There’s right, and there’s wrong. Stealing stuff is just plain wrong. We learn this as children, yet somehow we make elaborate excuses for it as we get older, like “Well, I’m just copying bits. I’m not really stealing.” Or “If it weren’t so hard for me to get legitimately, I wouldn’t have to steal it instead.”
When the studios make it hard for you to have content you want, you should just live without it, or reward other content providers who make it easier for you to do business with them.
The thought process is simple: Did you pay the asking price? If the answer is “no” you’re a thief.
Last night a very rough alpha build of Cornfox and Brothers upcoming game “Oceanhorn” was temporarily available on the App Store.
So what happened? If you want to reserve a name for your game on App Store, you will need to upload a playable build to iTunes Connect. The build that was now automatically released, is 1.5 years old. It does not compare to the final product in any way.
Hey, maybe we should compare it.
Check out the screenshots.
Can. Not. Wait.
I’ve been critical of John Brownlee over at Cult of Mac in the past. But credit where credit is due the man did a good job on this one:
In a laughable post over at LawPundit, Andis Kaulins makes an argument that Apple’s landmark $1 billion win against Samsung for patent infringement is at least partially bogus.
Why? Because Apple’s patent for bounce-back scrolling isn’t an original idea, but was, in fact, stolen from Pong, a game first released back in 1972. There are just a few problems with this idea…
Worth a read.
Steve Wildstrom does some actual analysis about which Apple patents were actually in play:
As the Apple v. Samsung trial neared completion last week, I worried about how a jury of nine ordinary folks were going to make sense of hours of highly technical testimony, more than a hundred pages of jury instructions, and a 20 page verdict form. I needn’t have worried. Whatever happens on appeal, I think the jury did an admirable job making sense of the case they were given. They certainly did better than much of the tech media, which have made a complete mess of the verdict.
Bottom line: Anyone talking about pinch-to-zoom and rounded rectangles is talking out of their ass.
Looking past the events of last week, the future is uncertain. Samsung has vowed to appeal the verdict all the way to the US Supreme Court if required, and if the company is serious about winning this case, I suspect this step will be necessary.
Wouldn’t hold your breath. And even if this case somehow makes it all the way up the legal chain, take a guess which way this Supreme Court and it’s political leanings will rule.
Apple, meanwhile, has moved quickly to the real point of this trial: The company has asked the US District Court in San Jose, California, for a preliminary injunction on the sale of eight Samsung handsets — the Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S2 AT&T model, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, Galaxy S2 T-Mobile model, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G, Galaxy S Showcase, Droid Charge, and Galaxy Prevail — while it awaits a future verdict on a permanent injunction.
That’s right: Apple wants a federal court to ban the sale of Samsung devices in the United States. I guess that’s one way for Apple to overcome the huge sales gap that exists between Samsung, the number one seller of smartphones in the US and worldwide, and Apple, which is a distant number two.
Except in the only currency that matters to business: profits. I’ve beaten this this to death, but Paul Thurrott keeps making the mistake that marketshare matters more than profit share.
Even before the verdict, Samsung was busily redesigning its new products to ensure that they don’t infringe on Apple’s patents.
Great. But just because I rob a bank and use the funds to create a profitable and popular business doesn’t mean I’m not liable.
The recently released Note 10.1 tablet, for example, is oriented in landscape mode by default, not in portrait mode like the iPad, and it comes with a stylus. In addition, the tablet comes in two-tone color schemes that don’t directly mimic the Apple product’s sterile, museum-quality exterior.
The software is, of course, the bigger issue. Samsung’s offending smartphone and tablet hardware all run on Google’s Android OS. And although Google has assured partners that “most” of the patent infringements “don’t relate to the core Android operating system,” that’s a far cry from, “Don’t worry, you’re fully indemnified.” So the ruling has cast a decidedly uncertain pall over Android now as well. In fact, I’m confused why Apple, flush with this success, hasn’t simply sued Google next.
Noted legal scholar Paul Thurrott.
As I note in “Apple Wins $1 Billion Verdict in Samsung Case,” the big winners here are quite possibly Microsoft and Nokia, however, and not Apple. That’s because Apple and Microsoft previously signed a cross-licensing agreement that includes, according to an Apple executive who testified in the Samsung trial, an agreement that the two companies won’t copy each other’s products. Go figure, but the Apple-friendly tech press reported this news as “Microsoft agreed not to copy Apple’s products!” But that’s only half the story. Apple, too, has agreed not to copy Microsoft’s products.
Wonder why people would assume Microsoft copies Apple and not the other way around….
This is an important distinction.
Most readers probably know my stance on Windows Phone in particular. Windows Phone isn’t different just to be different. It’s markedly superior than Android or iOS (iPhone/iPad) from a usability perspective. Taken cynically, you might argue that this is simply because Microsoft agreed not to copy. And fair enough. But on the flipside, the many innovations and advantages in Windows Phone can’t be copied by Apple, either. So the iPhone and iPad will always be inferior.
Let’s be clear. Windows Phone is a really nice OS (I don’t’ know a single self professed Apple fan that would argue differently.) But the big differentiating feature of Windows Phone is the live updating tiles interface. I’m sure it’s copyrighted (and rightly so, it’s a pretty neat idea), but it’s hardly “hard to copy” or implement similar ideas and features.
(Yes, yes. Life isn’t black and white, I get that. And I’m sure that Apple will one day abandon the “whack-a-mole,” one-app-at-a-time Fisher-Price-ness of iOS. But it’s not happening anytime soon, sorry: I’ve seen iOS 6.)
“whack-a-mole”. Paul keeps riding this live tiles thing. We get it, they’re neat, but they’re not the giant leap over of the iPhone that the iPhone was over the Blackberry.
And by the by….
Pick up a Windows Phone, go into an app, hit the Windows button to go back to the home-screen. Then go into another app, hit the Windows button to go back to the home-screen. Then hold down the back button to see a visual list of your recently used apps and click on one to fast switch.
Windows Phone works the exact same way as iOS and Android in that regard. (Unless you’re staring at the homescreen live tiles all day)
To put this verdict in a broader perspective, Apple can’t go after Windows Phone (or Windows 8 or Windows RT). But the company can and will continue to go after Android, either indirectly via other handset and tablet makers or — I’m rubbing my hands together like a Bond villain here — directly via Google. So of Microsoft’s two biggest competitors, iOS won’t be catching up in the foreseeable future….
Catching up to what? An interesting mobile platform that has to go through a reboot because they didn’t do it right the first time (Two reboots if you count Windows Mobile) Catching up to sales? Number of apps? 3rd party accessories?
…and Google will be busy putting out Android fires for possibly years to come in a mad bid not to infringe on Apple patents, real or imagined.
Not so imaginary.
So let me be the first from the Microsoft side of the fence to say, “Thank you, Apple.” You’ve done something that Microsoft and Nokia, the world’s biggest maker of Windows Phone devices, haven’t been able to do on their own. You’ve made Windows — Windows Phone, Windows 8, and Windows RT — the obvious choice for both partners and customers going forward.
Good luck with that.
Twitter doesn’t want you. The nerds, the tinkerers, the hackers, the people who build something from nothing – you are not Twitter’s demographic.
No more freebies. Just go read it.
Based on everything we’ve seen, and the analysis on the previous pages, it seems likely that the next iPhone will feature a dual-core Cortex A9 SoC built on Samsung’s 32nm LP (HK+MG) process, with a PowerVR SGX 543MP2 driving a larger 4-inch display. Battery capacity will see a slight bump, but battery life itself should be measurably better compared to the iPhone 4S thanks to a move to 28/32nm silicon for the baseband and apps processor. LTE and TD-SCDMA support will likely be driven by a Qualcomm MDM9x15. Evolutionary improvements in the WiFi stack are a reasonable expectation, however NFC support isn’t.
Bottom line: An iPhone with 4S guts, taller screen, better camera and LTE. A fantastic upgrade for iPhone 4 owners and new iPhone costumers, but not as compelling for current 4S owners.
And before I get the comments, saying that the new iPhone won’t be a compelling upgrade for 4S owners does not mean that a 4S owner wouldn’t get some benefit, it’s simply an acknowledgment of the iPhone’s two year cycle:
Brian Klug and Anand Lal Shimpi:
With the exception of the first iPhone, the industrial design appears to be on a 2-year cadence. The CPU and GPU architectures are also on the same 2-year cadence. From a silicon standpoint even the cellular architecture is trending towards the same 2-year cadence, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. GSM/CDMA iPhone 4 divide).
Jacqui Cheng wrote an ill-thought out piece. (with a terrible over the top graphic to match)
John C. Welch wrote a takedown.
Here’s what his takedown looks like in video form:
IDC today reported that Apple’s iPhone is coming up blank in at least one locale. Sales of the trendy iPhone have tanked in China, with sales in the quarter ending in June falling a whopping 50 percent. Chinese customers bought 44 million smartphones in the quarter, but the big winners were Samsung, which leads the market with about 19 percent market share, and Lenovo, which kicked Apple out of second place with about 11 percent of the market. Apple, stumbling to third place, controlled about 10 percent of the market.
How will Apple ever survive being the most valuable company in the world now?
Why does this matter? Two reasons. I’m tired of the iPhone, which has been out of date since the release of the iPhone 4S and which lacks LTE, a reasonably sized screen, and other necessary figures.
And has been such a monumental failure.
And China is set to become the biggest market for smartphones in the world this year, overtaking the United States.
Tim Cook must be crying himself to sleep on his solid gold bed.
The problem for Apple’s competitors is that there is no where else to go. If they go down much more in size, the tablet becomes a smartphone. If they go up beyond the size of the current iPad, it becomes too big to be useful.
Apple is in a position to decimate its competitors.
Sounds about right.