Was a line-by-line analysis really necessary?
Someone apart from me found it amusing, Phew!
The Tim Cook memo: line by line
251–260 of 309 posts
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Windows CE 'Pocket PC' handhelds had retracting soft keyboards 10+ years ago. Handspring Treos were dedicated touchscreen-based phone-PDA hybrids not much later. PalmOS had grids of icons for its screens from day one. Apple's primary innovation wasn't technical, it was marketing. They tied a few pre-existing ideas together slightly better, made them more shiny and used the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field to convi…
Those prior things you speak of were absolutely terrible. I had all those devices and they sucked compared to the iPhone. I think that those "innovations" seem simple now in hindsight, but why didn't any of the companies previously making smart phones or PDAs (Palm, Windows CE, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc) come up with something that not only the hardcore nerds would actually want to use? I really don't think it was just m…
> Those prior things you speak of were absolutely terrible. I had all those devices and they sucked compared to the iPhone.
One of the reasons they sucked, was because they had to...
They were done 2, 5, 10, 20 years before the iPhone, iPad, etc came out... When we had CPUs, screens, drives, etc, that were inferior and could not handle the same load or work that modern hardware does.
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#253So its fine for Samsung to copy Apple? But when Samwer Bros copy - there is a huge uproar. You guys should know how it feels when your products are copied.
I find this contradiction quite curious. I think it is because their position is ideological, not logical. Samwer is evil. Copying another startups look is evil. Google is good (remember their slogan: "Do no evil." how could they be evil?) Apple is bad- and has been forever. The RIAA and MPAA are evil. So, sometimes copying is good when google does it, but its bad when the samwers do it, and of course they will trump…
Well, it is partially also that there are many people with different opinions. You seem to assume that most people here hold all the views expressed by the entire community.
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#254Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart. "These are not patents on innovation, they’re patents on simple ideas and features that you didn’t even think of first but you were the first to patent." Then the magical aspect of patent law called "prior art" would com…
Erm, I was using an Orange-branded HTC with a big touch screen and mobile internet long before the iPhone came along.
That was actually much more functional than the iPhone, but harder to use (required a stylus) and in comparison with the iPhone it was ugly.
That Windows Mobile device replaced a Nokia phone and an a Palm V (with internet).
At the same time my colleague on Helpdesk were using Microsoft Tablet PCs running XP to do everything (for two hours).
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#255I don't think this is about money. Apple has enough money. This is about destroying the competition - in particular, Android. I believe Steve Jobs wasn't shy about it, either: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then make the stink when they do. Honestly, as an Apple "fan" who has no plan to switch from MacBook/OSX/iPhone/iPad, if they decide to just sue others for infringing one or to non-important patents I'll stop using their products and devote my time renouncing them. But that's not happening, and I seriously doubt that would ever happen. We all "know" that Samsung copied Apple in almost every thing. Home screen icons,…
The purpose of the patent system is not to "teach Samsung a lesson". The purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation. Apple made hundreds of billions of dollars even with Samsung copying them . If the patent system disappeared Apple would still make hundreds of billions of dollars, thus they would still have spent billions on R&D without the current patent system . If you'll notice the jury also found tha…
Doesn't this whole case "encourage" Samsung to innovate, rather than copy?
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#257How can we make these threads not be like comp.sys.mac.advocacy?
Wait for ten years. If that doesn't work, twenty. In that much time, something is bound to change.
(This may sound impractical, but it's the approach I'm taking. And, hey, it already worked for discussions involving Microsoft.)
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#258Was a line-by-line analysis really necessary?
Line-by-line flames are seldom necessary, but are often fine examples of their literary genre.
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was nothing obvious about the iPhone, otherwise Apple's competitors, who had been in the phone industry for years, would have done it already. Hell, they and much of the "experts" spent the 6 months between announcement and shipping of the iPhone claiming it was going to be a total failure. So, not only was it not obvious, even after it had been revealed, people claimed that it was a bad idea and would be a fai…
"Obvious" is a relative term. What is obvious to an adult may not be obvious to a 2-year-old. Likewise, to many engineers the iPhone was obvious. To many of the CEO's heading large cell phone companies? Not so obvious.
Many people like to talk up things like the iPhone as "betting the company", maybe rather than being idiots, these cell phone CEOs realised that the easiest way to make money was to milk their mostly captive audience for every cent they could? Why risk something new? And why does every narrative about the iPhone have to involve everyone else being idiots and Steve Jobs and (via some associative magical thinking) iPhone owners being so clever and tasteful. It's all a bit transparent.
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was nothing obvious about the iPhone, otherwise Apple's competitors, who had been in the phone industry for years, would have done it already. Hell, they and much of the "experts" spent the 6 months between announcement and shipping of the iPhone claiming it was going to be a total failure. So, not only was it not obvious, even after it had been revealed, people claimed that it was a bad idea and would be a fai…
"Obvious" is a relative term. What is obvious to an adult may not be obvious to a 2-year-old. Likewise, to many engineers the iPhone was obvious. To many of the CEO's heading large cell phone companies? Not so obvious.
If the iPhone was obvious to many engineers, why did none of them develop a similar product? Why did Google's Android team develop an operating system that resembled a Blackberry, only to transition to something that closer resembled an iPhone after the iPhone's launch?