Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 19, 2012, 04:21 PM   #26
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclysm View Post
Actually, Apple was not forced to leave Webkit open if you read up on the limited license it was protected under. Facetime is open because it's basically SIP, and it's already open right now.

Did you ever consider that Liquid Metal may not be up to Apple's level of quality yet? Or is it always instantly Apple being predatory? I'm sure Apple was simply locking out the competition rather than getting **** a lot cheaper too.
KHTML, the library from which WebKit was born is licensed under the LGPL. Apple had no choice to release the WebKit source also under the LGPL.

Liquid Metal was in use in 2006 by other players for much bigger parts than SIM ejection tools. If it wasn't ready, then why the exclusive license ?

Occam's Razor my friend.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2012, 04:32 PM   #27
Porco
macrumors 68000
 
Porco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
I hope the fingerprint tech is never used by Apple, or if it is used then it's only a completely optional feature for those who are daft enough to trust it. Tying biometrics to any kind of software that requires updating for security on a regular basis (i.e. just about all of it) is a recipe for disaster, IMHO.

And unlike passwords, you can't easily change your fingerprints when something goes wrong.
__________________
I really wish Apple would use the option key a little more, and the command key a little less.
*soundcloud/fdporco*
Porco is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2012, 04:45 PM   #28
subsonix
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
KHTML, the library from which WebKit was born is licensed under the LGPL. Apple had no choice to release the WebKit source also under the LGPL.
Regardless if the fork would count as derivative work, they were not forced to fork khtml to begin with. They could have bought a company (Apple is teh evil!!!) or developed a proprietary solution internally. The result of the fork, which became Webkit has benefited others as both Apple and later Google have added significantly to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Ports
subsonix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 12:00 AM   #29
MacDav
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Life is now worth living.
MacDav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 02:16 AM   #30
hchung
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
KHTML, the library from which WebKit was born is licensed under the LGPL. Apple had no choice to release the WebKit source also under the LGPL.

Liquid Metal was in use in 2006 by other players for much bigger parts than SIM ejection tools. If it wasn't ready, then why the exclusive license ?

Occam's Razor my friend.
Occam's Razor? How does that extend to something like clang?

We get it, your default line of thought is to think Apple is being evil and locking other companies out. So far, the only example you've given that I'd even remotely believe is Liquid Metal. But the simplest explanation isn't malice/anti-competition, it's a cancelled/failed project. (afterall, even its inventor says it's not a mature technology)

As for NAND and displays? You call it locking out. I call it securing your supply. Because if you plan to AND become the world's largest consumer of NAND chips, it sounds like a pretty legit reason to buy tons of NAND.
Likewise with displays, how many iDevice display shortage stories hit the news every time an iDevice launches? Practically every single one.

As the Palm/HP guys have said, it's not just that Apple bought out the entire supply. Apple bought out supply that wouldn't have existed anyway because they funded the building of other company's extra factories.
http://qr.ae/1T3HO (I didn't write that.)
http://allthingsd.com/20110124/tk-3/
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/01/18/cook
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/02/...-says-analyst/

You don't spend billions in investments to increase production of items you don't need and still be a successful company.
hchung is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 02:28 AM   #31
MuppetGate
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Liquid Metal was in use in 2006 by other players for much bigger parts than SIM ejection tools. If it wasn't ready, then why the exclusive license ?
The relevant question is why they stopped using it. I imagine it was because the manufacturing process wasn't cost effective.

Liquid Metal is pretty generic term which covers a fairly broad range of materials.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...s-liquidmetal/

Apple's exclusive license covers a particular form of liquid metal and, more importantly, the process used to produce it. Their aim is not to lock the competition out of the market (they could just buy the company if they wanted to do that), but to find a new way to manufacture components that's faster, less wasteful, uses less energy. Apple's biggest problem isn't the competition; it's that it can't produce stuff fast enough. That means lost business and lost profits. Liquid Metal could fix that: rather than having a machine spend hours grinding and milling unibody cases, just have it moulded as though it were plastic. The added strength and resistance to corrosion is just the bonus.

Apple doesn't have an exclusive lock on liquid metal; it just has a lock on one company that has expertise in one particular form of liquid metal. The company in question has two more years to show that this process of theirs can scale up to Apple's requirements. If they can do it, then I imagine Apple will buy them out. If not, then Apple will swallow the loss and walk away.

The upshot is that your assertion is incorrect; no one is being prevented from using liquid metal. They choose not to because it isn't cost effective. If Apple is willing to put the money into a company to make liquid metal viable for large scale manufacturing, then I don't see why they shouldn't make sure get the most benefit from it.
__________________
Kylie Minogue would never allow this to happen.

Last edited by MuppetGate; Nov 20, 2012 at 02:35 AM.
MuppetGate is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 04:50 AM   #32
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by hchung View Post
Occam's Razor? How does that extend to something like clang?

We get it, your default line of thought is to think Apple is being evil and locking other companies out.
You don't get it sorry. That's not my line of thought. I don't apply simple black and white moralistic determination to corporate entities.

I can add a few points, like all their IP lawsuits which is not meant to win them anything, it's meant to stall, hence why they go for early preliminary injunctions on shaky IP (all the patents getting invalidated, the lawsuits thrown out) and want unfair terms and refuse to negotiate with patent holders for standards they use, accusing them of FRAND abuse and trying to redefine FRAND to benefit them.

Apple is allergic to competition. It hates having to compete, because frankly, Apple kinda sucks at competing. It's sad because they make truly great products a lot of people (including myself) enjoy using. They make tons of money, but it seems they want more, especially for the iPhone which is right now, their biggest source of revenues and could hurt them seriously if it comes crashing down.

BTW, the supply chain bit ? http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/22/tech...hain/index.htm.

I'll ignore the pro-Apple marketing rhetoric links you posted. Gruber and AllThingsD... gah. Link me to Apple's site next time, I think it'll be less biased.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 05:06 AM   #33
Keane16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Sorry - Liquid Metal isn't up to Apple's quality?

I can go with they haven't found a use for it. Or that they are not sure what they want to do with it. But to imply that the material isn't up to Apple's level of quality yet is, in my opinion, reaching VERY far.
Quote from one of the inventors below, you don't just use these things like off the shelf parts, to produce it in large quantities, specific sizes and with the right characteristics isn't easy...

Quote:
Q: I've heard rumors that future MacBooks from Apple could use Liquidmetal casing, what would that be like? Is it likely to happen?

A: Given the size of MacBook and scale of Apple products, I think it's unlikely that Liquidmetal casing will be used in MacBooks in the near term. It's more likely in the form of small component such as a hinge or bracket. A MacBook casing, such as a unibody, will take two to four more years to implement.
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/02/...several-years/


As an aside, the level of anti-Apple has hit new highs lately. "Apple are like the seaguls off Finding Nemo" WOW. It's amazing how silly a large number of posts are on this site these days.
Keane16 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 05:45 AM   #34
Keane16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
I can add a few points, like all their IP lawsuits which is not meant to win them anything, it's meant to stall, hence why they go for early preliminary injunctions on shaky IP (all the patents getting invalidated, the lawsuits thrown out) and want unfair terms and refuse to negotiate with patent holders for standards they use, accusing them of FRAND abuse and trying to redefine FRAND to benefit them.
Give it up. You're like a broken record. Apple have settled plenty of big cases - Nokia, Microsoft and more recently HTC. They offered to settle with Samsung, Samsung said no. Can you imagine if an Apple Exec came out with the same line the Samsung Exec did "We have no intention to settle". People like you would've been frothing at the mouth.

Even with Motorola there appears to be positive movement with the 2 companies looking to use the arbitration route.

"all their IP lawsuits which is not meant to win them anything" - didn't you know? Tim Cook is continuing to carry these out as it makes him feel happy. /s


Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Apple is allergic to competition. It hates having to compete, because frankly, Apple kinda sucks at competing. It's sad because they make truly great products a lot of people (including myself) enjoy using. They make tons of money, but it seems they want more, especially for the iPhone which is right now, their biggest source of revenues and could hurt them seriously if it comes crashing down.
Apple hates competition now. Really. That's where you've gone? You say they make great products - that my friend is how you compete. So it appears Apple loves competing. Any company that can't compete would die very quickly. Not grow to become the largest tech company on the planet. You talk so little sense. Why the hate?

- Personal computers were big, noisy and VERY expensive - they released the Mac. #CompetitiveWin
- Digital music players were clunky in hardware, and had poor software support - they released the iPod and iTunes. #CompetitiveWin
- The phone market was bouncing along, evolving - but slowly. And the devices that 'had every feature' the original iPhone had were terrible experiences - they released the iPhone. #CompetitiveWin
- Joe Average doesn't need the power and features of a desktop OS - they release the iPad. #CompetitiveWin

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
BTW, the supply chain bit ? http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/22/tech...hain/index.htm.

I'll ignore the pro-Apple marketing rhetoric links you posted. Gruber and AllThingsD... gah. Link me to Apple's site next time, I think it'll be less biased.
So you link to an article which points to a company (Apple), using it's huge profits gained from one of the greatest consumer products ever (iPhone) to buy components at quantities and prices that favour themselves. And this is bad. Again, move off this site, if it upsets you when Apple do things that benefits themselves. Any company with the means would do the same thing. If I understand your hate correctly, you are saying Apple should've bought less components, so their competitors could've released their competing products in a more timely fashion? Wow.

From the article:

ďBut Apple's key to supply-chain success isn't as simple as its ability to bring bigger briefcases of $100 bills to its partners than its rivals. Part of the reason Apple wins in the supply chain is simply because Apple is so successful overall.Ē

I can see where you're coming from, for Joe Consumer, Apple's ways will hurt the market. But Apple doesn't need to worry about others or the market. They are not a charity. They need to worry about themselves.

They are still making the best mass market hardware on the planet. They still make stuff that is ridiculously easy to buy, service, maintain and learn. But their mobile software (IMO) is falling behind in certain areas. They could easily lose their lead, they don't need to make soft decisions like passing up on components due to market shortages. They need to keep driving forward to continue to push their growth and their bottom line so they can create their product line-up to the best of their abilities.

Seriously you lessen the value of this Apple community with your constant negative spin. I'm sure there are many Apple hate sites where you could go and spread the silly nonsense you love so much. You're a smart guy, I've actually seen you contribute in a positive way many times, just give the hate spin a rest. It's boring.
Keane16 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 06:05 AM   #35
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keane16 View Post
Give it up. You're like a broken record.
Ad hominems won't get you far with me. Move me to ignore if you don't like me, I'm not going away.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 06:06 AM   #36
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by izyreal View Post
I think that you are right. My thought is that Apple will roll out an NFC payment system that utilizes fingerprint recognition as part of its authentication process. Since this would be a major step-change in the iPhone's core abilities, it is more likely to be released on the iPhone 6. No matter what the phone is titled, I think that we have 1.5-2 years before we will see fingerprint tech (or NFC) in the iPhone.

If I were the engineer in charge of integrating the fingerprinting tech into the iPhone, I would try very hard to embed the scanner into the glass itself. I would probably put the scanner just to the right of the home button. I would also make the scanner blend in with the black/white background (similar to the front-facing camera, except with tinted glass) so that it would not ruin the aesthetic experience of the phone.
Fingerprints for payments is a very bad idea, the last thing I want is for some crack head mugger to not only take my phone but also cut off my finger. Think about it
everything-i is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 06:20 AM   #37
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
If this is anything like the Liquid Metal exclusivity license Apple acquired, it could very much be not about integrating it in its own products, but about locking its competition out of it.

Other manufacturers had cellphones made with Liquid Metal parts before Apple swooped in, got exclusitivity from the people behind it and locked out everyone else. Then Apple made SIM ejection tools with it.
Liquid metal components have big potential for use in phones etc but have you ever considered their engineers may not have been able to get the production yields they need with liquid metal to include it in their products yet. Anything that goes into an Apple product has to scale to huge production quantities, which is probably why we haven't seen IGZO screens in iDevices yet. Great potential but volume production problems.
everything-i is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 06:32 AM   #38
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by everything-i View Post
Liquid metal components have big potential for use in phones etc but have you ever considered their engineers may not have been able to get the production yields they need with liquid metal to include it in their products yet. Anything that goes into an Apple product has to scale to huge production quantities, which is probably why we haven't seen IGZO screens in iDevices yet. Great potential but volume production problems.
Then. Why. The. Exclusivity ?

*sigh*

Look, I'm not saying Apple shouldn't be looking into Liquid Metal, or trying it out, or getting a license to the some of the patents. It's the exclusivity bit that bugs me, especially in light of Apple not actually using it.

Sandisk had MP3 players built with the stuff in 2006. That it's not ready for Apple to use in the quantities they need for parts they need is not what I'm having an issue with. It's locking out other players that might have a use for which the product is ready that is the puzzling part. It's Apple trying to gain an advantage using its cash reserves, locking people out of technology.

Same as their stylus patents, touch screen Macs even though "they don't work" patents.

Apple needs to stop trying to compete by preventing others from competing, it needs to rely on its great products and marketing instead. There will always be users who don't want/need Apple products and trying to prevent them from having the choice to go elsewhere is just going to hurt their brand image in the end.

It all remains to be seen if this applies to this AuthenTec purchase, it's just sad that people that have these AuthenTec enable devices outside of Apple are now locked out of future updates because Apple is picking up the IP, especially in light that they don't really seem to have a use for it.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 07:24 AM   #39
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keane16 View Post
Give it up. You're like a broken record. Apple have settled plenty of big cases - Nokia, Microsoft and more recently HTC. They offered to settle with Samsung, Samsung said no. Can you imagine if an Apple Exec came out with the same line the Samsung Exec did "We have no intention to settle". People like you would've been frothing at the mouth.
Well for one - since you nor I know anything about the terms Apple was "willing to settle over" specifically - how can you say it was a real attempt to negotiate. Meaning - Maybe Apple's offer was incredibly and deliberately insulting. I don't know. But if it was and Samsung said no - that's not really offering to settle any more than a bank "offering" to give me a home loan but wanting an 20% interest rate.

And might I remind you of this quote: "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Appleís $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," and, "Iím going to destroy Android, because itís a stolen product. Iím willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

Yes - sounds like a reasonable CEO willing to negotiate.
samcraig is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 07:44 AM   #40
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Then. Why. The. Exclusivity ?

*sigh*

Look, I'm not saying Apple shouldn't be looking into Liquid Metal, or trying it out, or getting a license to the some of the patents. It's the exclusivity bit that bugs me, especially in light of Apple not actually using it.

Sandisk had MP3 players built with the stuff in 2006. That it's not ready for Apple to use in the quantities they need for parts they need is not what I'm having an issue with. It's locking out other players that might have a use for which the product is ready that is the puzzling part. It's Apple trying to gain an advantage using its cash reserves, locking people out of technology.

Same as their stylus patents, touch screen Macs even though "they don't work" patents.

Apple needs to stop trying to compete by preventing others from competing, it needs to rely on its great products and marketing instead. There will always be users who don't want/need Apple products and trying to prevent them from having the choice to go elsewhere is just going to hurt their brand image in the end.

It all remains to be seen if this applies to this AuthenTec purchase, it's just sad that people that have these AuthenTec enable devices outside of Apple are now locked out of future updates because Apple is picking up the IP, especially in light that they don't really seem to have a use for it.
I'm talking about liquid metal, what have patents or buying other companies got to do with it, if they can see a potential use for liquid metal and can pay for exclusivity then why not. If they want to buy any other company for the IP they have then why not. All companies do this not just Apple, its called a free market, I think you need to calm down a bit mate seeing a lot of hate in your posts.
everything-i is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 07:53 AM   #41
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by everything-i View Post
I'm talking about liquid metal, what have patents or buying other companies got to do with it, if they can see a potential use for liquid metal and can pay for exclusivity then why not. If they want to buy any other company for the IP they have then why not. All companies do this not just Apple, its called a free market, I think you need to calm down a bit mate seeing a lot of hate in your posts.
Personally I think you're assigning an emotion that's simply not there. It's ok - a lot of people do this on forums. It's not uncommon.

I don't think anyone would argue that all companies do it. I think Knight was pointing this out in context to the original article and also used an example of Liquid Metal to illustrate another company Apple has dealt with and where nothing has really been utilized.

Is he wrong? We don't know if Apple has any intentions of using Authentec's tech now or ever. Just like we don't know what their intention with Liquid Metal is.

Anyone is entitled to find the practice of any company locking out others silly just like they can find it smart. That doesn't mean one has "hate" for the company. If there is "hate" (which in this case I don't personally think there is) it's for the practice of any company buying another's IP simply to block the competition.
samcraig is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 08:28 AM   #42
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Personally I think you're assigning an emotion that's simply not there. It's ok - a lot of people do this on forums. It's not uncommon.

I don't think anyone would argue that all companies do it. I think Knight was pointing this out in context to the original article and also used an example of Liquid Metal to illustrate another company Apple has dealt with and where nothing has really been utilized.

Is he wrong? We don't know if Apple has any intentions of using Authentec's tech now or ever. Just like we don't know what their intention with Liquid Metal is.

Anyone is entitled to find the practice of any company locking out others silly just like they can find it smart. That doesn't mean one has "hate" for the company. If there is "hate" (which in this case I don't personally think there is) it's for the practice of any company buying another's IP simply to block the competition.
No I was simply pointing out a plausible reason for liquid metal not being used in any production Apple products yet and he came back with a rant about how Apple has lots of patents for things that never made it to production and that they have purchased IP by acquiring other companies neither of which have relevance to my original comment. I suppose next I will get a response from him belittling me for using incorrect grammar or something similar, I was referring to posts (plural) with the hate thing. It's just what normally happens.
everything-i is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 08:31 AM   #43
Keane16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Ad hominems won't get you far with me. Move me to ignore if you don't like me, I'm not going away.
Ad hominems - HA! Read the other 98% of my post. Deary me, blinkers man, take them off and read what I wrote.

Your entire argument was picked apart and that's how you repond? Politician like spin you can produce old chap. Not sure why you have the bee in your bonnet, maybe you have a business that wanted to use Liquid Metal in a consumer product and therefore have been personally affected by Apple's exclusivity? I'm not sure, but you bleat on and on about the sillest things.

A good argument would be great (anti or pro Apple)... but so often you pipe along with no facts it's like spam in the comments section. 'Apple is allergic to competition' is my favourite for today - if you could explain that with fact you would win me over!

Can you perhaps explain why a company using it's cash to buy exclusivity is a bad business practice? Surely it's a great practice - I'm sure the board and shareholders agree. It's not like there are no other options. In a way I'm glad for this exclusiveness, even as a consumer. Look at the way the MacBook Pro has been 'duplicated' by the competition. If Liquid Metal allows Apple to do something new and unique perhaps the competition - who can't use it will have to innovate in other ways? Using different metals, plastics and glass - creating a wider choice for us the consumer and pushing innovation (We know Nokia/Microsoft agreed not to 'copy' Apple design and we got the incredibly we designed Lumia range.. WIN). It's just crazy that you are moaning about a company buying something that was available for sale...

Happy to ignore you though.



Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Well for one - since you nor I know anything about the terms Apple was "willing to settle over" specifically - how can you say it was a real attempt to negotiate. Meaning - Maybe Apple's offer was incredibly and deliberately insulting. I don't know. But if it was and Samsung said no - that's not really offering to settle any more than a bank "offering" to give me a home loan but wanting an 20% interest rate.

And might I remind you of this quote: "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Appleís $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," and, "Iím going to destroy Android, because itís a stolen product. Iím willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

Yes - sounds like a reasonable CEO willing to negotiate.
Very true. We have no idea or specifics. That's why I don't get crazy over what these guys say until we have the facts. What I do know is the HTC CEO recently said he's happy with the terms. Microsoft and Apple seem to get on fine (regardless of their history) when it comes to patent cross licences. Why would Apple and Samsung struggle to reach a settlement? We don't know - but you'd think they could reach one too.


Also I never said Jobs was reasonable - not sure why you brought that up though - weird tangent. Jobs was talking to his biographer on his way to dying, Samsung were responding to the media about a current issue. I said people like KnightWRX would be frothing at the mouth had an Apple exec made that Samsung quote - I mean really can you imagine the column inches and the silly comments we would've had if say, Schiller, would've come out with that!
Keane16 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 08:55 AM   #44
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keane16 View Post


Also I never said Jobs was reasonable - not sure why you brought that up though - weird tangent. Jobs was talking to his biographer on his way to dying, Samsung were responding to the media about a current issue. I said people like KnightWRX would be frothing at the mouth had an Apple exec made that Samsung quote - I mean really can you imagine the column inches and the silly comments we would've had if say, Schiller, would've come out with that!
I brought it up because you said "Can you imagine if an Apple Exec came out with the same line the Samsung Exec did "We have no intention to settle"

It's not a tangent. Jobs was an Exec - and that quote pretty much makes it clear he's not willing to settle. Both were comments made that would go public. Whether a biographer or a reporter - both are the media.

And there are a lot of people - from all walks of life who have/had a problem with Jobs' statement and still do.

How you don't see the statement as relevant to your commentary is baffling to me. But oh well
samcraig is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 09:59 AM   #45
Keane16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
I brought it up because you said "Can you imagine if an Apple Exec came out with the same line the Samsung Exec did "We have no intention to settle"

It's not a tangent. Jobs was an Exec - and that quote pretty much makes it clear he's not willing to settle. Both were comments made that would go public. Whether a biographer or a reporter - both are the media.

And there are a lot of people - from all walks of life who have/had a problem with Jobs' statement and still do.

How you don't see the statement as relevant to your commentary is baffling to me. But oh well
Because we were talking about settling patents. KnightWRX was saying that Apple was stalling. I gave proof of recent cross licence agreements, and showed how Samsung do not want to settle. I merely pointed out to him - as he was bashing Apple, again... - that people would've gotten crazy had an Apple exec made that statement to the media regarding Apple's plans.

Jobs' views are now irrelevant. He has sadly passed and has no power on decision making. His personal views made to his biographer can in no way be taken as Apple's word. You really believe the board would've let Apple spend all their money on 'destroying Android'. They'd have kicked him to the curb if he tried. This isn't conkers in the school yard - these are multi-billion dollar businesses on the line.
Keane16 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 10:10 AM   #46
izyreal
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by everything-i View Post
Fingerprints for payments is a very bad idea, the last thing I want is for some crack head mugger to not only take my phone but also cut off my finger. Think about it
I have never had a run in with a mugger, and I doubt that you have either. The scenario that you are describing is highly unlikely.
On the other hand, I HAVE lost my phone. Requiring fingerprint authentication would prevent somebody from being able to use your phone to buy things. I would much rather take the risk of losing my finger in the mugging scenario you posit (statistically will never happen to me) then take the risk that losing my phone = losing everything I have in the bank.

To put your scenario in perspective, if there is no fingerprint scanner included on your phone, then payment security will be in the form of a number/question that you need to answer in order to make a payment. Conceivably a 'crack-head' mugger could capture you and torture you until you give up your information. Like finger-chopping, this is highly unlikely.

I really want my phone to replace my wallet. The way I envision the future of mobile payments is this:
-Credit card readers will all have NFD sensors installed on them.
-Payment will be made by activating a payment app and then passing your phone over the NFD sensor. A digital signature will then be requested by your phone. This signature can take the form of a security question, fingerprint, PIN code, etc.
-A digital receipt is transferred to your phone

A system similar to the one that I describe above would make tracking expenses very easy. You would have digital access to not only how much you spend at a given store, but exactly what you purchased. Budgeting would be extremely simple because the daily input of data that a good budget requires would be almost completely automated. You would suddenly be able to see exactly what your shoe addiction costs.

Yes, there are security concerns to consider with a mobile payment system. The company (hopefully mine ) that ultimately creates the mobile payment system that we all use, will need to consider everything from your far-fetched mugging scene, to the more realistic possibility that your entire purchasing history/location/habits could be packaged and sold.

Fear is no bedfellow of innovation.
izyreal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 10:33 AM   #47
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keane16 View Post
Because we were talking about settling patents. KnightWRX was saying that Apple was stalling. I gave proof of recent cross licence agreements, and showed how Samsung do not want to settle. I merely pointed out to him - as he was bashing Apple, again... - that people would've gotten crazy had an Apple exec made that statement to the media regarding Apple's plans.

Jobs' views are now irrelevant. He has sadly passed and has no power on decision making. His personal views made to his biographer can in no way be taken as Apple's word. You really believe the board would've let Apple spend all their money on 'destroying Android'. They'd have kicked him to the curb if he tried. This isn't conkers in the school yard - these are multi-billion dollar businesses on the line.
It's irrelevant what the board would and would not do. The comment was made to the media - a criteria you had set yourself in your comment. You can try and backpeddle/move the goalpost as much as you want. And given his prominence at Apple - his word was very much "Apple's".

But you're right - and it's something I've said - he never would have succeeded because the board would have kicked him out before he spent every dime (money that wasn't even his to spend).

I still think you are misguided when it comes to Knight though. He doesn't hate Apple. And as far as I can tell - he's not bashing them either. But you can read into his comments however you want regardless of his intentions.
samcraig is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 11:04 AM   #48
Keane16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
It's irrelevant what the board would and would not do. The comment was made to the media - a criteria you had set yourself in your comment. You can try and backpeddle/move the goalpost as much as you want. And given his prominence at Apple - his word was very much "Apple's".

But you're right - and it's something I've said - he never would have succeeded because the board would have kicked him out before he spent every dime (money that wasn't even his to spend).

I still think you are misguided when it comes to Knight though. He doesn't hate Apple. And as far as I can tell - he's not bashing them either. But you can read into his comments however you want regardless of his intentions.
I'm not backpeddling. In fact I'll go forward, I'll add that a biographer is not the media. But it's a moot point. I'm talking about a companies public statement. You're mentioning a single mans quote. In my eyes they can't be the same thing, but in yours they are. No need to go further. Not gonna get either of us anywhere.

Fully agree. It's crazy people think that he actually would've managed to spend that kind of money. I'm sure he was enormously worked up when he said that. We're all guilty of saying things in the heat of the moment. But when you're top dog in your field, what you say will be spun out forever and a day. Especially when it comes to people's favourite XXXXXXXX (car brand/sports team/tech gadget etc).

Meh, like he told me, best to avoid him. I have no time for the crazies on the internet (had some spare time this afternoon so thought I'd comment - back to scanning the articles for me). Although I'm still chuckling at "Apple is allergic to competition". Classic.
Keane16 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 11:05 AM   #49
ixodes
macrumors 601
 
ixodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pacific Coast, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Hebrew View Post
I wish apple would use fingerprint readers on their MBP.
For some reason Apple has been adverse to this for quite some time. For years I've enjoyed the speed and convenience of a very accurate fingerprint reader on all of my ThinkPads.

It's just like Apple's refusal to offer build in 3G connectivity. A feature that has been offered by many laptop makers. It's as though Apple refuses out of spite, all because they cannot claim they invented it.
__________________
An Ultra Fast Mac Is...My Favorite
ixodes is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 11:16 AM   #50
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keane16 View Post
Ad hominems - HA! Read the other 98% of my post. Deary me, blinkers man, take them off and read what I wrote.

Your entire argument was picked apart and that's how you repond?
Yes, because if you start with an insult, I don't even bother reading the rest of your post. Like you just did a 2nd time. And I just did a 2nd time, by not reading the rest of this 2nd post.


Chill man, drop the insults, and then we can discuss.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fingerprint technology under fire only after Apple introduces their 5S? Serelus iPhone 6 Sep 20, 2013 05:40 PM
Apple Hiring Software Engineer for AuthenTec Fingerprint Sensor Team in Florida MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 70 Jun 13, 2013 07:27 AM
AuthenTec Said to Cut Off Non-Apple Fingerprint Sensor Customers in 2013 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 118 Mar 12, 2013 10:00 PM
Urgency in Apple's Talks with AuthenTec Hints at Rapid Adoption of Fingerprint Scanning Technology MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 210 Oct 24, 2012 01:42 PM
Apple to Buy Mobile Security Company AuthenTec for $356 Million MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 143 Sep 26, 2012 10:45 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC