Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 6, 2012 Report Share Posted August 6, 2012 Implying Gizmodo themselves didn't do this for hits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2012 You'd think they'd maybe post it on Gizmodo instead of his personal Tumblr wouldn't ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) That's not hacking, that's social engineering. *Edit* - Also, remote, irrevocable wiping of your devices? Why is that even a thing? I can understand having the ability to remotely wipe the device itself in case it's stolen and you have sensitive data, but they should keep the cloud backups of it. Edited August 7, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 I did say "hacker (if you could call him that)". And yeah it's exceedingly stupid. It's part of the "find my iPhone" thing, which is part of Mobile.me, which got rolled into iCloud. It's worth noting Steve Jobs considered the mobile.me team a blemish upon the Apple name(probably why it got dissolved into iCloud),, so the fact they had a "feature" like this is unsurprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 That's nice to know! Definitely would do some research on how to avoid that... However, I think I'm giving up reading comments on Apple related articles. For some reason, Android related articles don't have it this bad. Or maybe that's because I just don't read a lot of android articles... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Haven't read it yet, cos I'm knackered, but sounds interesting. Probably could apply to any retailer, but maybe people expect better from apple? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Wow, that Ronald guy sounds like a complete and utter asshole. Sucks about the guy who got outed by the manager, but I think the article's wrong: AFAIK asking if you're gay is perfectly legal in most US states, and it's perfectly okay to fire someone for being gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 AFAIK asking if you're gay is perfectly legal in most US states, and it's perfectly okay to fire someone for being gay. Wait... what? I thought this sort of workplace discrimination wasn't allowed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 I'm gonna point out this is Gizmodo. Not exactly the most trustable source. (And they've a love hate relationship with apple after they got banned from apple events) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) AFAIK asking if you're gay is perfectly legal in most US states, and it's perfectly okay to fire someone for being gay. Wait... what? I thought this sort of workplace discrimination wasn't allowed? I think it is in California, and probably a couple other states, but I'm pretty sure it's not banned federally or in most states. Federal law protects you from discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and to some extent age, but not sexual orientation/gender identity. *Edit* - I should say, I know that was the state of federal law a year and a half ago, I'm just not 100% sure that it's still the case because it's possible they've changed it since then. Edited August 22, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 It is currently legal in 29 states to fire someone for being gay and 34 states for being transgender. You'd think that shit would have changed by now. Actually, that's more important to be fighting right now than the marriage thing if you ask me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 I actually subscribe to the viewpoint that it's a form of sex discrimination and therefore already illegal: you're firing men for being attracted to/having sex with men, you're not firing women for being attracted to/having sex with men, therefore you're firing the men because they're men, therefore you're discriminating based on their sex. It applies for bisexuals too, and the reverse applies for lesbians. A similar argument works for transgendered people: you're firing them for identifying as a woman, but if they were a biological woman you wouldn't be firing them, etc. So far courts haven't really gone with that theory though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) Apple won $1 billion from Samsung in its patent infringement suit in the US, though I'm sure Samsung will appeal. The judge hasn't ruled yet whether or not Samsung is barred from selling the infringing devices. Edited August 25, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 I can't even type a response to that without getting annoyed. Suffice to say Apple is the only company that I have ever decided not to buy products from and I have stuck to that decision for several years with no sign that will be changing any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 I'm in the same boat Gerbil. Apple's business practices are not for me. Now they're actually attempting to cut down on the competition so they have a Monopoly. How about we don't make a big case like this with a Judge who was biased in favor of Apple to begin with and a jury who, let's face it, was probably as ignorant as the commenters on many websites pro-Apple. WE GOTTA PROTECT OUR AMERICAN PRODUCTS, KEEP THOSE RICE EATIN' BASTEEEERDS AWAY I TELL YOU H-WHAT! God I hope this goes to the Supreme Court so we can once and for all listen to reason and stop these patent witch hunts forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 To be fair, there ARE ways to make a sexy smartphone that doesn't fall anywhere close to Apple's design. For example, Windows Phone and the Lumia 900 are very, very appealing, and if it weren't for the inferiority of Windows Phone 7 (8 looks like it'll solve that problem), I would have grabbed one of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Some of the thing you can avoid, like the pop-back when you scroll too far, but it would be hard to avoid making it more or less rectangular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchikoma Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 I'm in a hard place now... I'm deeply entrenched in iOS, and politcs aside, I'd handily pick it over the alternatives. I could also really use an upgrade since I'm using an iPhone 3GS that's getting long in tooth and short in battery. Still, this really doesn't endear Apple to me as a customer. Really, I want their attempt here to crash and burn and don't want to support them in it whatsoever. I think a lot of the design patents are BS that is so fundamental it would be unreasonable not to allow any company to use the designs. There were some similarities in icons and layout, but then iOS itself looks very close to PalmOS to me anyway (which basically just uses an icon grid like MacOS, Windows, OS/2, Workbench, QNX and damn near any other vaguely modern GUI.) The most damning similarity I saw was that Samsung used a dock bar, but that could be as basic these days as a status bar at top with time, battery and signal strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Yeah, to me a lot of their interface patents seem like if Ford had patented the steering wheel. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 @fuchi: pretty much all android launchers have a dock. Those that don't it's more option to disable it than not having one in first place. I'm not really seeing what makes the Lumia 900 any different, it's still a black rectangle with a central button at the bottom. Just Nokia n MS are huge and established in the smartphone sector. If apple had their way androids would look like the Nokia 7600. I don't understand the bounce back though. My samsung has a blue glow when you go beyond. Closest I've seen to bounceback is the homescreen on my old phone, but the samsung launcher loops. It is of course a big sign that patent reform needs to come, sooner rather than later. One thing though is, the case may ultimately be for naught. Samsung are still thundering on past Apple, and Android even more so. Apple exist in a market were they reckon one size will fit all, but Samsung have such a wide range of devices that Apple couldn't hope to outsell or block them all, and now they've gotten Samsungs name plastered all over the newspapers pretty much saying that Samsungs are on-par with iPhones. A legally indiscernible knock-off, and at half the price and all the functionality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 The thing about bounceback is that Apple didn't invent it. They were just the first to implement it in a smartphone. That's what a lot of these patents seem to be. Taking the logical step in the design of technology as a whole. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Why are the members of the jury being attacked here? Did they do something in the trial to show that they are stupid? Or are they just stupid because they "sided" with Apple? I've been following the case, admittedly not that much. But they seem to be normal people with some having tech background. I agree with what Duke said above. There are ways you can differentiate your product enough to not infringe. Apparently all other Android device does this so they're not part of the trial. It's not just about rounded rectangles. It's round rectangles plus everything else in the trial, the trade dress claims. You can make your rounded rectangle phones. Just don't copy the rest of (i hate to use this word because this is gonna annoy you guys) Apple's design. Let's not forget the "let's make it more like the iphone" sentiment in that 100 something page/slide evidence apple put out. The windows phones, while also rectangles can never be mistaken from an iphone because the interface is just so unique. And i don't think the steering wheel analogy works, Ethan. The steering wheel would be like the keypad on your phone. You use it to drive the phone to where you want it to go (call whoever). The stuff in the trial was just bells and whistles. They're not integral parts of a phone. And commenters, lets leave them out of this. There are just as much idiotic samsung/pro android commenters as pro apple ones. The verge comments are full of both. There are probably even more vile commenters on android sites just like in pro apple sites. That's just how it is. The internet gives every idiot a soapbox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 they sued Samsung because they are by far apple's nearest rival, nothing to do with anything else, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 It was some pretty integral parts, like the pinch-to-zoom functionality. That gesture just makes intuitive sense on a touch screen to accomplish that action, and is incredibly basic to the functioning of basically every app that even has a zoom feature on a touch screen. That's not just a bell or whistle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Yet if they sued others, given the evidence they presented, they wouldn't have any legs to stand on. It doesn't apply to the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.