Well, I for 1 have hated apple long before they were top dog. How many macs get sold without a forced copy of osx on them?
As far as sitting on patents, how much more anti-competitive could you be? Back to the marketing and lemmings thing. People don't buy and promote others to buy something because it's the best, they do it because it satisfied they're needs and therefore they need not look further for a solution, fine. Just like buying cheap products from china, apple users only perceive the short term benefits while oblivious to the underlying forces and thus the potential peril down the road from putting 1 company in control of everything. Proof of this lack of intelligence or interest in understanding things is the mac versus pc argument when mac is a (albeit cosmetically pleasing yet older tech & over priced) pc while the real argument is windows versus osx versus *nix but that point is lost on apple evangelists who tout "it just works" mantra. Personally I don't give a crap who you buy your pc's from or how little you really know about technology, until your sanctimonious ignorance has the potential to limit the market to single vendor in control of both the hardware and software thus leaving one size fits all choices for the rest of us. That IS the potential with apple BECAUSE they are convincing Joe consumer, not on technical merit, but on MARKETING HYPE to drink the kool aid and trust apple to do it all while JC is too lazy or clueless to ask just what are they sacrificing by relinquishing control to apple. As I always say, an apple dominated market would truly be a step back to the eighty's and true blue ibm's way of doing things. Difference then was Compaq cracking BIOS and a competition supplying the OS, leading to a healthy competative market in wintel solutions, something you'll never see happen to Macs. It's not competition when I have to choose my OS based on hardware bundling. Forgive the long nature of this post, the likely typos, and my not restating the obvious at every point since I chose to do this from my android phone rather than power up my netbook. On Apr 5, 2012 10:13 AM, "Anthony Q. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: > So exactly what choice has been lost? I've seen so many different Android > tablets over the past year that they can't be counted. Where exactly is the > hurt to consumers? Even their business partners compete against them. > Every product apple makes has direct competition from another maker. And > not just one, either, several. > > It just en vogue to hate the guy on top. MS was way worse than this...not > licensing a patent that probably didn't protect much anyway is way less > damaging than forcing every PC sold to have a copy of Windows installed. > > On 4/5/2012 12:39 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: > >> And the competition did--and was largely winning. Now, instead of >> competing >> fairly and letting the market--and customers--decide based on the actual >> merits of the available offerings, Apple has chosen to try remove those >> options from the market entirely by leveraging their patent portfolio. I >> am >> of the strong opinion that Apple's patents are mostly invalid under >> current >> copyright law either due to prior art or the obviousness of them. >> >> Apple's refusal to license or cross-license is counter to the way these >> are >> normally handled. Normally, one company will sue, the other party >> countersues, they wait for the first ruling which is usually not a >> complete >> win for either party, then they sign a licensing or cross-licensing >> agreement with or without a corresponding payment arrangement based on >> their >> new respective post-judgment positions. Apple has chosen to buck that >> normal >> way of doing business with the sole intention of eliminating any >> competition. That's absolutely their right, but it's detrimental to the >> market and detrimental to consumers, and that's why they are--with good >> reason--hated by many who follow their behavior. >> >> It's obvious you feel that they have simply chosen not to tap that source >> of >> revenue, when I think most would agree that their true intentions are far >> more malicious. Again, it's their right. You stated that Apple is being >> criticized unfairly, but it's perfectly reasonable to dislike an >> organization who chooses to do business in that way--technically legal or >> not. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: >> hardware-bounces@lists.**hardwaregroup.com<[email protected]> >> [mailto:hardware-bounces@**lists.hardwaregroup.com<[email protected]>] >> On Behalf Of Anthony Q. >> Martin >> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:59 AM >> To: [email protected].**com <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV >> >> A company has no obligation to ensure competition. That's the >> competition's >> job. Also, the decision to license a patent can be for income reasons, >> nothing at all wrong with that. But if you don't need that source of >> income, >> then why license? >> >> On 4/5/2012 10:51 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: >> >>> I disagree. It isn't a position of money, it's a genuine desire to >>> remove choice that customers clearly want. I'm sure you've seen the >>> references to "thermonuclear war." >>> >>> The patent system is stupid, software patents especially so, but I >>> don't view licensing them for a reasonable fee as anywhere in the same >>> ballpark as refusing to license them entirely so as to prevent your >>> competition from entering the marketplace (or driving them out). >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: >>> hardware-bounces@lists.**hardwaregroup.com<[email protected]> >>> [mailto:hardware-bounces@**lists.hardwaregroup.com<[email protected]>] >>> On Behalf Of Anthony Q. >>> Martin >>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:27 AM >>> To: [email protected].**com<[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV >>> >>> I'm sure they figure they have no need to derive income from licensing >>> patents with all that money in the bank...that is a situation dictated >>> simply by how rich they are. MS, on the other hand, likes to derive >>> income from licensing patents, which creates a situation where they >>> profit off the sale of Android phones. Frankly, I'm not sure which is >>> more distasteful. >>> >>> On 4/5/2012 10:14 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: >>> >>>> Oh, Apple isn't alone--this is used in a lot of markets. However, >>>> Apple is unique in that they flat out refuse to license those >>>> patents--at any >>>> >>> price. >>> >>>> They're not interested in competing; they want to prevent their >>>> >>> competitors >>> >>>> from being able to offer an alternative at all. That is what makes >>>> them a special kind of patent troll. >>>> >>>> Their competitors are now doing it too (Samsung and their FRAND >>>> patents >>>> >>> come >>> >>>> to mind)--but this is only in response to Apple's aggression. They >>>> were perfectly content to let the market decide. When the market made >>>> it clear that people preferred the choice and lower-cost options that >>>> Android provided, Apple decided that rather than provide customers >>>> what they >>>> >>> clearly >>> >>>> wanted, they would remove the options completely. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, the patent situation will become worse, not better. >>>> >>> Recently >>> >>>> passed "reform" changes it from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file >>>> >>> system. >>> >>>> Prior art no longer matters unless it can be proven that a party >>>> willfully filed a patent when they knew prior art existed. Congress >>>> missed the opportunity to rework software patents entirely, which is >>>> very >>>> >>> unfortunate. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: >>>> hardware-bounces@lists.**hardwaregroup.com<[email protected]> >>>> [mailto:hardware-bounces@**lists.hardwaregroup.com<[email protected]>] >>>> On Behalf Of Anthony Q. >>>> Martin >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:02 AM >>>> To: [email protected].**com<[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV >>>> >>>> It's not just Apple using the patent system to hinder competition. >>>> Lot of other companies are doing this too. I agree that this sucks, >>>> too. >>>> But I place a lot of the blame for this on the fact that patents are >>>> being granted for things they shouldn't be given for. Solve that >>>> problem and you'll see a lot of this crap dying out. >>>> >>>> On 4/5/2012 9:49 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: >>>> >>>>> While I'm no fan of Apple, Apple products, or typical smug air of >>>>> superiority and advocacy most Apple customers seem to have, I really >>>>> find their abuse of the patent system far more disturbing. They >>>>> submit >>>>> >>>> requests >>> >>>> for, and receive (thanks to the braindead USPTO) patents for >>>>> >>>> "innovations" >>> >>>> with clear evidence of prior art or are obvious advancements, then >>>>> use >>>>> >>>> those >>>> >>>>> patents to stifle the now-surging competition. They flat out refuse >>>>> to license patents that shouldn't have been issued in the first >>>>> place. They don't want to compete on the market--because they're now >>>>> losing the >>>>> >>>> market >>> >>>> share battle. Apple, the company--like most organizations, but >>>>> especially so--is an evil institution that has done much to damage >>>>> customer choice >>>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>>> real innovation, rather than foster it as so many of their >>>>> supporters >>>>> >>>> would >>>> >>>>> have you believe. Those are the people that are lemmings. For the >>>>> record, Google is evil too, but for different reasons. >>>>> >>>>> I applaud Apple for one thing--giving the smartphone market a kick >>>>> in the ass. The iPhone didn't really do anything new, but it was >>>>> clearly a >>>>> >>>> superior >>>> >>>>> implementation at the time of release. Apple leveraged the >>>>> then-available technology to make a device that was thinner, faster, >>>>> and flashier than >>>>> >>>> what >>>> >>>>> was available at the time. >>>>> >>>>> I have an iPhone for work. It's okay for what it does, and the >>>>> >>>> screen--while >>>> >>>>> positively dull compared to AMOLED alternatives--offers exceptional >>>>> resolution and clarity. Where it is clearly inferior, however, is >>>>> the interface--it frankly hasn't materially changed since its >>>>> initial release >>>>> >>>> in >>>> >>>>> 2007, and therefore just feels very dated. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: >>>>> hardware-bounces@lists.**hardwaregroup.com<[email protected]> >>>>> [mailto:hardware-bounces@**lists.hardwaregroup.com<[email protected]>] >>>>> On Behalf Of Anthony >>>>> >>>> Q. >> >>> Martin >>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:17 AM >>>>> To: [email protected].**com<[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV >>>>> >>>>> I only champion Apple when the criticism raised is just unfair. >>>>> They >>>>> >>>> have >>> >>>> always had competition in the market place and you cannot blame >>>>> them, or people who buy their stuff, (whom you are willing to refer >>>>> to as idiots simply because they make their own decisions) for the >>>>> competitions apparently lack of success. Geez. >>>>> >>>>> On 4/4/2012 8:01 PM, Thane Sherrington wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> At 05:17 PM 04/04/2012, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Who cares if it's a walled garden or not if it does what people >>>>>>> want to do. If people choose to buy stuff from iTunes, it can only >>>>>>> be because it servers their desires to do so. It's their money. >>>>>>> Saying they are idiots for doing so is just some weird form of sour >>>>>>> >>>>>> grapes. >> >>> It makes zero sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>> What makes zero sense to me how you champion Apple at every turn. >>>>>> I hope you have a ton of stock and/or were in Steve's will. >>>>>> >>>>>> T >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> >>
