On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 19:25:48 +0000 Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 11:42 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > […] > > Yea, I've noticed the same thing :( People are so enamored with > > their iDevices, that they think Apple can do no wrong. At least > > that's the only explanation I can think of. > > Perhaps Apple employees visit everyone who buys an Apple device and > secretly implants the chip in the purchasers head? ;-) > Secretly? It's part of the eyePhone's basic user instructions! Matt Groening even showed Fry and Leela installing theirs. ;) > Personally I think Apple laptop hardware is great, Is it? I wouldn't know. I know the earlier iPods had a lot of reliability problems. The one thing about modern Apple laptops that does get me though is that I just don't get the compulsive obsession with thinness. Yea, thin is fine (up to the point where I worry about accidentally snapping it), but I'd take a roomy HDD, optical drive, lots of connection ports, and good price over "Gee whiz! Look how thin it is!" anyway. I could ditch the traditional HDD/optical drives for the sake of battery life on a swivel-touchscreen netbook. But even then, I see very minimal benefit to extra thinness. > the software however leaves a lot to be desired. > I could go on and on about apple software, but I've done so enough already, and I'll refrain now ;) > > Like browsers, for instance. When Microsoft had their browser merely > > uninstallable and set as the *initial* default browser, the DOJ went > > apeshit, nevermind the fact that MS did *nothing* to prevent people > > from downloading and using competing browsers. Apple, OTOH, does the > > same, except they also PROHIBIT competing browsers (only the "shell" > > around the webview widget can be changed), and yet as long as > > Apple's the one doing it nobody seems to mind. Apple's has been > > known to do the same for other software besides browsers as well. > > Perchance Apple have simply paid off the DOJ. Or mayhap the Apple > employees and their chip implantation is more successful than we know? > Heh :) > > And then Jobs's personal grudge against Android (still > > unfortunately being carried out in full by the new regime, puppeted > > by a ghost apparently), in particular the irrational lawsuit against > > Samsung where Apple is abusing software/design patents to go on the > > offensive (not just using them defensively). The judge, even as an > > Apple user, made it clear that Apple had basically no standing, and > > yet those goddamn jururs irrationally ruled in favor of Apple > > anyway. > > The result in the case was basically a forgone conclusion: USA company > domiciled within a couple of miles of all the jurors vs. a South > Korean company. No contest, whatever the actual rights and wrongs. > Should have been a bench trial from the outset. > Good points. > Hopefully everyone is responding to the USPTO regarding software > patents. > Does the USPTO even acknowledge the _existence_ of anyone who isn't a corporate bigwig? Let alone pay attention to anything they say? I think "corruption", I think "USPTO". Not joking about that, either.
