backtop


Print 31 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Apr 13 at 11:44 PM

Apple's co-founder also critiques Tim Cook and casts doubt on the supposed "post-PC" era

When people think of Apple, Inc. (AAPL) they invariably first think of its iconic and exacting late leader Steven P. Jobs.  But tech fans will also remember the company's other co-founder Steve Wozniak, who many see as the workhorse that built Apple in its early years.

I. Apple is Bad... Wait, No, Apple is GOOD!

Mr. Wozniak, who did most of the engineering of the ground-breaking Apple II computer, in a new interview with The Australian Financial Review discussed the effects of the Google Inc. (GOOG) vs. Apple "patent war" on innovation.

Speaking about how patents could pose an obstacle to creative startups, he comments, "I care so much about the young person that has some technical knowledge and wants to start their own business.  Companies like Apple, Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo! all started by new thinkers with new ideas. Now, with this big patent situation, there are certain categories that are heavily blocked off because the big companies make sure they own it all."

He reminisces on how RCA Corp. contacted him in a successful attempt to extort a cut of his company's Apple II profits for a single patent on rendering text as pixels on a screen.  The infringement came as a complete surprise to Mr. Wozniak, as he thought up the rendering approach on his own.

He describes RCA's "patent everything" approach, commenting:

Only a huge company with vast sums of money could have afforded to do the research when they did, because you couldn’t make an affordable product that used that technology at the time.

We actually wound up paying them two bucks for every computer we shipped just for that simple idea ... That sort of thing is going to crop up over and over – very simple ideas that the big companies with big money are going to own, and the small guy who starts up is going to have to pay.

Patent wars
The Woz has mixed feelings on Apple's patent war. [Image Source: Android Pit]

But bafflingly he then switches gears and begins to defend Apple, which seeks to ban competitors for using seeming simplistic ideas like "swipe to unlock" and gestures on touch displays.

He comments, "Apple is the good guy on the block of all of them.  It is creating so much and is so successful and it is not just following the formulas of other companies – [Apple is] totally establishing new markets that didn’t exist."

II. The Woz Praises Apple's Closed System, but Poo-Poos on Post-PC Notion

Of course it's easy to see where Mr. Wozniak's thoughts might become a bit irrational and conflicted.  On the one hand, he's gone through what Apple is putting Google and others through at present.  On the other hand as a large Apple shareholder [source], he has to appreciate the financial fortune that bullying other competitors off the market might bring him.

Thus Mr. Wozniak may be a bit biased when he celebrates Apple's all-inclusive, all-controlling approach, commenting, "The retail process is owned by Apple, the application is owned by Apple, the operating system is owned by Apple and the hardware is Apple’s.  Apple has managed to create this entire world that all the products fit in to ... there is no other company in the world that has these benefits."

That's the latest in a series of seemingly contradictory statements the Woz has put forth on the state of iPhone v. Android.  In the past he has said that he wishes the iPhone did things his Android did.  He also correctly predicted that Android would pass the iPhone (iOS) in smartphone market share.  On the other hand, Mr. Wozniak has openly said he might return to an executive leadership role at Apple, if asked.

Speaking of leadership, the Woz isn't yet willing to give new Apple chief executive Tim Cook a ringing endorsement.  He states, "It is hard to judge yet because Apple products still look like they did under Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs has stamped his mark on products that are three years in the queue.  I want to see the special touches [under Cook], not just an iteration to the iPad 3."

Bloomberg on the iPad
Despite universal acclaim for the iPad, were not quite in a post-PC era yet, says the Woz.
[Image Source: Flickr/IDG UK B2B]

As for fellow innovators like ex-Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) chief technical officer Ray Ozzie proclaiming that a "post PC" era is upon us, the Woz disagrees, "Although we are moving towards a very mobile world, I think there is going to be room for PCs for quite a long time still.  For some work like audio or visual editing, you need the complete machine and [a] larger screen. The mobile device is great for most of the things we do with our computer – but not everything."

III. A Wild Ride

The Woz's diverse and at times seemingly contradictory message over the years has been almost as fascinating as his unusual life.  

Marty Goldberg describes his early encounters with the exploitive Steve Jobs, writing:

Looking to recover from the delay time and stolen plans, Nolan and Al (of Atari) were looking for someone to pick up the ball... they offered a bonus of $100 for each TTL chip removed from the design (of Pong) at a time when games typically used 130-170 chips and tighter games in the 70 to 100 chip range.

Seeing a chance to make some more money so he could head back for the October harvest at the apple orchard commune All-One Farm, in Oregon, (Jobs) put his name in the hat for the bid ... (and he won the contract).... Allan later said "Jobs never did a lick of engineering in his life. He had me snowed. It took years before I figured out that he was getting Woz to 'come in the back door' and do all the work while he got the credit."

...Jobs did approach Wozniak with the job and two of his own requirements which are now legendary. Woz would get half of the fee which was claimed at $700 and no mention of a bonus. In fact, the way Jobs described it, if they could design it in under 50 chips, they'd get 700 bucks; and if it was under 40 chips, they'd get $1000. Likewise the second catch - it had to be done in four days. As Wozniak later found out, "Atari didn't put us on a time schedule; Steve did. I had to do it in four days because Steve had to catch an airplane to Oregon. I was the designer-the engineer-and Steve was a breadboarder and test technician."

Wozniak had designed it by hand, under the continuing pressure of Jobs to get it done quick ... Doing the designs during the day while at HP, at night Jobs would wirewrap the design under his guidance. Wozniak also spent much of his time those four nights playing Gran Trak 10, the game monopolizing most of the manufacturing assembly line at the time. Towards the end of the 4 day non-stop marathon, Woz's Breakout prototype was almost finished. Wozniak was able to get the number of TTL's down to a startling 42 chips, but still had a few problems he wasn't happy with. When all was said in done, the Breakout prototype that was submitted by Jobs to Allan and Nolan had 46 chips and left everyone very impressed. They paid Jobs in cash, the $700 plus the bonus - which turned out to be a total of $5,000! Jobs turned around and paid an unknowing Wozniak the original $350 they had agreed upon.

Both Jobs and Wozniak got mono from the 4 day event, but Jobs was off to Oregon right away with his $350 plus sizeable bonus to support him over the next few months.

Wozniak would go on to co-found Apple Computer in 1976, a company that was founded upon the Apple I -- a computer he designed with virtually no help from Steve Jobs.  Likewise, he was mostly responsible for the Apple II design.

He worked as an executive at the fast rising company until 1981, when a serious plane crash left him with amnesia.  Talking to his wife he reportedly eventually began to recollect some of his awareness, but appeared to be left with a radically different perspective, divorcing her, remarrying, silently quitting Apple, and returning to college under a fake name.  

Steve Wozniak
Steve Wozniak with his wife at a Dancing With the Stars celebration.
[Image Source: PacificCoastNews.com]

He would briefly return to Apple as an everyday engineer, but left in 1987 and went on to found a number of startups, including the first company to produce a reprogrammable remote control.  Today the tinkerer is an avid investor, educator, Segway-rider, and philanthropist, even taking time to participate on the reality TV competition Dancing With the Stars in 2009.

Source: The Australian Financial Review



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not wholly contradictory
By Commodus on 4/10/2012 11:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call this a complete discrepancy. He doesn't like lawsuits, but he can understand why Apple would be keen to protect a lot of hard work from being copied. And while the software is nebulous -- I'm not a fan of software patents -- I don't think there's any doubt that Samsung, primarily, was copying Apple almost with a certain amount of glee. It's only lately that Samsung actually made an effort to change its designs, and even then... look at the international version of a Galaxy Note or Galaxy S II and it's pretty obvious that Samsung changes them for US launches knowing full well they look too much like iPhones.

Also: yes, Jason, we get it. You want an Android monopoly. Google enlightens whoever it touches with its openness (for carriers and OEMs, not you), and Apple is pure evil for daring to suggest that having a mostly closed hardware/software ecosystem might produce better integration and quality.

We don't need so much vitriol against Apple that we can practically see it dripping from your fingers as they hit the keyboard. At least make a stab towards objectivity.




RE: Not wholly contradictory
By rlandess on 4/11/2012 12:28:35 AM , Rating: 5
I disagree. The Woz is awesome but he's holding a double standard. Apple is in exactly the same position as RCA as mentioned in the above article. Apple has been hoarding patents, buying whole libraries of patents to use as tools to manipulate and maneuver around other businesses. Apple is now at a point where they have an arsenal of patents and lawyers that only players of their size can hope to compete against. And they are not shy about suing anyone who takes a bite out of their profits.

It wouldn't be so offensive but Apple is especially bad about taking credit for every advance in modern electronic devices. I'll give them credit where it's due... They make a novel interface that a lot of devices have taken cues from. Gestures specifically have been an area that Apple has pioneered.

The iPhone is a logical extension of the progression of phone design, that why its aesthetic should not be considered protected IP. Any phone that has a screen that extends to the edge of the device will look like an iPhone. It's a practical and efficient design that is so simple common sense that it is ridiculous that anyone could be accused of copying it.

I really didn't read the article and get from it all the vitriol that you're talking about. But I'm glad to dish some out. Apple is ruining it's image of a bunch of design minded hippies making esoteric electronics that everyone enjoys using and gaining the notoriety of being a bunch of litigious a-holes who rehash old ideas act like they created them out of a vacuum - without taking anything from others before them.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By BZDTemp on 4/11/2012 7:28:22 AM , Rating: 1
Woz is not awesome he is just as bad as the other Apple disciples. That company needs a restart.

Apple should fire some lawyers and instead start doing some real development instead of doing their copy and sue tactic.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By testerguy on 4/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not wholly contradictory
By retrospooty on 4/11/2012 8:38:37 AM , Rating: 3
Wow, your list of Apple advantages has boiled down to GPU. Well, no, they didnt copy the GPU. They bought hte company that designed it. Big deal. Doesnt change anything.

Apple totally copied the Treo and made it better and totally surpassed it. Now Google is surpassing Apple. Its the circle of life in the tech industry.That is how things work, the only difference with Apple is they sue, where others just innovate.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By nafhan on 4/11/2012 9:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
They didn't copy the GPU because they aren't even making it. They are selling the fastest GPU currently shipping in a smartphone/tablet. PowerVR developed it. Samsung built it. Foxconn dropped it in a shiny box. Apple pushes it out to the consumer.

Also, part of the issue is that other SoC manufacturers are unwilling to sell a tablet chip that's the size of a low end desktop processor. See: die size of Tegra 3 vs. size of A5X.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By bug77 on 4/11/2012 9:43:56 AM , Rating: 1
Did they ever sue anyone based on the speed of the GPU or reliability ratings?


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By retrospooty on 4/11/2012 12:41:30 PM , Rating: 5
dont give them any ideas...


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By BZDTemp on 4/12/2012 5:59:47 AM , Rating: 2
LOL - Seriously.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By tayb on 4/11/2012 4:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is in the same position as RCA but they are not targeting the same people RCA did. Apple is going after big players who aren't investing anywhere NEARLY as much money into research and development as they are. Anyone with half an ounce of sense can look at several Samsung phones from a physical and UI perspective and conclude that they have essentially blatantly ripped off physical and UI designs.

Apple lawsuits also differ in a more negative, anti-monopolistic way, in that they are not seeking financial compensation so much as they are seeking an outright sales ban. To me the lawsuits are perfectly acceptable but seeking an outright ban is taking it too far. If Apple feels their R&D is being abused I feel the Microsoft licensing strategy is far more appropriate.

Have you seen Samsung's new "Smart TVs?" At first I thought it was a commercial for the Xbox Kinect, but it wasn't. What a 100% blatant ripoff.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By whoisnader on 4/11/2012 12:32:17 AM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately, you will see a lot of this from Jason in every post to do with Apple.

It has gotten to the point with Jason, that I roll my eyes when he starts his rants about Apple and just skip to the next paragraph. Careful Jason, you are starting to sound boring.

Shall I even dare to bring up your obvious distaste (rants) for J. Assange.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By testerguy on 4/11/2012 8:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, dripping bias in every single article.

Pathetically trying to disregard Jobs' contribution by suggesting that all the work was done by an engineer, all the while trying to discredit any positive Woz comments about Apple in any way possible, whereas any negative comments about Apple are published un-edited. Even the comments about Android vs iPhone were taken out of context, he said he preferred his iPhone but wanted some of the features from it added to Android. It was actually overall an insulting indictment to Android but of course Jason twisted it.

If you want impartial tech reporting, this site isn't the place to do it. And Jason, Apples USP is not in their engineering, it's in their ideas. Engineers are common, visionaries are not.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By retrospooty on 4/11/2012 12:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
"trying to discredit any positive Woz comments about Apple in any way possible, whereas any negative comments about Apple are published un-edited. Even the comments about Android vs iPhone were taken out of context,"

Its kind of the opposite of what you do isnt it? Sounds like maybe you are at the wrong site.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By testerguy on 4/12/2012 8:47:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah because I've made any comments on Woz, whatsoever?

Good logic...

If I wanted an impartial, logical, unbiased site, you're damn right I'm on the wrong site?


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By retrospooty on 4/12/2012 6:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
"If I wanted an impartial, logical, unbiased site, you're damn right I'm on the wrong site?"

You don't want that, otherwise that is what you would practice yourself. You come here with your one sided Apple bias specifically to troll and defend Apple for whatever reason. Dont deny it, we all see it and your post history proves it.

Dont let the door hit ya...


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/13/2012 11:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You come here with your one sided Apple bias specifically to troll and defend Apple for whatever reason. Dont deny it, we all see it and your post history proves it.
Oh, he denies it and has many times. LOL


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By GotThumbs on 4/11/2012 2:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
What in this article is NOT factual? Your preaching bias, but You have NOT countered any of the content in this article.

Hot air seems to be your ONLY contribution. NEXT.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By testerguy on 4/12/2012 8:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
Er, did you even read my comment?

I already gave examples and countered, such as the way Woz's comments on Android were interpreted as a negative to iPhone when in actual fact it was a compliment. That's in this article, clearly referenced in my comment. So where did your ability to read fail?

Quotes like this:
quote:
Of course it's easy to see where Mr. Wozniak's thoughts might become a bit irrational and conflicted. On the one hand, he's gone through what Apple is putting Google and others through at present. On the other hand as a large Apple shareholder [source], he has to appreciate the financial fortune that bullying other competitors off the market might bring him.


are not factual in any way, at all. 100% subjective opinion, and that's where the dripping bias lies.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By SonofaSteve on 4/12/2012 4:00:48 PM , Rating: 1
notice how since Jobs passing woz grows a b@llsa@ck
where would he be without Jobs a nobody bemoaning how he had the ability but not the wit to make it happen
Apple doesn't want you woz because you stopped innovating and started bemoaning everything


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By someguy123 on 4/11/2012 2:10:23 AM , Rating: 4
The reason it's hypocritical is because Apple is not using these patents to defend itself. Instead, it's using the patents to kill off competitors. This is actually a step above the RCA comparison considering RCA willingly licensed their dubious patent for 2 dollars per computer. Apple has no interest in licensing its patents because it believes (and is probably correct) that it would be less profitable than its current business model of trying to block any and all devices falling under its patent umbrella.

The argument that they're trying to "protect" their hard work from being copied is insane considering the patents involved. They didn't invent multitouch (mitsubishi had a multitouch device YEARS before), they didn't invent slide to lock/unlock (neonode), and they certainly did not invent squash-and-stretch animation fundamentals. I'm not pro-android, but neither am I pro-patent abuse.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By nafhan on 4/11/2012 9:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The argument that they're trying to "protect" their hard work from being copied is insane considering the patents involved.
Untrue. Their legal staff has done a ton of work, and they have undoubtedly poured countless dollars into patent lawyers and clerks.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/11/2012 10:48:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Also: yes, Jason, we get it. You want an Android monopoly. Google enlightens whoever it touches with its openness (for carriers and OEMs, not you), and Apple is pure evil for daring to suggest that having a mostly closed hardware/software ecosystem might produce better integration and quality.

Okay, first let me address this. Back in grade school I always heard the saying to assume is to make an @ss out of 'u' and 'me'. I find in life that in most cases this is true. In this case, with respect to your assumptions, it is certainly true for you.

First, I do not at all want Android to have a monopoly. I'm a firm believer in competition. If there was free competition, but Apple was superior to its competitors in every way, I would have no real problem with it being dominant.

As is, I see merits with all three of the "major" platforms -- Android, Windows Phone 7, iOS -- as well as, to a lesser extent RIM, who I view as a minor player kept alive by its strongly secured, but generally clunky services.

In my mind the best case scenario would be for all three platforms to thrive and have similar market share, as this would be what would be best for the consumer. Competition is the ultimate creator of fitness in nature and in business.

I give each of the platforms credit and recognize both their strengths/weaknesses.

Android is very open and easy to modify, and has a very good apps selection

iOS has the best apps selection, the fastest graphics (via Apple's hardware selection), and some of the most polished core apps, including in my opinion the best stock browser.

Windows Phone has the most innovative interface (by far) graphically and is very intuitive. Its app selection is admittedly poorer and the stock browser stinks. But the rest of the core apps are very solid -- better than Android, imho. Plus it has better Office support and Skydrive. I think interface-wise Microsoft wins.

Again, I find it amusing that you even misassigned my personal platform of choice. I already have stated several times on this site (including in an article) that I bought a Windows Phone. I liked my Android, don't get me wrong, but kind of funny to be saying a Windows Phone user wants an Android monopoly... right.

quote:
I wouldn't call this a complete discrepancy. He doesn't like lawsuits, but he can understand why Apple would be keen to protect a lot of hard work from being copied. And while the software is nebulous -- I'm not a fan of software patents -- I don't think there's any doubt that Samsung, primarily, was copying Apple almost with a certain amount of glee. It's only lately that Samsung actually made an effort to change its designs, and even then... look at the international version of a Galaxy Note or Galaxy S II and it's pretty obvious that Samsung changes them for US launches knowing full well they look too much like iPhones.
Recall this is a company that built itself around copying a UI from Xerox.

Did it pay a tour fee for that and eventually reach a small but substantial settlement with Xerox? Yes. But has it ever given Google or Android OEMs similar settlement/"tour" offers? In what I've read from the court documents no.

Apple was willing to license a small set of straightforward interface ideas that it had questionably patented, IF Android agreed to give up graphical flourishes and possibly multitouch. These were unacceptable provisions.

Did Samsung copy Apple?
In form factor, there are some similarities, yes, and in the general patent direction, yes. But I don't see that as patentable.

Recall Samsung didn't write most of Android -- Google and the open source community did. So I believe you meant to say Google copied Android.

Well, yes, it's hard to make an operating system without borrowing ideas from others. (I challenge you to try -- Apple and Microsoft sure couldn't.)

In early versions Android was much more iOS like than it is today with ICS.

That said I think the patent system in general is very screwed up today, and anti-competition, anti-innovation. I think idea holders should be rewarded for their work, but I think licensing should be mandatory on a per unit basis.

Samsung, Motorola, and Google all are being abusive by filing FRAND lawsuits, when they agreed to openly license these patents.

Apple is being abusive by asserting claim to ridiculous simple concepts like touch-screen drag and drop (slide to unlock).

Nokia was abusive, for kicking off the patent war and setting the standard of going whining to the ITC as a backdoor to avoid the court system.

I think the key is patent reform.

But yes, I feel Apple's lawsuits are destructive to the industry (as are Motorola/Samsung's).

Would I be okay with the iPhone being banned by Samsung? Absolutely not.

Would I be okay with Android being banned by Apple? Absolutely not.

Google should have to pay licensing fees, perhaps, for some ideas, but Apple should not be allowed to grant itself a monopoly via questionable patents.

Your understanding of my argument is either badly flawed, or else you think Apple cannot compete legitimately without resorting to patent abuse. If that is the case (Apple is uncompetitive in terms of product) than it does not deserve to win. I do not believe that to be the case.

If Android and Apple dropped their respective lawsuits, people would still buy iPhones. People would still by Android phones. Most people buy phones based on their own personal preferences, and like I said, every platform has its merits.

quote:
We don't need so much vitriol against Apple that we can practically see it dripping from your fingers as they hit the keyboard. At least make a stab towards objectivity.
Err... I have no all-encompassing vitriol against Apple. I admire aspects of their success and products. Other aspects I dislike and see as clearly destructive. You cast my gray opinion as black, but that approach is very simple-minded.

Again, I don't want a monopoly for anyone, let alone Android.

And I have nothing against Steve Jobs (or Wozniak). I admire both men, but I can also acknowledge that they had certain well-documented character flaws. These flaws, in some cases (for example Jobs's exploitive, controlling nature) proved a key to their success, so the answer of how I feel about Jobs -- like any visionary -- is not as simple as "good" or "evil". My opinion is much more rich and nuanced, but you are apparently to lazy or too quick to judge to realize that.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By whoisnader on 4/11/2012 7:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
I keep hearing how Apple "select hardware" and package it all up but I wounder just how true and complete that statement is coming from a bias'ed "reporter".

So I wikipedia'ed it to see if apple does and appreciable engineering and was quite surprised to see that perhaps they do not manufacture CPUs/GPUs but they do have a role to play in it's design/engineering. Pay credit where it is due, wind back you rants and stop back peddling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/11/2012 8:28:25 PM , Rating: 1
They don't manufacture a lot of those parts...in any product they offer.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By someguy123 on 4/11/2012 10:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
If you actually read the wiki article, the only "design" done to the A4 (cortex/powervr combo) were performance enhancements designed by Intrinsity. Apple eventually bought out intrinsity, so yes, apple "selected" this hardware and then eventually bought out the company.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By testerguy on 4/12/2012 8:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
The bigger failing of Jason's and the posters who replied to you is to fail to understand that if it was as simple as 'selecting' hardware and just packaging it together, there would be no excuse for Android manufacturers in both the smartphone and tablet markets to be so far behind, both of the iPad 2 (over a year old) and the iPhond 4S (over 6 months old). The reality is that Apples competitors simply haven't been able to combine the same powerful components in the same way Apple has, and that's why Apple is leading in a hardware sense in both industries. They designed the screen and they designed much of the A5X processor in the iPad, then they just get their manufacturing toy-boys like Samsung , LG and Sharp to manufacture it to their specifications. Just like Ferrari gets little manufacturers to put together certain parts. The manufacturer isn't the one with the skill, they're the ones with the labour.


RE: Not wholly contradictory
By DigitalFreak on 4/12/2012 11:46:35 AM , Rating: 2
Please die in a fire


By masamasa on 4/11/2012 11:03:17 AM , Rating: 2
The large companies like IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and others will continue to strangle creativity with their patent businesses and inevitably, we'll all end up paying for it. Every device, everything you own, will have a premium going to these jackasses. Creativity in the market will over and we'll all end up buying the crap of these useless monopolies. Apple and Microsoft and two perfect examples of why you do not want a monopoly in any marketplace. Not looking good for consumers or startups in the long run, that's for sure.




By MarioJP on 4/11/2012 1:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
A closed ecosystem and having apps on your mac is not what i call a step forward. The only way PC's will die if something big comes along that can exceed it.

Until then, tablets and smartphones are just a commodity. Another problem is the carriers themselves. Not everyone can afford or don't want to pay for data plans just so your smartphones has all these "services" enabled.

I just learned the hard way that a smartphone without a data plan is semi useless, even if you're using wifi. Talk to me when we can have a mobile device without walls. Until then PC's will still continue to co-exists.




Its coming ridiculous
By MechanicalTechie on 4/10/2012 10:04:28 PM , Rating: 1
It's coming to the point where you need to employ a patent lawyer these days just to release some software because some corporate muppet has bought everything up.

Should be some sliding scale rule that states if you’re a small company you can get away with this stupidness

Pffff fat chance!!!




By seraphim1982 on 4/11/2012 10:15:53 AM , Rating: 1
The guy with the biggest bankroll, plays the roll of the bully. This doesn't just apply to Apple, but Exxon, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Pfzier, the list goes on. In the IT industry it is beneficial to get more IT patents and sue the shit out of them, Oil industry, its good to start war and get more resources, Drink industry, its good to charge more for clean water than Pop, which makes more diabetics, the Medical industry, its better to make people better, not make cures.

The biggest bankroll, tends to line the pockets of the politicians in their favour. Look @ AMD vs. Intel. Case, a settlement of 2 Billions is PEANUTS... 2 Billion vs the their market share lost + sales lost + potential futures sakes. Now Intel is the sole badass in the x86 CPU market.

Its not a problem with these companies, its the system...




"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki