I just couldn't disagree more. When I look at the things I do on my personal computer, I'll admit I spend a lot of time in my web browser, but there is so much I'm doing outside of it too. And it's not just because no one has made a website for that yet; it's that it just doesn't make sense.
I guess I haven't made myself clear then. When I'm talking about "apps" I mean the small applications that are running on mobile devices these days. I am not talking about full blown applications on your PC. This is also why I believe there is hardly any benefit in merging desktop-platforms with "app-devices".
I believe there is a difference between content-creation devices and content-consumption devices or, if you prefer, 'lean-back' and 'at your desk' devices.
There is a need for applications and we won't see Chrome-OS making PCs redundant any time soon.
There will probably be a market for high-end applications on your phone (navigation?, media player?) but honestly, how many of those are on your phone?
Instead of exposing themselves to rule by law again they decided to export the phone to a lawless country before publishing their theft.
Interesting. Rule of law is not necessarily related to freedom. Some of the most unfree regimes in European history had almost perfect rule of law. What is freedom of the press in one country is a crime in a different one. I don't recall theft being mentioned in the original article.
Wait, there is something seriously wrong about this...
Apple has a rather unusual model to sell its phone: From what we've heard Apple demands not only a one-time sales price from the operators (as most other mobile manufacturers do) but also a part of the monthly fee paid by iphone-customers. If Nokia licenses its patents for a percentage of the sales price (a common practice) they could also have asked for a percentage of the monthly fee (and justly so, if you ask me, as Apple just spreads out the sales price over a longer period of time). Apple on the other side might object to being the only GSM-manufacturer that has to pay a monthly fee.
German is a sovereign nation. It can do what ever the hell it likes to EU directives rules.
The general principle is that EC law is superior to national laws. For directives, the EU members can decide for themselves how they are going to implement them but usually there is a timeframe set and if they do not implement them in time there are consequences. Under specific circumstances directives can even be enforced directly if a member state fails to implement them in time.
Its not like any country follows all of them.
While not all members have implemented all directives (yet) that is not true for the majority and for the rest it is usually only a matter of time. Some members (e.g. UK) have negotiated exemptions from specific treaties but for those areas, where the treaties are in force, members cannot opt out of specific directives.
And some (Italy/Greece) seem to follow none.
Please provide evidence for this statement. Lately it has been discovered that Greece misreported financial data to be able to join the monetary union but I am unaware of a general failure to implement European regulations.
Also being one of the bigger money contributers to the EU they have some serious leverage.
The European Union has laws and procedures. Depending on the institution some members (the larger ones) have more influence than others but Germany cannot "bully" other member states. For those decisions, where all member states need to agree, there has been some haggling going on in the past but the Lisbon treaty should improve on that.
The patent system was not designed to create the latter and applying patents in this way borders on anti-competitive practices.
In my opinion many user interface patents should not be granted in the first place as they lack the necessary degree of inventive ingenuity. They are just anti-competitive 'land grabs'.
The difference is, that hardware patents can usually be worked around, as long as you can keep the user interface stable. Changing the user interface on the other hand means that the enduser must adapt, which he usually is reluctant to do. It is a form of monopoly.
Imagine, for comparison, that Alfred Vacheron had patented the steering wheel in 1894 and had been unwilling to license it to competitors. The outcome could have been that dozens of different ways to steer a car would have been invented and users would have troubles switching between manufactures. A serious hindrance to a competitive market.
Google does not build devices and is therefore harder to attack than a manufacturer/importer, who builds android devices. Google on the other hand might feel compelled to help HTC, if this is actually about Android.
Might be interesting to see how this plays out.
The next step would be to challenge the EU directive itself, but that is a lot more difficult as the implementation of human rights is much weaker at the European level than it is in Germany (or in any other European nation)
Yes, option 2 is costly but nobody has to use DRM in the first place.
"Falling in love makes smoking pot all day look like the ultimate in restraint." -- Dave Sim, author of Cerebrus.