess that doesn't fit in with a consumer/captilist society. :no: :wall:
-
Bubba, you could still use Swype, although you'd obviously have to pay to license the experience :-)
Slackers, all very admirable but I need some convincing it would actually work. Yes we'd still have Linux but how would companies make money if their IP wasn't protected for some period of time? I think it would lead to companies massively cutting down on R&D, and hoping someone else do it for them...
To refer to the original post for a sec, Pete, as long as you bring the guide out in paper form I don't care! I hate mobile climbing guides because they become harder to use in sunny weather, or if your battery is low
-
Slackers, all very admirable but I need some convincing it would actually work. Yes we'd still have Linux but how would companies make money if their IP wasn't protected for some period of time? I think it would lead to companies massively cutting down on R&D, and hoping someone else do it for them...
Companies that contribute to supporting Linux kernel development (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members).
Some big names such as Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Novell, Oracle Samsung, Texas Instruments, Twitter Yahoo! etc. They fund development, use the product (software) and make money selling hardware that uses the software. :shrug:
No Apple though, they just ripped off the Mach and BSD kernels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_OS_X) and added a UI (and a lot of the bells and whistles in OSX's UI were around for GNU/Linux systems before they appeared on apple's machines).
-
(In addition to the link aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB posted earlier)
Jurors admit they ignored prior art (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120826/23534320161/applesamsung-jurors-admit-they-finished-quickly-ignoring-prior-art-other-key-factors.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter).
And rather depressingly, it looks like Google (Via Motorola Mobility) have entered the fray (http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/18/motorolas-patent-lawsuit-against-apple-targets-siri-location-reminders-email-notifications-more/).
-
As far as I understand on some of these things, Android and I think Linux contain plenty of unlicensed patented tech.
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7325/ (http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7325/)
However, most owners of these patents don't persue thier use in open source projects. It's not until they are used comercially that the owners chase for license fees. So this is why the andriod hardware vendors are chased for the patent license costs, rather than google.
-
really interesting podcast on patent-warfare:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack/ (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack/)
-
This American Life podcast is one the best things around.
-
Jesus researching this stuff makes for depressing yet interesting reading. Apple to my eyes have quite blatantly become a bunch of cunts - extremely intelligent, creative and successful cunts but cunts nonetheless, obsessed with trying to dominate a market for its own good to the detriment of everyone else - it could be a market in anything, it wouldn't matter.
Think I'll stick with Android for the app and try to persuade the app designer to hold the apple version in mothballs. Maybe get it patented then if someone brings out anything similar we can hit them up with a lawsuit :-\
-
Jesus researching this stuff makes for depressing yet interesting reading. Apple to my eyes have quite blatantly become a bunch of cunts - extremely intelligent, creative and successful cunts but cunts nonetheless, obsessed with trying to dominate a market for its own good to the detriment of everyone else - it could be a market in anything, it wouldn't matter.
:agree:
Think I'll stick with Android for the app and try to persuade the app designer to hold the apple version in mothballs. Maybe get it patented then if someone brings out anything similar we can hit them up with a lawsuit :-\
:lol:
-
As far as I understand on some of these things, Android and I think Linux contain plenty of unlicensed patented tech.
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7325/ (http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7325/)
However, most owners of these patents don't persue thier use in open source projects. It's not until they are used comercially that the owners chase for license fees. So this is why the andriod hardware vendors are chased for the patent license costs, rather than google.
And as is highlighted in that article, once the patents are actually known about a work around/alternative method that doesn't violate it can then be resolved.
Fucking dirty business patenting software. :no: :wank:
-
(In addition to the link aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB posted earlier)
Jurors admit they ignored prior art (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120826/23534320161/applesamsung-jurors-admit-they-finished-quickly-ignoring-prior-art-other-key-factors.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter).
:o That makes for some shocking reading, one hot-head who was head juror leading the others, who all ignored the instructions they'd been given!!!
Can't see this not going through another round, where hopefully the sense shown by Judge Posner (http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120623/00213319445/judge-posner-rips-apart-apples-patent-litigation-strategy-being-really-annoyed-is-no-reason-to-sue.shtml) will prevail.
-
The thing is, you're all just slagging off apple for stuff other companies do all the time.
SCO sued IBM for violating licensing and patents. Oracle bought java from Sun then immediately sued Google for patent infringement. Samsung sued Osram over LED patents. Intel settled a patent dispute with AMD for around a billion dollars. In a patent war no-one wins but the lawyers, and I don't like afar apple did, but what makes them worse than all these companies?
-
The thing is, you're all just slagging off apple for stuff other companies do all the time.
:wave: not here, FOSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS) & Copy left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft) all the way!
I dislike M$ as much as Apple, and was disappointed when Oracle went after Google over supposed Java infringement on Android after purchasing Java.
The AMD vs Intel (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chip.html) and Osram vs Samsung & LG (http://optics.org/news/2/6/7) cases you mention are slightly different as thats hardware, not software. The former also covers anti-trust issues as well as patents.
Only cunts narrow minded monopolists indulge in software patents and trying to sue for infringement. As I wrote above its completely retarded, but once you're being sued by someone I don't really blame any company for counter suing.
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on that then, as I see the problem slightly differently. I don't see any fundamental reason why something truly innovative in software shouldn't be patentable. To my mind the issue is that the bar for patents is so low that ridiculous things obtain patents, in HW and SW.
Just as you don't blame companies for counter-suing, I don't blame companies for using patent law to gain a commercial advantage. It's what companies are legally obliged to do; maximise profit. The current farce is a problem with patent law, not the morals of any one company.
Pete - as a parting shot, make sure you don't use Xerox to print the guide, since they're at it too...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083882041877088.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083882041877088.html)
-
Why don't I think software should be patented?
Because its essentially akin to trying patent a mathematical algorithm.
It'd be pretty retarded/annoying if you had to pay to use the formulae you utilise in astronomy calculations wouldn't it?
-
I have to give academic credit, via citations. In the academic world, that's basically payment. Sometimes I have to buy a licence too. I don't see whats wrong with that.
Why shouldn't a very clever algorithm be patentable. What makes the act of creating a good algorithm different from (say) a good piston for a steam engine? Why shouldn't the inventor of both be given some protection to exploit their creativity, free from fear of copying.
For example, in my line of work we use Maximum Entropy image reconstruction (http://www.maxent.co.uk/about_medc.html) a LOT. It was initially used to reduce noise in images from radio telescopes and it was cambridge astronomers who created algorithms which allowed this technique to work in practice. The algorithms are now used in applications from medical imaging to locating mobile phones. The cambridge astronomers patented their algorithms and make a nice living off their efforts.
What did they do wrong? Why should they not be allowed to patent their software, but someone who thought up stickers to put on keyboards (http://www.google.com/patents?id=BxcIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=key&source=bl&ots=vpwlFcDfWa&sig=8jwDkFPDBMEyeXDiVJj-yUQdGFA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oJU8UOn3FI6T0QWRq4DAAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCA) (hardware) should?
-
I fully understand citations and use the system myself. In open source software development those who submit changes are credited too.
The thing is someone else could sit down and converge on the same algorithm independently. To take a really old example...Leibinz, Newton & calculus!
Better still they might be able to improve on an existing one if it is shared, thus benefiting both (/all) parties. And as I write above, tech companies can still turn healthy profits from selling hardware that runs open source software that they have helped fund development of.
Its a no-brainer to me, win-win all round. Faster software development, more eyes looking at code, quicker bug fixes, benefits everyone and no need to piss around in courts making lawyers richer.
-
Faster software development, more eyes looking at code, quicker bug fixes, benefits everyone and no need to piss around in courts making lawyers richer.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the empirical formula Corporation Lawyers = cunts applies.
I would patent that formula, but I think it's been done before is is freely available via open source.
-
And I guess for me the difference between software and hardware is the sheer speed of development.
Times change and applying old rules to new technology doesn't work. Rather than staunchly sticking with the old patent rules (which as highlighted in one of the above links were only invoked when the use of copyright to protect software failed) rethinking the way in which the work is "protected" is I think a better approach and an alternative has been demonstrated to work very well.
And on a societal note I think it would be a nicer world if people shared more freely rather than selfishly protecting their own interests.
(can't find a hippy smiley)
P.M. - there are some pretty dumb hardware patents too as you have linked to.
-
Nah, nothing that you've written convinces me that hardware is any different to software in respect of patents.
Convergence on the same solution can happen with hardware just as easily - Christian Reithmann and Alphonse Beau de Rochas are thought to have independently developed the 4-cycle combustion engine, for example.
And the pace of hardware development has been very rapid in recent years. I guess I don't need to explain Moore's law to you ;)
Also, there's a reason this forum doesn't have a hippy smiley. The hippies lost.
-
Nah, nothing that you've written convinces me that hardware is any different to software in respect of patents.
Fair-do's. I guess I'm more saying that there are alternatives to the existing system(s) which I think have huge disadvantages (a tangent would be the patenting of drugs that if cheaply produced could help save millions more lives, but I guess share holders profits do need protecting and are of greater value than a few lives).
As a consumer I'd rather not have the price of something I'm pursuing inflated by a patent royalty either.
Convergence on the same solution can happen with hardware just as easily - Christian Reithmann and Alphonse Beau de Rochas are thought to have independently developed the 4-cycle combustion engine, for example.
Didn't know that, did they have a pretty fight over it?
And the pace of hardware development has been very rapid in recent years. I guess I don't need to explain Moore's law to you ;)
And that rate might be even faster if people/companies co-operated, but I guys we'll never know?
I know Moore proposed it theoretically, I just think the more people working on a problem together the faster it can be solved/progress....providing its well co-ordinated. See all the big science successes in recent years, human genome project where private company Celera gave up and joined in the international public effort; CERN and the particle accelerators; international space station etc. yes these are BIG science projects, but I don't see why their model of cooperation which had resulted in success can't be applied to other areas.
Being open and cooperating has worked phenomenally well for open source software, so much so that the older companies like M$ and apple are worried, hence their clamouring to get whatever they can.
Also, there's a reason this forum doesn't have a hippy smiley. The hippies lost.
:D
-
Have I missed something? Probably, I hear you say but really since when did Microsoft occupy the moral high ground over Apple? Am I missing something? Aren't they both cunts except Microsoft have always been cunts trying to monopolise the world market and attack open source software blah blah blah? Now I am not suggesting that Apple are lovely people who just want us to have nice user friendly technology but really, are Microsoft any better?
A summarised account of this is on Wikipedia makes interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft)
And here's Apple's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.)
Yes, they're both bastards basically, which is worse you decide but if you are deciding not to release an app on certain software due to morals and ethics then basically you wouldn't release the app at all Pete!
-
software/hardware... doh! You know what I mean!
-
Android is neither apple nor M$
it's an open source user interface developed by google (although they did buy up the company that originally started developing it if I remember correctly) that uses the Linux kernel (kernels are the software that gets the hardware inside your computers to work with each other)
-
hardware v software patents. As a software engineer, this is my point of view and from what I understand the more common point of view in my industry.
Some algorithms are pretty damn clever and there is no reason why they shouldn't be protected.
However, the majority of the ways in which things are done in software are pretty obvious and shouldn't be patentable, because 1000's of people could independantly come up with the same solution. Many of these ideas have wrongly been patented by the US patent office and this is why people in general declare that software patents are bad.
The way in which people make money in software is not usually to invent some new clever idea, but to just do a really good job of implementing something that people need, using readily available ideas.
-
totally agree with that - the patent system is badly broken and the bar needs to be much higher with respect to what is patentable. I think that applies to hardware and software equally.
-
totally agree with that - the patent system is badly broken and the bar needs to be much higher with respect to what is patentable. I think that applies to hardware and software equally.
:agree: - what probably bothers us all about Apple is that if they were successful, our much less expensive Android devices would likely no longer be available. Also, the various patent-claims are in the mainstream press a lot more than others who indulge in the same tactics due to how prolific Apple are (its hard to deny their devices have been revolutionary).
-
totally agree with that - the patent system is badly broken and the bar needs to be much higher with respect to what is patentable. I think that applies to hardware and software equally.
:agree: too, but still think there are huge benefits to open source software that benefits all developers (and ultimately end users too).
-
Interesting interview with the jury foreman here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/28/apple-samsung-foreman-explains
Addresses quite a few of the questions posed on this thread...
-
Android is neither apple nor M$
it's an open source user interface developed by google (although they did buy up the company that originally started developing it if I remember correctly) that uses the Linux kernel (kernels are the software that gets the hardware inside your computers to work with each other)
Oh I see :-[
Fuck Apple off then Pete! Cunts!
Although surly getting the App to as many users as possible is important helping fund NWBF even more?
-
Interesting interview with the jury foreman here
...
Addresses quite a few of the questions posed on this thread...
No it doesn't. The foreman really didn't do his job properly. He holds a bullshit worthless* patent for something with masses of prior art and made the jury ignore prior art to 'speed things up' when the validity of nonsense patents lay at the heart of the case.
The jury awarded damages for things they had decided did not violate any patents etc., irrespective of the punitive/not-punitive damages backtracking still ignored the judge's instructions simply on the basis that they reached a decision before they could possibly have even read and understood them.
Proper discussion here with way more quite frankly, ridiculous details of the whole farce (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390)
*This isn't really true; apparently nonsense patents with bags of prior art can be worth $billions...
-
Interesting interview with the jury foreman here
...
Addresses quite a few of the questions posed on this thread...
No it doesn't. The foreman really didn't do his job properly. He holds a bullshit worthless* patent for something with masses of prior art and made the jury ignore prior art to 'speed things up' when the validity of nonsense patents lay at the heart of the case.
The jury awarded damages for things they had decided did not violate any patents etc., irrespective of the punitive/not-punitive damages backtracking still ignored the judge's instructions simply on the basis that they reached a decision before they could possibly have even read and understood them.
Proper discussion here with way more quite frankly, ridiculous details of the whole farce (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390)
*This isn't really true; apparently nonsense patents with bags of prior art can be worth $billions...
OK, so maybe I should have put "Addresses quite a few of the questions about why the jury decided what they did".. which to me seems pretty relevant to this discussion! I didnt think I needed to be so explicit....
Just as well I dont work in patent law then, eh? ;)
I'm amazed people are so worked up about this - its just two massive companies trying to screw each other over... Its not like either of them are stopping a solution for disease/poverty/world hunger from being used....
Oh wait a minute, the big Pharm companies hold loads of patents and sell drugs for ridiculous profits... Now thats something worth getting het up about..
-
I'm amazed people are so worked up about this - its just two massive companies trying to screw each other over... Its not like either of them are stopping a solution for disease/poverty/world hunger from being used....
...
It is something worth getting worked up about - as long as by 'worked up' you understand it to mean doing a little research in order to form informed opinions in order to then make an informed choice...instead of just adopting the herd-mind = 'whoo cool new gadget, cool company blurghhhhh'.
The 'This American Life' podcast is brilliant - I recommend taking 50 minutes out and listening to it, I was shocked what a shameless cash cow the patent system has become. Another example of capitalism truly ass-fucking a once-noble institution?
Not under any illusion how unimportant releasing a climbing app is but it's obviously got a few people on here thinking. Stu - don't worry I shall plant a little tree for each edition of the guide that we sell, whilst trying to erase from my mind the fact it was printed in China and probably poisoned a river in the process.
-
Some algorithms are pretty damn clever and there is no reason why they shouldn't be protected.
still think there are huge benefits to open source software that benefits all developers (and ultimately end users too).
To expand on this now I'm not about to rush out....
I think its somewhat slightly arrogant for any individual (or company employing a group of progammers) to think that they have produced the best, bug-free, perfect code that can not ever be improved upon. Thus so having others look at it and suggest/contribute improvements is a good thing.
Ultimately its why Richard Stallman started the GNU project (http://www.gnu.org/), he was working for MIT but had issues with the provided driver for a new printer as it lacked a useful feature he had implemented in a previous version. He wasn't allowed access to the new official drivers though (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Decline_of_MIT_hacker_culture)).
Yeah M$ and Apple employ thousands of progammers, but their programs are not bug free (especially M$), and nor are any other programs we all use (including open source software projects btw). Yet proprietary software is are sold/marketed as fully functional products (only really in relatively recent years has the emergence of "report this problem to help improve things" evolved in M$, can't comment for apple as I've never used them). Thats all useful, but if someone see's an error occur in a program they are using and has the skills, knowledge and inclination to investigate and solve it themselves, why the hell not let them do so? From a business perspective if they willing to do it for the pure joy rather than for remuneration what is there to lose?
The difference is that open source software does allow this freedom and I can't see a sensible argument against it. :shrug:
-
How do I get paid for my job if I am giving away the source code to it ?
Yes, there are many OSS projects that run and get donations and can support some engineers financially. However, there are far more that are in no way financially viable and are just ran as a hobby or as something that a company created on route to something else and are happy to just give it away.
Many of the main developers of large OSS projects still contribute in their spare time and their main job is writing paid software.
-
Free stuff only works for the programmer/operator/company as long as there is some sort of payback...
For the programmer an OS program may enhance their reputation/skills/job prospects etc... or help them attract funding for future ventures.
Google (for example) sell advertising, but do it through the canny medium of a search engine/mail/other services..
FaceAche do the same, except through the medium of a popular, handy (for some) vacuous portal for whatever, like, innit etc..
Dropbox is free - in the hope you'll use it so much you will pay for more etc..
I write and distribute free software for what I research - but I know the payback will be through citations, reputation etc.. that ultimately helps me get a better job and salary etc.. (I enjoy it too..). Getting people to contribute to OSS is really hard in my experience... In c.10 years of having OSS out there, I have probably over 200 people who have used (rather than just downloaded) what I do (thats not bad for the size of academic niche I occupy), but I have had two people contribute to the code and its development (breifly..)... Even getting folk to help add to a Wiki-based-instructions seems impossible (I'm going to have to pay someone to add things there - or do it myself)..
Sorry - I dont mean this to be a rant against OS/OSS, just outlining how its not quite as straightforward as I had hoped...
-
AND..... best non climbing thread on the forum ATM goes to...
THIS ONE.
brilliant read, thanks all.
I'm working from home, on a macbook, with an ipad and iphne on the desk.
I wont be buying another iphone.... i dont want a big delicate smartphone to bust... i use my pad for 90% of my previous smartphone use indoors, usually in wifi... interesting the order of the products coming to sale??? i see a iphone mini in 18 months.. to try to keep me tethered to the apple cord.
I agree with the innovation / cunts / patent law fucked up / lawyers should all be killed posts...
FWIW I'm in the Stu camp more than the slackline...
the reason i left MS for apple was to buy into the "because it works" stuff... pre phones etc...
and for a luddite, with the cash, it was a good option.
now the apple OS are more frail, more buggy, less polished, with ios infringing into their lions and leopards.
i'll stay with mac, but not for phones...
oh, btw... if apple could make their phones to actually have a good call quality that would be more than useful, but someone else has probably patented it
-
Google (for example) sell advertising, but do it through the canny medium of a search engine/mail/other services..
FaceAche do the same, except through the medium of a popular, handy (for some) vacuous portal for whatever, like, innit etc..
if by FaceAche you mean facebook then:
Google and Facebook don't just sell advertising, they sell information aswell.
sometimes a cartoon says more than a thousand words:
(http://www.ethannonsequitur.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/facebook-and-you-pigs-450x360.jpg)
-
clever.
wad
-
How do I get paid for my job if I am giving away the source code to it ?
By charging clients for you to develop the features that they want rather than the direction you think software should take and by charging for technical support for commissioned software that is already used.
There is nothing contradictory a far as I can see about being open with your code and charging clients for the time you spend developing it. If some other nerd comes along with and suggests an improvement or bug fix surely that's a good thing for you and ultimately as project lead you could decide whether our not to incorporate it?
Also, surely its as good an addition to a portfolio to be able to demonstrate yourself as lead on an open source software project as any other copyrighted/patented software you've developed as it still positions you as the one who knows the most about it and demonstrates many desirable skills.
The crux is having a project that of sufficient interest to get enough investment, so it has to be a good product and of use either to many or some specific niches who then have to pay for you to develop the clever algorithms (which you might have patented).
Again, it sound like a no-brainer to me.
Yes, there are many OSS projects that run and get donations and can support some engineers financially. However, there are far more that are in no way financially viable and are just ran as a hobby or as something that a company created on route to something else and are happy to just give it away.
That doesn't mean that the culture couldn't shift to what I describe above. Software would still get developed, people paid, its just that the whole copyright/patent bullet would be removed from the ecosystem. :shrug:
Its the lack of willingness to change that is the barrier.
Many of the main developers of large OSS projects still contribute in their spare time and their main job is writing paid software.
Probably because when you work on others problems its not as interesting and people who code like to have their own challenges, but again, I don't see why the culture can't change. At best it would be beneficial and remove the bullshit around which this thread started (i.e. patent disputes) and at worse it would make no difference with you/individuals/teams of programmers working on the software as they would anyway. One drawback I've seen cited about open-source projects though is that not everyone is cut out to be a project manager and fulfil the role of tactfully mediating code changes etc.
@tomtom : so having your software open source hasn't resulted in tons of others offering assistance, but if it had been closed source what difference would there be?
It would still have been you doing the development anyway so what, if any, has been the disadvantages of sharing your source code?
-
Get Swype beta Slackers. That post looks like one of my Mrs' texts (which she writes using Swype beta). ;)
Agree with fatdoc, this is a fascinating thread. Carry on....
-
:whistle: Will check it out, its not so much the swyping, but the words it suggests/the dictionary and me not checking (due to trying to write as quickly as I normally type).
-
Here you go:
http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,19532.msg370861.html#msg370861 (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,19532.msg370861.html#msg370861)
:whistle: Will check it out, its not so much the swyping, but the words it suggests/the dictionary and me not checking (due to trying to write as quickly as I normally type).
That's what my Mrs says but it doesn't stop texts full of nonsense being annoying. She is also very quick at typing on a proper keyboard, it's still no excuse. :P
:off:
-
Back on topic...
@tomtom : so having your software open source hasn't resulted in tons of others offering assistance, but if it had been closed source what difference would there be?
It would still have been you doing the development anyway so what, if any, has been the disadvantages of sharing your source code?
tomtom responded on twitter with...
cons are made no £ from it. Pro's are not having liability or to provide support.. (https://twitter.com/comtoulthard/status/241527537052823552)
So I'm wondering how much time was freely spent responding to queries from the c.200 people who have used the software and whether charging for this time spent might have resulted in an equivalent revenue had the software been closed source and license charged?
Companies like MySQL and quite a few others do fine giving away their software but charging for support.
-
In related "Apple really are a bunch of cunts" news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/03/bruce-willis-apple-itunes-library (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/03/bruce-willis-apple-itunes-library)
-
In related "Apple really are a bunch of cunts" news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/03/bruce-willis-apple-itunes-library (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/03/bruce-willis-apple-itunes-library)
shame that it turns out it's a bullshit story isn't it?
It (or rather the commnets) did make me think about copyright issues with all this digital media shenanigans vs physical media. Very interesting, but that is a whole other thread's worth!
-
@tomtom : so having your software open source hasn't resulted in tons of others offering assistance, but if it had been closed source what difference would there be?
It would still have been you doing the development anyway so what, if any, has been the disadvantages of sharing your source code?
tomtom responded on twitter with...
cons are made no £ from it. Pro's are not having liability or to provide support.. (https://twitter.com/comtoulthard/status/241527537052823552)
So I'm wondering how much time was freely spent responding to queries from the c.200 people who have used the software and whether charging for this time spent might have resulted in an equivalent revenue had the software been closed source and license charged?
I guess only tomtom is going to be able to answer the above, come on Tom, how much time have you spent helping users for free?
I'm also curious why the lack of remuneration for obtaining software is seen as a disadvantage (perhaps also by other software authors who've posted in this thread) whilst not being obliged to provide support is an advantage? If you don't support your product then people aren't going to use it (or they'll have a hard time doing so, and feel aggrieved having spent money on something they can't use).
The liability issue is irrelevant to whether a piece of software is open or closed source as disclaimers to absolve authors of software of liability can be applied to either.
-
With all of the major software packages that I use, you have to pay for them and if you want support, you have to pay more.
This is a model that works very well in the corporate environment.
-
With all of the major software packages that I use, you have to pay for them and if you want support, you have to pay more.
This is a model that works very well in the corporate environment.
I'm sure it does! :greed:
Must be a pain in the arse having to pay through the nose whenever you want support though particularly if its down to say a bug/error in the software itself. You are in effect paying them for privilege discovering problems in their software which they should be working hard to discover themselves, or at best at least thanking you for having discovered it so that the next revision can be improved!
One of the statistics packages I use (Stata (http://www.stata.com)) is proprietary, but support is provided through a community of users via a mailing list (http://stata.com/statalist/) on which staff, right up to the vice-president who originally wrote the software many years ago, are active (they also write really good free blog articles (http://blog.stata.com/)). There a wealth of user-developed add-ons/routines (http://ideas.repec.org/s/boc/bocode.html) and when there really is a technical problem/bug support is free (response times are very quick and when I've had recourse to use them they've been able to resolve problems straight-away).
Each major release usually sees a free update within a month or so to iron out any bugs and there are usually a few more updates beyond that between major releases, mostly addressing minor problems/issues, but there are usually a few new features in there that are precursors to the new release.
Best of all its far cheaper than the other major proprietary vendors of statistical software (SPSS and SAS), although not as cheap as the other statistics package I use which is R (http://www.r-project.org) and is totally free and has a HUGE user base along with all the above benefits such as blogs (http://www.r-bloggers.com), mailing lists (https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help) and thousands of user developed packages (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/). Theres even the off-shoot project Bioconductor (http://www.bioconductor.org/) which tweaks the base R distribution for bioinformatics.
Then theres all sorts of similar support for LaTeX, Python, PostgreSQL/MySQL etc. etc. etc. :clap2:
-
@tomtom : so having your software open source hasn't resulted in tons of others offering assistance, but if it had been closed source what difference would there be?
It would still have been you doing the development anyway so what, if any, has been the disadvantages of sharing your source code?
tomtom responded on twitter with...
cons are made no £ from it. Pro's are not having liability or to provide support.. (https://twitter.com/comtoulthard/status/241527537052823552)
So I'm wondering how much time was freely spent responding to queries from the c.200 people who have used the software and whether charging for this time spent might have resulted in an equivalent revenue had the software been closed source and license charged?
I guess only tomtom is going to be able to answer the above, come on Tom, how much time have you spent helping users for free?
I'm also curious why the lack of remuneration for obtaining software is seen as a disadvantage (perhaps also by other software authors who've posted in this thread) whilst not being obliged to provide support is an advantage? If you don't support your product then people aren't going to use it (or they'll have a hard time doing so, and feel aggrieved having spent money on something they can't use).
The liability issue is irrelevant to whether a piece of software is open or closed source as disclaimers to absolve authors of software of liability can be applied to either.
Busy at the moment (work etc..) but interested - might be worth spawning a "open source debate" or other named thread?
-
Busy at the moment (work etc..) but interested - might be worth spawning a "open source debate" or other named thread?
Could do, I see the patenting of software the same as copyrighting it though and both are at logger heads with the open source philosophy. Happy to fork though.
-
Happy to fork though.
And there, in a sentence, is my biggest problem with open source software ;-)
-
With all of the major software packages that I use, you have to pay for them and if you want support, you have to pay more.
This is a model that works very well in the corporate environment.
I'm sure it does! :greed:
Must be a pain in the arse having to pay through the nose whenever you want support though particularly if its down to say a bug/error in the software itself. You are in effect paying them for privilege discovering problems in their software which they should be working hard to discover themselves, or at best at least thanking you for having discovered it so that the next revision can be improved!
One of the statistics packages I use (Stata (http://www.stata.com)) is proprietary, but support is provided through a community of users via a mailing list (http://stata.com/statalist/) on which staff, right up to the vice-president who originally wrote the software many years ago, are active (they also write really good free blog articles (http://blog.stata.com/)). There a wealth of user-developed add-ons/routines (http://ideas.repec.org/s/boc/bocode.html) and when there really is a technical problem/bug support is free (response times are very quick and when I've had recourse to use them they've been able to resolve problems straight-away).
Each major release usually sees a free update within a month or so to iron out any bugs and there are usually a few more updates beyond that between major releases, mostly addressing minor problems/issues, but there are usually a few new features in there that are precursors to the new release.
Best of all its far cheaper than the other major proprietary vendors of statistical software (SPSS and SAS), although not as cheap as the other statistics package I use which is R (http://www.r-project.org) and is totally free and has a HUGE user base along with all the above benefits such as blogs (http://www.r-bloggers.com), mailing lists (https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help) and thousands of user developed packages (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/). Theres even the off-shoot project Bioconductor (http://www.bioconductor.org/) which tweaks the base R distribution for bioinformatics.
Then theres all sorts of similar support for LaTeX, Python, PostgreSQL/MySQL etc. etc. etc. :clap2:
Sorry, but I don't see how any of that relates to your previous statement that you should give away the software and charge for the support.
Here you are marvelling at the fact that support is quick and free. Aren't you ?
Many of these arguements are very dependent on the size of the user base and the income to the developement team (by which ever means you can get to work). For massive software projects, like Windows say, if you provide free and open support to users then actually what happens is that you get swamped with rubbish from idiots, rather than actual bug reports/support issues and you just can't process it.
-
Happy to fork though.
And there, in a sentence, is my biggest problem with open source software ;-)
:lol:
I think thats a good thing though. People have different ideas about what should or shouldn't be included. This results in a diverse "ecosystem" of software and promotes (generally friendly) competition/rivalry. A form of "natural selection" then reigns and those forks which have been taken in the most beneficial directions "survive".
The alternative, generally you're stuck with one or two dominant companies "vision" (M$/APple or Adobe with Photoshop/err whatelse?). So generally it stifles creativity and diversity which are a good things (as far as I can see).
Take the plethora of window managers(WMs)/desktop environments (DEs) under Linux....GNOME, KDE, Xfce4, IceWM, fluxbox, openbox, LXDE etc.
Some are more full featured than others (GNOME/KDE/Xfce4) and require larger amounts of RAM to run, others are more lightweight but still have lots of features (LXDE), whilst others are even more basic (e.g. don't have desktop icons or at least require additional small programs to provide them such as fluxbox, openbox). But people don't all have the latest greatest powerful computers, I've an old (circa 9 years now) laptop that runs fluxbox fine, but couldn't handle the now relatively bloated/resource intensive full featured, but that doesn't matter because I can choose which to use and one that will work with the hardware that I have.
One doesn't have to immerse themselves in the plethora of choices and get worried over the petty flaming wars that go on between forks (most of which are just that, and highly technical anyway). Choose what works for your requirements and go with it.
-
and after all of these if-it's-not-free-it's-evil red herrings, we get closer to the original topic with recent and concerning news that FBI are caught wandering around with over 12 million iOS device unique identifiers with associated user names, phone numbers, post-codes etc... (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/04/antisec_hackers_fbi_laptop_hack/) Naturally neither they nor apple are forthcoming with why or how they have this data. Mix it up with apple tracking users locations against user ID whether or not gps/location functions were turned on or not (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18441845) and boom, company of concerning morals.
Not giving away things you've worked hard to create doesn't make you evil. Whether you like it or not, intelectual property is a fundamental part of the technology-driven part of market we live in at least. There are countless industries where innovation has to be fought for, lots of SCIENCE done to figure out why something does something, and how to make it better BUT, the final product is easy to copy. The easy example of this is pharma but there are other industries who basically buy up off-the-shelf chemicals/materials, mix them together according to their sometimes secret, sometimes not secret recipe, obtained through significant inginueity and reserach, and sell them on. The primary value of a lot of companies isn't the secrecy of the recipes but the patents protecting them. As I think tomtom mentioned before, there are algorithm/coding-based things worthy of protection too but I'm not too well-up on that stuff.
This isn't about whether or not patent law should be entirely scrapped but how the patent offices are shirking their responsibilities by delegating the question of ligitimacy to the courts. The patent system was designed to give protection and reward to inventors and scientists who increase the knowledge in the world, not to be yet another tradable commodity for the benefit of the biggest companies.
Anyway, enough about patents. Apple are rotten. Irreplacable batteries/iTunes/round corner bullying/rxploting their users for more and more money/mystery databases of everyone are evidence enough of that.
But, the real reason non-apple users hate apple is how smug apple users are despite paying huge amounts of money on something shit. It's infuriating. You see that smugness at their new shiny iFondlepad 62-batmansymbol and you can see you might as well be discussing patent law with a cat.
-
But, the real reason non-apple users hate apple is how smug apple users are despite paying huge amounts of money on something shit. It's infuriating. You see that smugness at their new shiny iFondlepad 62-batmansymbol and you can see you might as well be discussing patent law with a cat.
Beautiful. In fact the whole post deserves a wad point.
-
Bemusing to me... all of the below is kind of right - though it transpired google did/do the whole tracking shit too..
and after all of these if-it's-not-free-it's-evil red herrings, we get closer to the original topic with recent and concerning news that FBI are caught wandering around with over 12 million iOS device unique identifiers with associated user names, phone numbers, post-codes etc... (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/04/antisec_hackers_fbi_laptop_hack/) Naturally neither they nor apple are forthcoming with why or how they have this data. Mix it up with apple tracking users locations against user ID whether or not gps/location functions were turned on or not (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18441845) and boom, company of concerning morals.
Not giving away things you've worked hard to create doesn't make you evil. Whether you like it or not, intelectual property is a fundamental part of the technology-driven part of market we live in at least. There are countless industries where innovation has to be fought for, lots of SCIENCE done to figure out why something does something, and how to make it better BUT, the final product is easy to copy. The easy example of this is pharma but there are other industries who basically buy up off-the-shelf chemicals/materials, mix them together according to their sometimes secret, sometimes not secret recipe, obtained through significant inginueity and reserach, and sell them on. The primary value of a lot of companies isn't the secrecy of the recipes but the patents protecting them. As I think tomtom mentioned before, there are algorithm/coding-based things worthy of protection too but I'm not too well-up on that stuff.
This isn't about whether or not patent law should be entirely scrapped but how the patent offices are shirking their responsibilities by delegating the question of ligitimacy to the courts. The patent system was designed to give protection and reward to inventors and scientists who increase the knowledge in the world, not to be yet another tradable commodity for the benefit of the biggest companies.
Yes - all makes sense to me...
But this is a bit weird.... (I didnt see a smiley so assume you mean it..)
But, the real reason non-apple users hate apple is how smug apple users are despite paying huge amounts of money on something shit. It's infuriating. You see that smugness at their new shiny iFondlepad 62-batmansymbol and you can see you might as well be discussing patent law with a cat.
its only a phone/computer etc......
I'll start a new thread for the open source things... this is (as you said) about the patents etc...
-
its only a phone/computer etc......
Tell that to these guys:
(http://thinklings.org/our-images/7JMwQXks1U2vi3VS.jpg)
Come on tomtom, "bemused"?! Like the whole cult of Apple thing has completely passed you by......... :-\ #jimmyhill
-
Come on tomtom, "bemused"?! Like the whole cult of Apple thing has completely passed you by......... :-\ #jimmyhill
This is scary!
(http://www.funkybunky.co.uk/media/gbu0/prodxl/jimmy-hill-web.jpg)
OK - I can see how people like they're new shiny gadget and effuse about it, and I can also see how people can get pissed off about it. As in I can see how people get pissed off with people going on about how good/flash/whatever their new toy is blah blah..
But it seems nuts to me that people hate a brand... If you dont like it, dont buy it.. Apple have been clever by building such a strong brand - and the media have loved the whole Jobs is god routine.. But thats all it is a brand. and they are just a tech company..
To me, being a hater of Apple seems just as nuts as being one of those folk hugging each other and spunking in their pants at being first getting the latest iThing you showed in the picture... still each to their own I guess...
There are folk who buy stuff because its part of the fad, looks good - want to buy into the brand. Personally I think thats a bit nuts too.. but hey ho, nowt so queer as folk..
I've just written, re-written and deleted loads of stuff - just kept going round in circles.. I've an iFern.. its good. I might get something different next time.. but it wont be because of any cult of Apple (or NOT being cult of Apple) - it'll be because I like it, or its yellow, or rolls fags for me, or does something stupid that catches my fancy ;)
Edit: its mostly banter (the whole apple non apple, ifern, android shizzle) but what really bemuses/scares/worries me is that some people seem to take it really really seriously! (not saying thats you stevej btw..)
-
This guy really hates Apple! :lol:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/12/iphone_five_reasons/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/12/iphone_five_reasons/)
-
This guy really hates Apple! :lol:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/12/iphone_five_reasons/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/12/iphone_five_reasons/)
Someone on another fourm wrote...
With it having a larger screen I expect Samsung to sue, blatant copying.
Perhaps more importantly....got to maximise the profit margin on the production lines (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/13/cost-iphone-5-foxconn-factory?CMP=twt_fd).
I suspect other companies aren't much better (http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/pro/proshow-177.html).
-
Underwhelmed by the iFern5...
Nice hardware.. looks really good and well made.. but ~ so what....
-
Is it right that the charger/any other sort of connector from older iPhones won't work on the 5?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443696604577647993201137890.html?mod=e2tw
If so this really is Apple taking the piss!
-
Is it right that the charger/any other sort of connector from older iPhones won't work on the 5?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443696604577647993201137890.html?mod=e2tw (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443696604577647993201137890.html?mod=e2tw)
If so this really is Apple taking the piss!
yep (http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/lightning-gallery-18.jpg)
-
Surely thats a bonus as everyone can buy a brand new set of over-priced docking speakers to go with their new phone.
-
Amazing. As every other device is being made more compatible, Apple make different versions of their same device incompatible.
And they'll get away with it too! Patents and other such shit aside this is the definition of what I'd call "a cunt's trick".
-
:agree:
-
My Applephile colleague was saying this was because the old connector was too thick to fit in the new slim frame of the phone. I'm not so sure. TBH, its a reason to consider something different for me.. if I'm going to have to change chargers/speaker docks etc.. Might change the ecosystem (I know theres an adaptor but its huuuge)...
-
All other phones manufacturers have, I believe, agreed on microUSB as the de facto connector.
-
Interesting for a company that supposedly leads the way on design and innovation....
Did you know that Apple spends far less on R&D than any of its rivals - a paltry 2% of revenues, versus 14% for Google and Microsoft? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19557497)
None of these have small revenues, so despite Apple being "the biggest/most valuable company in the world" thats pretty poor.
-
Interesting for a company that supposedly leads the way on design and innovation....
Did you know that Apple spends far less on R&D than any of its rivals - a paltry 2% of revenues, versus 14% for Google and Microsoft? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19557497)
None of these have small revenues, so despite Apple being "the biggest/most valuable company in the world" thats pretty poor.
I don't get this - they're a business... So really this is very very good. Build a product that is a world leader for less? Ms and google are also software (mainly) not hardware developers so it's a bit of an funny comparison..
-
Interesting for a company that supposedly leads the way on design and innovation....
Did you know that Apple spends far less on R&D than any of its rivals - a paltry 2% of revenues, versus 14% for Google and Microsoft? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19557497)
None of these have small revenues, so despite Apple being "the biggest/most valuable company in the world" thats pretty poor.
I don't get this - they're a business... So really this is very very good. Build a product that is a world leader for less? Ms and google are also software (mainly) not hardware developers so it's a bit of an funny comparison..
And yet Apple sue the arses off of anyone who attempts to employ the same strategy e.g. Sam****
They've not built a product that is world leader for less, the sales numbers speak for themselves! Whilst they might have a higher profit margin that doesn't mean they've actually been innovative, they just buy up the companies that have come up with the true innovations and then aggressively protect 'patents' which quite frankly are outdated in their application to the current ecosystem of software/hardware design.
As someone else wrote....
With it having a larger screen I expect Samsung to sue, blatant copying.
..pretty much epitomises the "its a roughly rectangular device with curved edges and a touch screen" approach apple have taken with regards to say the Samsung Galaxy tabs, so why the hell shouldn't Samsung counter-sue (if thats to be the accepted culture) apple for "increasing the interface real-estate". Both as non-nonsensical as each other. :wank:
-
This!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/17/apple_iphone_5_shortage/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/17/apple_iphone_5_shortage/)
-
Ha, the equivalent of a deliberately long que outside a near empty night club...
-
Back to the original topic.
The patent law is being mis-applied (http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/the-software-patent-solution-has-been-right-here-all-along-202299).....
Lemley MA Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2117302 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117302)
Abstract
Commentators have observed for years that patents do less good and cause more harm in the software industry than in other industries such as pharmaceuticals. They have pointed to a variety of problems and offered a variety of solutions.
While there is some truth to each of these criticisms, the real problem with software patents lies elsewhere. Software patent lawyers are increasingly writing patent claims in broad functional terms. Put another way, patentees claim to own not a particular machine, or even a particular series of steps for achieving a goal, but the goal itself. The resulting overbroad patents overlap and create patent thickets.
Patent law has faced this problem before. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected such broad functional claiming in the 1940s as inconsistent with the purposes of the patent statute. When Congress rewrote the Patent Act in 1952, it adopted a compromise position: patentees could write their claim language in functional terms, but when they did so the patent would not cover the goal itself, but only the particular means of implementing that goal described by the patentee and equivalents thereof. These “means-plus-function” claims permitted the patentee to use functional language to describe an element of their invention, but did not permit her to own the function itself however implemented.
Most software patents today are written in functional terms. If courts would faithfully apply the 1952 Act, limiting those claims to the actual algorithms the patentees disclosed and their equivalents, they could prevent overclaiming by software patentees and solve much of the patent thicket problem that besets software innovation.
-
Their promotion of their own products and exclusion of others is a tad aggressive for me. Take the maps that they've completely ballsed up.
Then there's the fact that they force you to sequentially upgrade things such as your OS even when you have no requirement to. I was told in Liverpool's Apple store when I enquired how I might get Lion without first getting Snow Leopard that I could not do this and that in fact I had NEEDED Snow Leopard. I don't know how I managed to use the computer without it if I truly did NEED it. I drew the analogy for the man in the shop that I didn't see a need to upgrade software unnecessarily, being the equivalent of having a 4x4/tank to do the school run in. He dismissed it and reiterated that for the past 1/2 years I had simply NEEDED Snow Leopard.
:wank:
-
So you'll be buying another Apple device when you're next in the market Will? :tease:
-
The wonderful new maps in iOS6 are delighting apple users around the world
The Amazing iOS6 Maps (http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_manvbe0Gb61rhptwbo1_1280.jpg)
Palace of Justice in Vienna is labeled Palace of Justice Nürnberg (which is in Germany, over 500km away)...
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_manv70rc6w1rhptwbo1_1280.jpg)
I never knew there was so much potential for big walls on Tahiti
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maopd3wSGB1rhptwbo1_500.png)
Now I know where Basingstoke is....
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_manpncV4Js1rhptwbo1_1280.jpg)
Update at your peril!
-
Back to the original topic.
The patent law is being mis-applied (http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/the-software-patent-solution-has-been-right-here-all-along-202299).....
Lemley MA Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2117302 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117302)
Abstract
Commentators have observed for years that patents do less good and cause more harm in the software industry than in other industries such as pharmaceuticals. They have pointed to a variety of problems and offered a variety of solutions.
While there is some truth to each of these criticisms, the real problem with software patents lies elsewhere. Software patent lawyers are increasingly writing patent claims in broad functional terms. Put another way, patentees claim to own not a particular machine, or even a particular series of steps for achieving a goal, but the goal itself. The resulting overbroad patents overlap and create patent thickets.
Patent law has faced this problem before. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected such broad functional claiming in the 1940s as inconsistent with the purposes of the patent statute. When Congress rewrote the Patent Act in 1952, it adopted a compromise position: patentees could write their claim language in functional terms, but when they did so the patent would not cover the goal itself, but only the particular means of implementing that goal described by the patentee and equivalents thereof. These “means-plus-function” claims permitted the patentee to use functional language to describe an element of their invention, but did not permit her to own the function itself however implemented.
Most software patents today are written in functional terms. If courts would faithfully apply the 1952 Act, limiting those claims to the actual algorithms the patentees disclosed and their equivalents, they could prevent overclaiming by software patentees and solve much of the patent thicket problem that besets software innovation.
Why do judges award in favour of these 'patenting the goal instead of the means to achieve the goal' claims then? Has it got anything to do with the subject matter being so incomprehensible to 99.5% of us, including the judges involved in software patent cases, that the experts can do what they like?
-
Kick backs? :shrug:
Anyway, with such discerning and loyal customers as these Apple won't have to worry about their profits for some time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMsLArefSOw# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMsLArefSOw#)!
-
pure brilliance.
-
pure brilliance.
Microsoft could run a genius advert campaign based on that.
-
That reminds me about myself and climbing shoes.
Anyway that's brilliant.
Now I want an iPhone5 as well.
-
Scary shit.
-
I sent that link to my brother, and he said he thinks she's mentally deficient. He hasn't spent much time in the US.
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/25/google_maps_on_ios6/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/25/google_maps_on_ios6/)
Nelson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo#)
-
Using the Patent as a Sword (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html)
-
Who's copying who? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19971231) :greed:
-
Looks like Apple aren't going to have the same success in the UK that they have initially had in the US (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750). :2thumbsup:
-
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/apple/header.png)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/apple/1.png)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/apple/2.png)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/apple/3.png)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/apple/4.png)
-
Court rules Apples "rubber banding" patents are invalid (http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/10/23/apples-rubber-banding-patent-is-invalid-heres-what-that-actually-means-and-why-it-was-invalidated/) :2thumbsup:
-
Crapple can't get away with taking the piss (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20165664)
-
It's worse than dealing with squabbling five year olds. At least they say sorry when they're supposed to. FFS Apple!
-
some data, some speculation:
I often grumble [...] that every time a new iPhone comes out, my existing iPhone seems to slow down. How convenient, I might think: Wouldn’t many business owners love to make their old product less useful whenever they released a newer one? When you sell the device and control the operating system, that’s an option.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/upshot/hold-the-phone-a-big-data-conundrum.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/upshot/hold-the-phone-a-big-data-conundrum.html)
-
Interesting read. I have always thought similar things but put it down to the operating system over the phones and hence haven't updated my phone (iphone 4) to later software.
I wonder if the same could be said of their laptops and other products?
-
Interesting read. I have always thought similar things but put it down to the operating system over the phones and hence haven't updated my phone (iphone 4) to later software.
I wonder if the same could be said of their laptops and other products?
I personally think its wrong (the article).
MrsTT's ancient Ifern4 sped up massively when she put iOS7 on it... to the extent that she decided not to upgrade as it was fine now! 'Its like a new phone' (to quote mrsTT). Though reading online not everyone felt the same... *shrugs*
Also, Apple have carried on selling the older devices (still sells 4's) so why nobble them? Doesnt make sense to me.
I suspect its more likely that the longer you have a phone, the more shit/junk/useless apps/videos/pictures etc.. you put on it which may all slow it down - which would lead to a progressive decline... Also, as a new phone upgrade approaches, people are more likely to moan about the speed of their old one to justify a new purchase - hence the findings of the article which are based on google search data...
-
MrsTT's ancient Ifern4 sped up massively when she put iOS7 on it... to the extent that she decided not to upgrade as it was fine now! 'Its like a new phone' (to quote mrsTT). Though reading online not everyone felt the same... *shrugs*
This is what both my wife and I found as well. 3 years into a 4s and I see no reason whatsoever to upgrade. The battery life has started to shorten, but its only really noticable in the cold.
-
Interesting, I've stayed on ios6 with my iphone 4 for fear of crippling it with ios7. Reading this makes me reconsider.....
-
Interesting, I've stayed on ios6 with my iphone 4 for fear of crippling it with ios7. Reading this makes me reconsider.....
Read about it more online - I had a check and many people post it slows it down... I dunno...
-
Interesting, I've stayed on ios6 with my iphone 4 for fear of crippling it with ios7. Reading this makes me reconsider.....
Read about it more online - I had a check and many people post it slows it down... I dunno...
Still on the 4s, on iOS7.whatever. Speed up nicely at iOS7 and opted not to upgrade to a 5. You are spot on about clearing it out though. Even shutting down to open apps(double click home button and swipe up the open app screens), speeds it up again. Occasionally I realise I've got 20-30 apps open and a similar number of browser tabs...
-
Remember to clear all the junk out of it regularly too. I use this but I guess there's an iOS version....
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cleanmaster.mguard&hl=en_GB
-
some data, some speculation:
I often grumble [...] that every time a new iPhone comes out, my existing iPhone seems to slow down. How convenient, I might think: Wouldn’t many business owners love to make their old product less useful whenever they released a newer one? When you sell the device and control the operating system, that’s an option.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/upshot/hold-the-phone-a-big-data-conundrum.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/upshot/hold-the-phone-a-big-data-conundrum.html)
Must be something subtle in the methodology because its hard to replicate figure 1 (http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22iphone%20slow%22) and even harder to replicate figure 2 (http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22samsung%20slow%22).
And is "iphone slow" really a good proxy? It might show some correlation but could be used in conjunction with millions of other terms such as "maps" or "wifi" which would compound the results. Could it be that the iminnent release of a new model make people think their phones are slow and they therefore search using such terms? The mentions the 1 month gap between announcement and release for 2008, but the graph is too poor resolution and doesn't have the announcement dates for other dates.
I bet very few people properly benchmark their devices and instead use subjective opinion based on a sample size of n = 1, just as one of the top comments observed...
This is like taking a poll about the temperature outside instead of just going out with a thermometer. Why not just test the phones? Problem solved.
Oh I see its a Professor of Economics who wrote the article :slap:
Even shutting down to open apps(double click home button and swipe up the open app screens), speeds it up again. Occasionally I realise I've got 20-30 apps open and a similar number of browser tabs...
That sounds like very poorly designed/implemented RAM management.
-
Fwiw my old, full of crap origonal 4 recently coverted to iOS 7 experience was it was slower. Then it died.. FairPlay, it was well battered and the charge connector interface just stopped working.
A mate has lent me another, it's a little newer.. But he did a full system reset before I put my sim in. It's on ios7. It's pretty darn fast.
Perhaps backups, full system resets and installs are worthwhile?
Sounds like a solution to a window device! ;)
I'm most probably going to skip a generation and get a iPhone 6, in the smaller of the two rumoured sizes. Only reason being so so many of those I communicate with socially are on iPhone around the globe, and iMessage works flawlessly IME
For my ancient 1st intel gen iMac I stopped os updates years ago, works fine. Best desktop computer I ever had.
-
iMessage is shit. On every other phone I've had, if you try to send a text with bad reception, it gets through by itself. iMessage just gives up and doesn't bother. One of the main reasons I may go back to android. That and swype.
-
Still no Swype on iPhones? WTF?!
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5201912064/h93B34088/)
-
iMessage is shit. On every other phone I've had, if you try to send a text with bad reception, it gets through by itself. iMessage just gives up and doesn't bother. One of the main reasons I may go back to android. That and swype.
Ye unless you live somewhere with decent data connection I.e a town iMessage is a twat. I'm constantly having to hold it down when it's sending to send it as a normal txt.
-
You benders must be on crack. iMessage is great. Integrates with normal texting yet uses data to text to other iPhones, and you can see if the text has been delivered/read, and send photos for no cost.
-
Which is all very well and good as long as you've got data or wifi David! You wanna try living in the sticks ;)
-
Who pays for texts? It's 2014! Even the Nokia I had in 2001 could send a text by itself when it found reception.
-
Which is all very well and good as long as you've got data or wifi David! You wanna try living in the sticks ;) Boyo!
-
iMessage is shit. On every other phone I've had, if you try to send a text with bad reception, it gets through by itself. iMessage just gives up and doesn't bother. One of the main reasons I may go back to android. That and swype.
Frankly, that's bollocks. You converse with people in china and the states, where you know they are in 3 G or wifi its awesome. It's all a matter of what and who u need to contact. In a way that works, for u. What is shit for u... Works like a dream for others.. just choose the right device for your needs..
-
Who pays for texts? It's 2014! Even the Nokia I had in 2001 could send a text by itself when it found reception.
When you're roaming you do.. iMessage is very useful overseas.. Esp outside of EU where roaming costs are loopy... No need to piss about with stuff like viber or other message apps..
Re other posts..
Mine seems to send as a text if it can't deliver as an iMessage after a while.. *shrugs*
While people are apple bashing I'd love to know if anyone's used anything better than FaceTime as it beats the living shit out of Skype whenever I've used both..
-
Sounds a bit like some people aren't tech savvy enough to tick "send as text message" under "messages" in "settings" and are slagging off IMessage instead. Fair enough I say.
-
I use it at home on the wifi but don't think to change the settings every time I walk out the door in case there's no 3G.
-
Sounds a bit like some people aren't tech savvy enough to tick "send as text message" under "messages" in "settings" and are slagging off IMessage instead. Fair enough I say.
well, my settings tell my phone to send as text message when imessage doesn't work, but when the other party is out of the country that doesn't always work. and when i'm out of the country i often don't get other peoples messages who have the same settings (they will have gotten imessage sent confirmation, but i will only get them when i'm on the internet)
-
not having used iMessage and being prone to a bit of apple bashing from time to time, i strikes me that sending text over data is only useful in 2 senario's.
1. when in a place with no phone signal but on wifi
2. when abroad and sending a text when your on wifi
failing this, when you want to send picture messages and to cover the above 2 points, just use whatsapp?
re facetime, again never used so can't comment but why is this different to a normal videocall?
Is facetime just limited to iphone users whereas video calls can occur between any capable phones?
I've used skype a few times and find it mildly annoying having to arrange time to call etc...
-
just use whatsapp?
Word to that. For every iApp there's an App.
-
I use it at home on the wifi but don't think to change the settings every time I walk out the door in case there's no 3G.
It always tries to use a data connection first, but sends as a normal text if data connection is too poor.
-
Jim, who wants to switch to a different app to send photos? And have to make sure the recipient also has the same app? Crazy.
Why do you think you need to arrange a time to Skype someone? All that needs to happen is that both parties need the app running, which assuming they're using a decent operating system then if they've opened the app in the past it is still "running" and hence they will show as being online and available for calls. Only a problem if people are on a real computer and insist on closing software they're not using.
FaceTime however I've never managed to make a single successful call or connection between either my phone or the wife's, or either of our iPads, even when on the same wifi network in the same room. And yes they are all set either to different apple IDs or deprecate email addresses for devices on the same apple ID. This is using either ios6 or ios7. Just doesn't work. Skype however works sweet every time.
-
Jim, who wants to switch to a different app to send photos? And have to make sure the recipient also has the same app? Crazy.
Not as crazy as the recipient having to have exactly the same brand of phone?
-
who wants to switch to a different app to send photos? And have to make sure the recipient also has the same app? Crazy.
What SA Chris said. Plus using a messaging application to take photos, which seems to be being implied by these posts, seems crazy to me.
A simpler, more universal approach is after having taken a picture using the "camera" you can then "share" it, straight from within the camera (or gallery application if you are sending something you took a while ago) . Best of all you can choose which messaging application (email/hangouts/pushbullet/SMS/whatsapp/farcebook/twatter/flickr/picasa/[whatever you have installed]) you then wish to send it with.
I'm sending something to my wife, I'll use Hangouts since she has and uses that, but if I'm sending it to my parents I'll attach it to an email and send that since they don't have/use/understand Hangouts.
User choice, far better than bitching over x is better/worse than y.
which assuming they're using a decent operating system then if they've opened the app in the past it is still "running" and hence they will show as being online and available for calls. Only a problem if people are on a real computer and insist on closing software they're not using.
Thats absolutely nothing to do with the operating system and everything to do with how the software (since that is all an "app"lication is) has been designed.
-
Jim, who wants to switch to a different app to send photos? And have to make sure the recipient also has the same app? Crazy.
Not as crazy as the recipient having to have exactly the same brand of phone?
iOS market share about 40% isn't it?
-
Slackers, Im on about sending photos, not taking photos, if you read my post. However you can share photos directly from the iOS camera/photos app anyway.
-
Not as crazy as the recipient having to have exactly the same brand of phone?
iOS market share about 40% isn't it?
Close, 35% according to this (https://econsultancy.com/blog/64376-65-of-global-smartphone-owners-use-android-os-stats) which is high, about enough to win you an election in this countries backwards electoral system, but then consider what virtually all of the remaining 65% percentage is...Android.
And if the recent trend from "Quarter 2" continues where 85% of smartphones shipped were Android (http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/07/31/android-reached-record-85-smartphone-market-share-q2-2014-report/) then the overall percentage market share for iOS will dwindle.
-
If you're on O2 then you can use this https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=es.tid.gconnect&hl=en_GB to send texts and make calls via Wifi. Yes it comes out of your monthly allowance but as JB says, who pays for calls and texts these days? Means you can call/text abroad for free.
We used it when a mast was down near here and it worked really well.
-
Slackers, Im on about sending photos, not taking photos, if you read my post. However you can share photos directly from the iOS camera/photos app anyway.
Yeah, I get that, but if I want to send a photo I do as I wrote and fire up my camera first and then choose how I want to send it rather than the other way round. Similarly if I've already got a photo I took yesterday/last week that I want to send, I don't fire up which ever application I want to send it with first, I find it in the gallery and then choose the application I want to send it with.
Not owning an iFern I've no idea if this functionality exists under iOS. You've confirmed it does, and I don't see why people don't use this method and are wasting time bitching over what application is easiest to send a photo* with because there are lots of applications that are able to do it and people can use the most appropriate one, which is often contingent on the recipient.
* Although the original discussion was about just messaging rather than attaching pictures.
-
Sounds a bit like some people aren't tech savvy enough to tick "send as text message" under "messages" in "settings" and are slagging off IMessage instead. Fair enough I say.
I use it at home on the wifi but don't think to change the settings every time I walk out the door in case there's no 3G.
It always tries to use a data connection first, but sends as a normal text if data connection is too poor.
...and if there's no/ poor mobile signal, it just sacks it off permanently. Unlike every other phone I've owned, which sends it as soon as it has good enough reception. I've got the right boxes ticked in settings, I'm not a retard.
-
If you're on O2 then you can use this https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=es.tid.gconnect&hl=en_GB to send texts and make calls via Wifi. Yes it comes out of your monthly allowance but as JB says, who pays for calls and texts these days? Means you can call/text abroad for free.
We used it when a mast was down near here and it worked really well.
You can do this with Hangouts.
-
Any ideas how to get photos back off an iPad onto an SD card? I was using mine for photo editing before i got a new desktop, but now want to move them back to back up onto an external hard drive. I've got the little plug in SD card adaptor. A quick google says it's not possible without having to move them to cloud storage first, but I'm hoping that's wrong.
-
You can email them, so I presume you can save as an image file?
-
iCloud?
-
Can you not plug your iPad directly into the desktop and download the photos? This is what I do with my phone.
-
iCloud?
A quick google says it's not possible without having to move them to cloud storage first, but I'm hoping that's wrong.
-
You can email them, so I presume you can save as an image file?
They are image files. I want to get them off and stored elsewhere as they are taking up a lot of space (circa 200 mostly RAW files) not keen to email them all.
-
Can you not plug your iPad directly into the desktop and download the photos? This is what I do with my phone.
Hmm, is that too obvious? I'll give it a try! Even if desktop isn't Mac?
-
Photo's can be transferred from phone/tablet to PC (it appears as a drive) but its not so easy to go the other way...
-
Need to find the bloody USB adaptor now. Only found the SD one after a half hour of searching.
-
Is the USB adaptor not what you use to charge it stuck in the mains adaptor? Yep dead easy on PC, just like downloading off a camera.
-
Good point, I think it might be! I rarely get my hands on the thing, so not sure.
I'll have a go tonight, Thanks
-
Where to start.......?
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/19/apple-iphone-6-plus-dropped-accident (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/19/apple-iphone-6-plus-dropped-accident)
-
I despair. 'Man drops phone' was the leading news item on Facebook a couple of hours back.