The I Evil “everything” Corporation (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

And a new era dawns.

Now that we are seeing the decline in Flash, what will be the next ubiquitous technologies for displaying interactive motion based objects on web sites.

Microsoft thinks its Silver Light but unfortunately the ”I” folks aren’t playing that game.

In fact, it seems that the people out at Apple have a case of we are so big we should rule the world delusions. They are blocking the use of old technologies but it doesn’t seem that they are replacing it with any free universal stuff.

Is it just me or has Apple become just another giant greedy corporation? No wait, they have become the greedy giant corporation.

 

[rodmc]

Apple have always been a greedy corporate giant, its just that MS have made way for Apple and now its Apple's turn to try and monopolise the market.

The one thing that gets on my nerves about Apple at present is most of there current lawsuits are about the design of the devices and not really the tech. It may surprise some but Samsung actually supply many of the parts for both the iPad and iPhone, and its just about to get more interesting, it would seem Sony are about to be dragged into the mess as apparently some evidence has emerged that Apple actually stole the design for the iPhone 4 from Sony who's design is dated as being done in 2006, given that Sony handsets also use Google's android they make shuffle into Samsung's corner.

Also, how many designs can there be of a tablet? Is Apple going to continue to claim that "rounded corners" were their idea, or even a single button, some of their claims IMHO are bordering on idiotic.

 

[Vassago]

I agree. Some of the lawsuits are nothing short of idiotic. "How many different designs can there be?" is the right question. Arguments can be made that integrating certain technologies into a phone were the idea of someone else before Apple used it. Could they sue? It's getting out of hand quickly, but corporations have the funds to fight.

 

[Steve R.]

Form follows function. Essentially products which fulfill the same function will gravitate to looking/operating in the same manner based on ergonomics.

Supposedly we live in a free-market system. That means that companies should compete on price, product quality, and customer service.

They should NOT be protected through legal mechanisms, such as patents. Actually the use of patents to "protect" is a misuse of the patent system. Patents were meant to be a limited privilege to foster innovation.

Apple-Samsung patent case goes to jury
The Post writes: "A ruling for Apple could result in a ban of imports of Samsung products and force the South Korean company to change its designs or pay licensing fees to the Cupertino, Calif.-based tech giant. A ruling for Samsung could damage Apple’s reputation as an innovator and lead to more iPhone look-alike designs."

I hope that Apple looses. Unfortunately the populist belief is that US companies are entitled to this type of "protection" from those evil vial unthinking copycatters.:banghead:

 

[SmallTime]

I'm afraid that's the world we live in, and to a degree each one of us takes a small part in creating it that way.

Large organisations are in their very nature greedy, shareholders who's only interest is increasing their bottom line pressurise senior managers to increase profits which translates to increased dividends. That combined with an insatiable desire to see a year on year increase causes the organisation to become bullish in the marketplace and domineering in their day to day affairs' To maintain increased profitably larger firms manipulate the market deliberately casing smaller firms to inevitably become victims and eventually the most bullish becomes dominant.

Now, it is us the end users that cause businesses to grow and become TOO BIG for positive competition to thrive healthily. We're encouraged to act like this through very cleaver marketing to alter our behaviour in a particular way that favours a business helping it to become a dominant player.

So really when we complain about a particular business that's grown too big or become too intertwined in our lives what we really mean is that we collectively lacked independent thought and were easily manipulated by marketing tricks and smoke and mirrors. Of course eventually and because we live in a dynamic world and things change we eventually wake up smell the coffee and realise the 1% have been sedating us so they can remain dominant.

The large supermarkets, oil companies, the likes of Unilever and Nestle are old hands at this sort of thing, Apple is just a new comer and VERY unlike to last the course.

 

[hardyd44]

I think apple produce some lovely kit ( at a stupid premimum price though) - I don't own any though. What really gets my goat is the media love-in with apple, the stunts they get up to, if microsoft attempted would be up in front of EU as quick as anything (Itunes anyone)

 

[rodmc]

Theres no doubt it looks good, but thats what apple is about, making it look cool.

I hope the iPhone 5 has some amazing innovations on it, cos the latest Samsung and HTC phones make the 4S look like a calculator, it'll be interesting to see if Apple can keep up now Samsung and HTC have there noses in front.

 

[Vassago]

They seem to be getting scared. Why do you think we suddenly have lawsuits over "rounded corner rectangles." Is that even something that can be patented? Really???

How many different designs for a phone can there be? Someone needs to put Apple in their place. They shouldn't be able to sue over shapes.

 

[rodmc]

I would agree that they are getting scared, when innovation runs dry, go crying to a judge, seems to work for them.

I see that Apple have applied to have the word "Retina" trademarked.

 

[Fifty2One]

No shortage of innovations, they just carefully meter out improvements so the marketing department has something "new and improved" to launch when sales drop their watermark.
Between "improvement" launches the lawyers are taskes with trying to find ways to take the edge off the competition by trying to find anything that they can cry "they copies us" and stands a chance to bring in additional revenue.

I would agree that they are getting scared, when innovation runs dry, go crying to a judge, seems to work for them.

I see that Apple have applied to have the word "Retina" trademarked.

 

[rodmc]

No shortage of innovations, they just carefully meter out improvements so the marketing department has something "new and improved" to launch when sales drop their watermark.
Between "improvement" launches the lawyers are taskes with trying to find ways to take the edge off the competition by trying to find anything that they can cry "they copies us" and stands a chance to bring in additional revenue.

Im trying to think of any innovations Apple have come up with apart from things like User actions (which is a bit of a joke).

I made a prediction elsewhere that after Jobs left the scene, Apple would go downhill, in fact I now believe even if Jobs were still alive, I still think they'd be on the slide. IMHO, the court cases are a symptom of that.

 

[Vassago]

Im trying to think of any innovations Apple have come up with apart from things like User actions (which is a bit of a joke).

I made a prediction elsewhere that after Jobs left the scene, Apple would go downhill, in fact I now believe even if Jobs were still alive, I still think they'd be on the slide. IMHO, the court cases are a symptom of that.

I couldn't have said it better myself. People are starting to realize the benefits of going outside the Apple route. Cheaper prices and more freedom in Android powered devices is starting to draw a bigger fanbase. That, and people are sick of the stupid little issues with some of the newer Apple design flaws.

 

[Galaxiom]

Apple is stuck with the clumsy way data must be moved to and from an iOS device. You have to have the iTunes and it has to be set up for your device.

Everyone else has a USB port for simple transfer.

The court cases are entirely about trying to slow down the opposition. Nobody expects the case to really succeed. They are not alone as Samsung also litigates against Apple. It is just part of corporate competition strategies.

You think Apple would have learnt from their ridiculous war with Microsoft over the user interface they claimed to have invented. In fact everyone knows it was conceived by Xerox.

The futile litigation set Apple back years and was one of the main reasons they were heading into irrelevance before Jobs got back in charge.

 

[rodmc]

And I would suggest they are heading back that way Galaxiom. One would have thought they would have learned from the MS experience as you said.

I just dont get the Apple "fanboi" take on all things non apple. Years ago they used to brag on about how there hardware was superior, then guess what they switched to x86 architecture which invalidated the boast that Apple hardware was superior, then the argument shifted from hardware to software, OSX is better than Windows, that may have been true about 95,98 ME and Vista, but IMHO XP and Win7 (and Win2k to an extent) are great systems. I can count on one hand the amount of crashes I had on my XP box, my Win7 hasnt done so yet since I got it.
Then we got the argument about viruses. "Apple dont get viruses" was the warcry, well lets look at that, if you want to cause maximum disruption, do you write a virus to cause disruption to the 1% (Macs) or do you go for the 99% (Windows), no brainer isnt it?

The last virus to hit the macs was a massive embarrassment for Apple, why? because 99% of the infection was traced back to Encino CA, yes indeed, the virus ripped through Apples HQ like a hot knife through butter. So much for Apples dont get viruses, if there HQ cant defend against it then what chance do users have. The best thing about this episode was they denied it happened and only 6 weeks later did they admit it, this was after even their loyal fanbase had complained about this trojan and yet it still took them weeks to get a fix out.

The biggest problem Windows had, was trying to be everything to all people, they wanted maximum hardware and software compatibility, not a bad thing but it did cause it major problems.

 

[Steve R.]

The biggest problem Windows had, was trying to be everything to all people, they wanted maximum hardware and software compatibility, not a bad thing but it did cause it major problems.

What you say evokes a degree of sympathy, but Microsoft's quest for compatibility is more of a charade. It is hidden behind behind proprietary "hooks" (DRM).

Additionally, Microsoft beginning around 2000 seems to have tossed out Joe Public as it's customer and moved its customer focus to Acme Mega-Company as its principle client. While Microsoft continues to install its operating system on computers sold to individuals; providing customer support to the individual appears to have been depreciated.

As some additional thoughts, for the conspiracy minded, such as myself.
Linux is meant to be open source to provide compatibility with all devices. Yet many hardware manufactures (video cards, printers) do not provide Linux drivers. I often wonder if Microsoft and Apple somehow have informal "agreements" to discourage these companies from providing Linux compatible hardware.

Along those conspiracy lines; a while back (as an experiment) I went into Best Buy and asked if I could buy a computer without MS Windows to get a price reduction. The answer was a resounding NO. Hardware and software are separate items, they should not be linked in that manner.

 

[Fifty2One]

No linux drivers is all about money.. you KNOW there must be some deal going on when a hardware's shipping box has another corporation's registered trade mark on the side with the statement that it is compatable with their OS. Guess you could figure that if an OS is open source, one of the developers could hack a driver together sooner or later...

Big Box Computer Outlet Inc no longer gets my business (business or personal) after I once had the experience of their misleading advertisement. Computers for low prices and when you show up you discover that the price is for the computer only, the OS is extra but not optional... we have since purchased all of out hardware and software from small individually run shops who will quote the price they will charge, taxes included, "turn key ready"!

What you say evokes a degree of sympathy, but Microsoft's quest for compatibility is more of a charade. It is hidden behind behind proprietary "hooks" (DRM).

Additionally, Microsoft beginning around 2000 seems to have tossed out Joe Public as it's customer and moved its customer focus to Acme Mega-Company as its principle client. While Microsoft continues to install its operating system on computers sold to individuals; providing customer support to the individual appears to have been depreciated.

As some additional thoughts, for the conspiracy minded, such as myself.
Linux is meant to be open source to provide compatibility with all devices. Yet many hardware manufactures (video cards, printers) do not provide Linux drivers. I often wonder if Microsoft and Apple somehow have informal "agreements" to discourage these companies from providing Linux compatible hardware.

Along those conspiracy lines; a while back (as an experiment) I went into Best Buy and asked if I could buy a computer without MS Windows to get a price reduction. The answer was a resounding NO. Hardware and software are separate items, they should not be linked in that manner.