Yeah-- last time, the company that copied Apple's stuff got away with it.

Which is why this time, they patented everything about the iPhone that they could, and why they are suing the shit out of the companies who still attempt to copy it.

Because the cell service providers are fucking greedy pigs-- which has been true since before the iPhone ever existed.

I think he might mean that a HDD sitting in a server and running 24/7 will likely last longer than a HDD that's in an external enclosure and gets physically moved around and powered on/off frequently.

> Is there any evidence that anyone has *ever* bought a Galaxy Tab when they meant to buy an iPad? Any?

Just this article. Excerpt:

"Samsung was forced to release a bunch of documents it had been keeping under seal that show the likeness between its products and Apple's. Examples outlined in the documents include comments from Samsung workers discussing similarities with Apple's products, and reports Samsung got from retailer Best Buy that Samsung tablets were being returned because customers thought they were getting iPads."

~Philly

Fuck off.

~Philly

What idiot modded this troll? It was right on point.

Windows and Office are cash cows, yes, but other than Ballmer's incompetence they're the biggest part of the problem-- everyone at Microsoft is afraid of doing something that might threaten Windows or Office. That's why Microsoft spent years trying to stuff bloated desktop Windows into tablets and phones-- and why they were made to like complete asses by Apple.

And XBox? Pfft. They bought their way into the video game market, plain and simple. IIRC they haven't yet reached the break-even point because of the billions they pissed away at the start. XBox is the last time you'll ever see them be able to pull that move, too. No more showing up late with a mediocre product and coming out on top only because they can outspend their competitors.

And Sharepoint is just another product designed to increase corporate IT inertia and maintain Windows' dominance on enterprise desktops.

~Philly

> Selecting the device has not been a standard operation for universal remotes for over 15-20 years.

Every remote I've ever owned that was capable of controlling more than one device required you to first press the button for the device you want to control, and then press the button(s) to issue commands to that device.

The TV in my basement dates to 1994, and that's how its remote works. So did that of the since-replaced TV in my master bedroom that was bought on the same day. I've got another universal remote on the desk beside me right now that works the same way and dates to about 1997 or so.

So, yes, IME selecting the device has been pretty standard for almost 20 years. I don't know why dude had to be so insulting about it, but he is technically correct. And we all know that's the best kind of correct.

~Philly

It was innovative, and while the first one was not great, Apple kept at it. The Newton 2000 and 2100 were great machines.

I'm sorry, where in my post did I say anything about Linux? Oh, that's right, nowhere-- because I wasn't fucking talking about Linux.

Microsoft set computing progress back by decades because they destroyed many fledgling companies that developed or were developing an advanced product or technology that was perceived as a possible threat to the Windows monopoly. I'll let your apparent ignorance of this slide, since based on your childish name calling you must not have been born when it was going on.

Oh, and Mr. Anonymous Coward says I'm the cowardly one. Classic!

~Philly

The Gates Foundation exists solely to whitewash his reputation for the history books. Gates is nothing more than a latter-day robber-baron. The ruthless tactics he used to line his pockets and squelch any perceived threat to Windows set computing progress back decades.

It sickens me how everyone seems to conveniently forget that, and lines up to kiss his ass because he decided to take the ill-gotten gains amassed via twenty years of unscrupulous business practices and buy respectability for himself.

~Philly

It didn't work out well then because the Mac was Apple's primary source of revenue. Not so anymore.

Specifically, what happened back then was that the cloners were supposed to take the low end of the market that Apple didn't want. Instead, at least one of them went balls-to-the-wall and made some machines that were faster than Apple's fastest. They began to hit Apple right in the bottom line, which is why almost immediately upon his return Jobs used a contract loophole to kill the clone program.

Personally, I would love to see Apple open up for at least some things. I can understand to a degree that they don't want consumers running OS X on non-Apple hardware, but since they don't sell enterprise-class servers anymore I think they should officially allow, certify, and fully support installation and virtualization of OS X Server on at least a limited selection of non-Apple hardware.

Yup. I post about Go frequently in relevant discussions on here, because nobody remembers them. Microsoft's anti-competitive tactics set tablet computing back twenty years, and I've been gleefully enjoying watching their ham-handed attempts to catch up to Apple since the first iPad. It seems that the universe is finally meting out some measure of karmic justice.

The whole story was detailed in former Go CEO Jerry Kaplan's book, Startup, and in a chapter of former Microsoftie Marlin Eller's book, Barbarians Led by Bill Gates. The latter plainly states that the only reason Pen Windows was brought into existence was to kill Go's product, which was viewed as a threat to Windows.

Really makes you wonder what other superior competing products and technologies Microsoft successfully killed back then, that we don't know about.

~Philly

I desperately wanted one when they came out because of the promise of e-books, but the greed of the publishers has ruined that. When the electronic version of the book barely costs any less than the physical book, I'll take the physical version because I get something tangible for negligible additional cost. I don't have such a need for instant gratification that I can't wait a day or two for Amazon to get it to me.

None of these media cartels seems to realize that the point of electronic distribution is to bring the price down for the consumer so publishers can make it up in sales volume-- not so they can keep the price nearly the same as for the physical product and use the savings in production/distribution costs to pad their profits.