That's because they are extortionate: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-egCdCQfOYgY/T3dLa1LjTrI/AAAAAAAAAX4/mIiryUnYncE/s1600/MMI%2B%2527RAND%2527%2Boffer%2BH.264.png

I know this may come as a shock, but the majority of the desktop market is not developers (though no doubt an appreciable percentage of Linux desktop users is, which is why his view is so skewed). What killed Linux as a desktop OS is probably a very complicated and nuanced confluence of factors, but I think Microsoft's embedded position and anticompetitive tactics have more to do with it than the preferences of server developers, as does the lack of grandma-compliant plug and play and usability.

That said, looking at things another way, as we move into device-based computing, GNU/Linux by way of Android is very competitive on the palmtop, if not the desktop, in the same way that Mach/BSD is by way of Darwin/iOS.

...especially if the "desktop" is also the "palmtop." Which I think it is. (Think Android and iOS, GNU/Linux and BSD/Mach).

Apple is failing? Geez, what would success look like?

I disagree--I think their end game is to make sure their competitors innovate instead of slavishly replicating the look and feel that they designed. Windows 8's Metro interface and Palm's webOS interface both demonstrate that it's possible, with a little imagination, to attack this market with new ideas. Samsung needs to get up off their ass and learn how to macroinnovate.

And it will continue to get upvoted by ignorant sensationalists.

The prior art I am a bit skeptical of. It seems to cover screen layout, but doesn't get into the dynamics of the UI, where Apple's asserting patents like the rubber band scrolling and the multitouch gestures: the LG Prada had scrollbars and was still using a desktop-based UI paradigm. I think ground-up multitouch on mobile is really what Apple established at a most fundamental level.

The reason Samsung is outselling Apple in the phone market, in Apple's view, is because they ripped off UI/UX elements from Apple. So, yeah, it's a little of both--protecting their IP, and protecting their market share.

What an interesting chart. The R&D ROI for AAPL is astounding given what Samsung, RIM, and Nokia have invested versus their relative earnings. I guess a lesson here is, it's not QUANTITY of R&D investment so much as QUALITY.

That's such a stupid take. I can understand hating Apple and their litigiousness, but you're letting hatred completely cloud your vision--you are in a Reality Distortion Field of your own.

Putting aside their insane profit share, margins, market capitalization, and other numbers, Apple CREATED the modern touch screen smartphone market. It wasn't there until iPhone. "Smartphone" users were using Treos and Blackberrys before 2007. I'll wait for you to finish talking about the LG Prada now... OK, so the passing physical resemblance there would only deceive you until you used each device. Apple shipped with a ground-up multi-touch-based OS. There were no scroll bars or other KVM-paradigm derivative leftovers--they re-thought the paradigm, innovated, and licensed technologies to bring a new HCI/UX vision to the market. Integrating threads that pre-existed and packaging them in a way that represented something new, and established a market does count as innovation, whatever your prejudices against Apple are. And even though others have now taken this paradigm and either ripped it off (Samsung) or innovated in new directions (Palm webOS, Microsoft Metro), Apple is still "competing" just fine, obliterating the competition in terms of profit share while continuing to maintain premium margins. Haters gonna hate, but they CAN and DO compete.

They didn't invent the MP3 player either, but no one ever figured out how to "compete" with them there, and it wasn't due to lawsuits, it was because Apple was better at creating and marketing a solution

We are most certainly NOT a democracy, we are a democratic republic, and we have always gone against public will when it was wrong (Jim Crow might still be in effect in the South if antidemocratic actions were strictly verboten).

The armature of all modern biological science on a biology test?! Say it ain't so!

ORLY? Given how prepared Apple's counsel has been in this case (particularly versus the Samsung clusterfuck) I will take them at their word when they say they timed out the witnesses. 10-12 minutes per witness is reasonable if they have specific nuggets of testimony to extract. The objections? Not so much.

C'mon. Trade dress. It's a sum of may parts that may sound ridiculous individually. Samsung even copied the packaging and the freaking charger here.

Sloppy focus doesn't even make sense in the MacOS metaphor where the active window's toolbar is always at the top of the screen (IMO).