|
Authored by: calris74 on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
Do they never learn - looks exactly like a iPhone
(seriously, even more so than any of their previous phones)
But is this a really clever ploy to get Microsoft dragged
into the fight? Think about it - Samsung are the highest
volume sellers of smart phones. If the Samsung Window 8
phones give Nokia a flogging in the marketplace, Microsoft
will be forced to back Samsung lest their precious platform
die a fast, horrible death. So when Apple comes-a-knocking,
Microsoft may be forced to step in and help...
Oh what a tangled web they are weaving...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 10:28 PM EDT |
The article speculates on the rush on Samsung's phones being because people are
afraid the next batch will have less features thanks to Apple's litigious bend.
I hope it's a variant of the Streisand effect: Now Apple has the courts word for
Samsung being a too good copy of the iPhone, only costing a fair bit less, it
has opened people's eyes to the merits of the Galaxies.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)
At least some of the purchases could also be sympathy buys and a sign that Apple
has lost some cool.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: N_au on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 02:10 AM EDT |
Can't this bloke see the idiocy of his statement. If the prior art doesn't
affect the apple patent by not being able to run on apples hardware and vice
versa, how come Samsung's code is when the code won't run on a fruitphone? It
should be the same argument applying to both. He is digging himself in deeper
every time he speaks according to my book![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- havamal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 03:28 AM EDT
- havamal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 04:14 AM EDT
- havamal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 04:40 AM EDT
- havamal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 06:08 AM EDT
- havamal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:42 AM EDT
- havamal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT
- havamal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 07:42 PM EDT
- havamal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Apple versus Samsung: Full interview with the jury foreman - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT
- Source Code - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 01:05 AM EDT
- Source Code? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 03:47 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 04:05 AM EDT |
Clucky
The article is written as if the "feature" hasn't been implimented yet, but I
had an ad on Facebook several days ago from one of my employer's suppliers. The
supplier deals in expensive equipment and related consumables that tends to be
bought only by businesses in certain industries, so I doubt it was a
coincidence. Although Facebook doesn't have my main email address (and the
other company doesn't have my spam-trap address), my name is unusual enough to
make the connection.
Of course, they might have found my Facebook page
by using any half-decent web search engine, which is why I don't think the new
mis-feature is particularly earth-shattering. It's also why I don't put any
information on Facebook that isn't already publicly available.
That
said, I do agree with PJ that it's not a good thing. I think it's potentially
even worse than the underwear ads that various sites keep serving up to my
wife's browser instances (she doesn't shop online much, so they keep picking up
the cookie from a quick price check she made months ago).
- O4W[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
Another court tosses Apple. Also, Nobody should be surprised that the 'young'
are siding with Samsung. The US case has shone light in murky places and today's
youth has much dislike of 'dog-in-the-manger' bullying.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Another link (BBC) - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 07:25 AM EDT
- And Japan, rounds it - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT
- And Japan, rounds it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- And Japan, rounds it - Authored by: hans on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- Basic switches were patented - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- Wow, I'm famous. I'd like to add a bit. - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- And Japan, rounds it - Authored by: albert on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- for all intensive purposes -> for all intents and purposes [N/T] - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- have had my SIII for 3 weeks prior to this crazy verdict. - Authored by: cxd on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 08:53 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
Some person called Sandy
McGill insists on Apple's influende over the color of
cars.
"Sandy McGill, BMW Designworks' lead designer in color,
materials and finish, attributed the popularity of white automobiles to Apple
co-founder Steve Jobs. He said in an interview with Motoramic (via Fortune) that
though white is a "high maintenance" color for cars, it has become the most
popular exterior car color for American buyers.
"Prior to Apple, white
was associated with things like refrigerators or the tiles in your bathroom,"
McGill told author Brett Berk. "Apple made white
valuable.""
Wake up Sandy. Bang & Olufsen (B&O)
pioneered an even classier white at the time Apple wasn't even founded. Browse
beoworld.org and you'll find plenty of examples from the time when all
refrigerators or the tiles in your bathroom were either brow
n or orange.
Did B&O inspire any white cars?
Well, Ja
mes Bond drove a classy white Lotus Esprit in 1976.
Sandy, dream
on.
/IMANAL (just didn't login)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT |
As much I as think the trial was a farce, with around two thousand people
surveyed, and no mention of methodology of the survey, I wonder if this 55% who
said "no" is even significant enough to be called "most
people". Also, 41% said "yes". What happened to the other 4%?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
I guess the Jury verdict was a bit too much for Samsung to handle. From the
article:
It is also closely partnering with Microsoft (MS) to
cut its dependency on Google Android, according to officials
Wednesday.
Samsung: I hope that doesn't mean you're ultimately
dropping Android. I would dearly love to continue being your customer in the
future but I'm afraid if you end up with only Windows phones, that won't happen.
I simply will not purchase a MS product - or a product that forces me to use MS
Software.
Assuming it's what is happening:
It's too bad the
Samsung leadership doesn't realize that by moving over to MS, they're still
giving in to the anti-Android cartel. They might as well give in and pay Apple
the licensing Apple demands.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|