Some people just are not interested in Mac Pro threads...
My point wasn't the interest in the Mac Pro threads, it was the difference in maturity.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Motorola Wins Preliminary Injunction, Could Bar Sales of iPhone and 3G iPad in Europe [Updated x2]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My point wasn't the interest in the Mac Pro threads, it was the difference in maturity.
Page 1 does have a life of its own. Seriously though, you do not see certain users EVER in a Mac Pro thread off of Page 1.
The usual "Mac Pro is dead or guess it is not" does not come into play.
The hardware talk itself has little to get riled up over. Unless the number of PCI Express lanes is your sort of thing...
We need a Forum Spy drinking game. It would work well in Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion.
I really hope that all of these companies find that they are following the path of legal mutual assured destruction - and realize this is all just nonsense, and go back to creating great products. I agree there is a reason for patents and trademarks, but if this was how things were done 30 years ago, the computer industry would have never taken off. Sure there were lawsuits, but not even close to the fevered pitch we are seeing now.
So I don't rejoice when someone wins or loses these court cases, I just think about how it would be nice to go back to a time when these types of cases were not so frequent or high profile.
So I don't rejoice when someone wins or loses these court cases, I just think about how it would be nice to go back to a time when these types of cases were not so frequent or high profile.
You mean that LTD doesn't go into the Mac Pro forum and tell the pro users that their market doesn't matter and that Apple will kill the Mac Pro because it doesn't generate enough profit? Funny he does that in all of the page one threads.
Maybe if it is the Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion forum but otherwise, no.You mean that LTD doesn't go into the Mac Pro forum and tell the pro users that their market doesn't matter and that Apple will kill the Mac Pro because it doesn't generate enough profit? Funny he does that in all of the page one threads.
Seriously I have tried so, so hard to buy into the tablet thing. I end up needed a desktop OS anyways. The form factor is not the problem. My phone causes me enough grief to have me crawling back to my desktop to know a tablet is just a bad way to burn my money. The marketing makes me feel ill enough as it is.
I think that a tablet that had the power of a notebook would be more useful for some people, and for most work wise. I find the iPad to be slow-even on wifi. It has it's good points for some things, but IMHO, it's even close to being a notebook replacement. But in all fairness, it was never marketed to be. It is an additional device, to complement what you already have. Personally, I think the Transformer style of tablet has merit too. Take that, running Windows 8, with an Intel processor and you should have the power you are looking for with the advantages of a tablet.
For me, I love the tablet for reading news before going to bed, I can read it in bed. Just consumption of media before bedtime. Much more comfortable than sitting at my desk.
It is not really the power of the tablet that is lacking. It is just the behavior of web pages. I cannot get some downloads to work on my phone even with the Flash plug-in enabled. I end up needing a dedicated keyboard too. So we are back at just getting a notebook.
h.264 and external displays is what is killing my Late 2007 Macbook. I would kill for hardware accelerated playback and HDMI output.
I use my phone for that.
Software sales don't make up the large majority of Apples profit, its actually a very small segment. Apple uses its software to reenforce hardware sales. ( Along with iTunes music, books, Movies/TV Media )
For one you can only use their software on Mac devices whether computer or mobile. You might have a point if you could easily or legally install software on non-apple hardware. ( Talking mostly non-tech users )
We can see this with how they do pricing of software and even other areas such as music.
Prices on their software are drastically reduced since the implementation of the Mac OSX App store.
Operating system upgrades reduced to $30.00, FCP reduced to $300.00, Logic Pro reduced from $499.00 to $199.00
They made iLife as separate downloads from the iLife suite to cheaper prices.
These are all incentives to by Apple products which are primarily hardware.
Even though Apple makes most of their money through hardware, software is still just as or more important then hardware. Its just that hardware is the main driving force behind Apple and how they make most of their money.
Edit: Well maybe one exception is using iTunes on Windows to support iPhones & iPods. You don't have to use a Mac to use iTunes.
Last edited:
I seem to recall Samsung said they only did this because of the suits from Apple. Before that they had no interest in a legal battle as they've been a major component supplier for Apple. Apple and Samsung have had a lot more design similarity in a few phone models in the past than people realize. They even had a couple touch screen models around the time of the original iphone.
Yep- Samsung stated that they had desire to sue Apple despite them infringing on their telecommunications patent since the original iPhone since they didn't want to mess up their part supply contract.
Even if you look at the iPad/Galaxy Tab- this Samsung picture frame was released in 2006:
It has a centered screen, a black border and a flat back. Shouldn't Samsung be the one suing Apple over design?
Wonder what's up with this?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/apple-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-no-worse-a-patent-troll/
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/apple-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-no-worse-a-patent-troll/
The bond is for a PRELIMINARY injunction so why Motorola would have to wait the full trial?
Not at all, even Apple is not using the patent exhaustion card.
Most of us (99.9% at a guess), have no useful understanding of the issues at hand and yet so much bile and assertive rubbish is batted between people for no reason. I find these news items and responses to be by far the most bizarre that I come across.
So we'll see a quadrupled demand of Gtabs around the world then too - correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you Apple are winning all these battles 'round the world, right?
Who cares if its old? Fact is, Apple would not have the most popular phone on the planet if it weren't for its 3G capabilities. Once more, Apple chose not to make a binding deal. They are to blame.
/end rant
Imo. the court is making consumers a service by removing stolen products from the market. Apple is blatantly copying Motorolas technology.
/end sarcasm
/end whine
Apple is the kid here, not wanting to pay. F in FRAND does not stand for FREE - it stand for Fair.
As for the patent, it means: Apple can't sell its products - heck, wouldn't even have a product to begin with - without Moto's paid consent.
Its not as impressive now that you can't throw up 16 bn, is it? As for Apple being childish, refusing to pay (again) - shocker.
For now...
Which doesn't change the simple fact that Apple would be nothing without Moto's patent, and that Apple should pay instead of blatantly stealing.
Again, what are you talking about? What I wrote wasn't about your post at all, and your post doesn't involve anything I wrote either. I wasn't trying to ignore you, it just is something irrelevant to what you wrote.
As opposed to the immature Apple fanbois, who never gloated as if they personally triumphed when the initial rulings went in favor of Apple?
Well, lets ask you. If LTD's got an answer, so do you; but an opposing one. Wanna start?
Harumph! Only the young think that "old" just means "dusty". Old can also mean something that's been tested by time and survived.
It takes time to test the validity of new patents, which is why they're good for injunctions meant only to delay. Older patents are more powerful, especially for requesting royalties, because they've already been tested and used that way for years.
Motorola is not trying to prevent Apple from ever selling the iPhone. They are asking for payment for a tested patent that is apparently necessary for the device to operate.
Apple tries to prevent its competition from selling their phones at all. They often use new and untested UI patents which are pretty, but not necessary for a device to operate.
It takes time to test the validity of new patents, which is why they're good for injunctions meant only to delay. Older patents are more powerful, especially for requesting royalties, because they've already been tested and used that way for years.
Motorola is not trying to prevent Apple from ever selling the iPhone. They are asking for payment for a tested patent that is apparently necessary for the device to operate.
Apple tries to prevent its competition from selling their phones at all. They often use new and untested UI patents which are pretty, but not necessary for a device to operate.
The "Special Terms" they wanted consisted primarily of the ability not to forego their right to contest the validity of the patent. Supposedly the issue came up because Apple became concerned that Motorola was instructing licensees of the patents not to sell chips to Apple that they could use in their phones. This would be discriminatory. Apple refused to acknowledge past infringement to protect their ability to fight this. What it has done, however, is allow Motorola Mobility to nullify a normal FRAND defense.
So, Apple refused to play by the rules and now has to pay. Their motivation does not matter, their actions do. And BTW, TechCrunch reported that Apple officially entered patent trolling business by investing in and "selling" patents to patent troll named Digitude Innovations which is now using these patents to sue RIM, HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sony, Amazon, and Nokia. Nobody should be surprised that the whole industry hates Apple.
Last edited:
Karma's a bitch, ain't it apple?
Imagine McDonalds sues Burger King citing that the Whopper is a direct copy of the Big Mac.
Apple is on a complete sue-frenzy over some ridiculous claims. Well, they didn't think that those ridiculous claims can also bite their ass as well.
Imagine McDonalds sues Burger King citing that the Whopper is a direct copy of the Big Mac.
Apple is on a complete sue-frenzy over some ridiculous claims. Well, they didn't think that those ridiculous claims can also bite their ass as well.
