Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Samsung != Apple (Score 1) 123

I had a 3 Gen iPod Touch 'go out of support' for new iOS versions less than a year after I bought it. I shouldn't be penalized that way for buying an Apple product late in the period when it is being foisted off on the market as 'current.' Incidentally that iPod is probably the last Apple hardware I will ever buy. There were two iPods that I bought before it.

Let's look at your claim: You had a iPod Touch 3rd gen. It was released Sept 9, 2009 and discontinued Sept 1, 2010 when the iPod Touch 4th gen was released. It started out with iOS 3.1.1 (July 2009) and could be updated to 5.1.1 (May 2012). For only one year was your model "current". The OS was updated for almost 2 years after it was discontinued. I'd have to say your claim is shakyt. For your claim to make sense you would have to buy it after May 2011 in which the current model would be the 4th gen.

Comment Re:My experience with Infosys (Score 1) 340

If your contract is for 12 DBAs or 12 Java programmers, then I'd expect that on day 1, all your personnel are trained/have experience in whatever the contract says. In my experience, only 1 of 12 had the skills that they contract required. Whereas our company actually had the personnel with the skills that the contract required. Sure some of our people had differing amounts of experience (5-10 years vs 2-3 years) but everyone had their certifications and some experience.

Comment Re:Antitrust... (Score 1) 222

Refusing to sell a competitor's product in order to push their own is anti-competitive. After all, Microsoft was just packaging the browser with the OS; that's even more innocuous, isn't it?

If that's all they were doing, there wouldn't be much of a problem. But people forget all the other tactics that MS did. Against Netscape, MS specifically told OEMs that they would raise their license fees with them if they installed Netscape browsers. OEMs on thin margins couldn't afford it even though it helped their customers. Against, Sun's Java they hinted to Intel that if Intel released a JVM optimized for Intel x86 architecture, MS would "favor" AMD in their next version of Windows.

Compare this to Amazon: They are not going to sell competitor's products which they are under no obligation to sell. If Amazon interfered with Apple or Google selling to others then you might have more of an argument.

Comment Re:My experience with Infosys (Score 1) 340

I didn't deal with the negotiations but was told we offered our old rate but was turned down. So the client was focused more on the bottom line than productivity/effectiveness. It may also have hindered them to get the Infosys contract in many ways; it's hard to justify to upper management that you need more money for a contract when you paid so little in the past for the same contract from a different vendor.

Comment My experience with Infosys (Score 5, Interesting) 340

Here's my experience with Infosys: Their tactic is to always be the lowest bidder. When they get the contract, the staff they send generally is untrained with many of them learning the skills they need on the job on the client's dime. We had a contract with a client and were replaced by Infosys. So we had to hand over all of our functions to them; it was apparent that only one person in a team of 12 had the skills to do the job. After a year, the client fired them and came to us. But they wanted Infosys rates; we declined.

Comment Re:Antitrust... (Score 1) 222

Having a monopoly wasn't the problem of Microsoft. It was abusing their monopoly against competitors namely Sun and Netscape through a number of tactics including interfering with their business relationships with 3rd parties. In this case, Amazon is simply refusing to sell a competitor's product. It is loss of sales for them but not anywhere near what MS did.

Comment Re:Unauthorized teardown (Score 1) 362

Well, in hindsight I imagine that I'd feel pretty dumb giving a piece of hardware intended to give developers a head start on producing software to a company best known for dismantling hardware...

I suppose Apple expected people will live up to their word.

But as for giving a competitor a head start... that doesn't matter much to me, and I doubt it matters much to Apple.

You don't think the same company that is suing Samsung would care about secrecy? This is Apple we are talking about, right? Jobs is no longer in charge but secrecy is still part of who they are.

Ideas are easy. Bringing an idea to market is the hard part. Apple's use of these NDA's (partcularly after the already announced the product) are more about controlling the marketing message around a product than about preventing competitors from seeing what they're doing.

I don't know for sure if the hardware in the AppleTV will be the final hardware. For example, Apple can release a different version of the A8 chip. There is some useful information a competitor in such changes.

Comment Re:Plausible speculation, Nevertheless, speculatio (Score 1) 362

So? Developer units for Google Glass from Google are 100% the property of the developer.

Apple is not Google. That's your terrible assumption.

You keep repeating "developer unit" like that has some meaning not proven. You are speculating lots.

So what you're saying is you don't understand what a developer unit is. But you feel free in voicing your opinion about it. Again, your assumptions.

I've made no assumptions, false or otherwise.

This is what you said above even though I wasn't speaking to you:

And Developer units of Google Glass were paid property of the developer. You are making assumptions not supported by the facts.

No one is talking about Google. You brought that up. These are Apple kits but you complained I was making assumptions? Your assumption: Apple kits are the same as Google.

You, speculating that there was an NDA.

Your assumption: There is no NDA. You clearly here have speculated that a developer kit from Apple has no NDA. Anyone who has worked with Apple dev kits before should know that there is NDA. Anyone who has worked with pre-release hardware generally knows there are NDAs.

If you spent less time lying to make up false assumptions on my part, you'd have less assumptions by me to disprove.

iFixit themselves admitted their unit was a developer unit from Apple. They admitted they disassembled the AppleTV acknowledging there were risks. I supplied the blog link from iFixit where they themselves discuss this. They knew they going to get in trouble for something. Now what was that something? Could it be violating an NDA or they didn't pay their taxes . Yet you didn't click on it but am calling me a liar instead of taking a few seconds to click on a link.

Nope. But feel free to lie some more, it helps distract yourself from your own false assumptions and speculation.

Feel free to post some facts. You have yet to provide a single one but resort to call other people names.

Comment Re:Antitrust... (Score 1) 222

Amazon has to do more than simply not sell their competitor's devices. Their competitors will have to prove that they were harmed in some way. While Apple and Google might lose some sales, consumers can still get them by going to their Target, Walmart, etc. So only Amazon is hurting themselves by losing many more sales.

Comment Re:Plausible speculation, Nevertheless, speculatio (Score 1) 362

I'm not speculating anything.

Again, can you scroll up? Can you read the article? Can you read the blog from iFixit? They all say the same thing: It was a developer unit from Apple. The AppleTV 4th gen is not for sale to the public yet so Apple is the really the only source for the unit.

Your false dichotomy asserts that if I want to see evidence from you to prove your assumption, that I must believe the opposite. That's a dangerous (and stupid) logic.

I have to prove your false assumption and disprove my own. All the while you are not accepting the word of iFixit that they had a developer unit. In your world a company that gives out presale developer units to developers do not normally have them sign NDAs. Do I have that right?

Comment Re:Plausible speculation, Nevertheless, speculatio (Score 1) 362

And Developer units of Google Glass were paid property of the developer. You are making assumptions not supported by the facts.

Can you read the thread above? iFixit has already admitted that it was a developer unit that came from Apple. I'm not assuming anything when iFixit admits it was a developer unit. They didn't buy it as it is not on sale. They didn't "get it from a friend."

You, speculating that there was an NDA.

And you are speculating that Apple would hand out hardware before the sale date to developers without an NDA. I'm not sure what world you live in.

All science is either physics or stamp collecting. -- Ernest Rutherford