Posts by SuccessCase

Rap chap tapped for $3 BEELLION: Apple buys Dr Dre's Beats

Re: @SuccessCase

"iOS market share and mindshare is no longer large enough to move a market."

Just why is it app vendors still predominantly write for iOS first ?

"By far the most likely reason Apple bought Beats is simple: Despite repeated efforts, Apple has near-zero presence in the subscription streaming market at a time when music sales are plummeting fast in favour of these services."

It's a standard term in music industry contracts, that they have to be renegotiated in the event of a change of owner. So no banana. Yes they will want to take over Beats subscription streaming, but it isn't really anywhere in user numbers, so again no banana.

Re: WTF?

Oh gawd did I write that? I lived through it too, so actually know they were on Motorola first but was forgetting the dates and thought they went briefly to Intel before going to Power PC. Now thinking about it, I remember it was just a lot of *talk* about them going to Intel, (and there was also a lot of talk about PowerPC trouncing the Intel architecture, so of Windows converting to PowerPC). It didn't happen though, not because Power PC wasn't superior. Risk did offer real advantages, but because Intel effectively introduced Risk philosophy behind a kind of facade and basically kept ahead of the performance curve through shear money and scale talking.

Re: WTF?

"The King of the Lossy Codec purchases a bass-boosting acoustic-disruption hardware biz for $3 billion."

And that is precisely why Apple are buying Beats (apologies BTW, but this is in large part a repost of a post I made earlier, but is even more relevant to this article). Agree on the base-boosting acoustic-disruption line (but that doesn't change their popularity does it), but your line on the "lossy codec" says it all: The tech world has been caught on the hop by the popularity of Neil Young's PONO kickstarter project. Ultra-high def audio is proving a bigger draw with consumers than anyone imagined would be the case (the science case for it is not at all clear and more than a little contentious). Apple have a penchant for pushing standards to new levels and always seek to reduce the number of connections and simplify. They were the first to drop optical drives from their laptops. They were the first pushing FireWire. They moved from Intel to Power PC and back in their Mac/MacBook line and now look likely to move to ARM. They always move on and never fear burning some of their existing market to get to where they consider the leading edge to be.

I predict they are about to go all in on ultra-HD-Audio. The 3.5 inch headphone jack is now the oldest connector on their devices. They will probably replace it with a connection via the lightening port. Overnight 3.5 inch headphone connections will appear old fashioned and low tech. There will be a wave of upgrades. Apple sell half their kit via the Apple Stores where they can play kingmaker with which head-phone brand is given most prominence. Beats will needless to say have the new connector type. Users will still be able to plug in with a 3.5mm cable (via an adaptor for Apple kit and an alternative cable in the box with the Beats cans). But many consumers are nevertheless going to have at the back if their minds that they should go for the new standard; That 3.5 mm jacks have had their day. They will offer instant "quality" upgrade via their iTunes iCloud service (where tracks are streamed so can be upgraded to higher quality non-lossy bitrate for "free") and needless to say the Beats streaming service will offer the same. Even those who are dubious of the value of ultra-HD audio will have a nagging feeling they no longer have the best if they don't have it - that is simply human nature.

Further I believe Apple will publish the standard for others in the industry to be able to use the connector. Which they may well do, if reluctantly. At the very least Apple will succeed in muddying the waters re USB. This will simultaneously help them in their problem with the EU, who are soon to mandate a common connector for mobile devices. Apple will not want it to be mini USB 3 because it is a turd compared with their physical socket design and they way in which it isn't appropriate for headphone connections (where users often grope to insert the cable, sight unseen) will illustrate their point. When other companies have to compete by moving away from USB 3 to Apple's design or their own new design, the fact Apple are right on this will have been made clear. Apple will gain a small advantage over other companies playing catchup to implement a new standard and will have the appearance of being industry leading. Some companies will stick with 3.5mm audio connectors and hold the line there is no discernible difference (and they will most probably be entirely correct), but their sales will suffer anyway because with new standards out there the 3.5mm will simply start to feel old and new kit using it will suffer from the, albeit technically unjustified, whiff of premature redundancy.

If Beats is going to encounter, over the next two to three years, a huge spike in revenue in large part due to upgrade purchases, and also due to new ultra-HD customers being attracted to buying (albeit bass heavy) "quality" kit, it makes sense for Apple, who will be creating the conditions for that upgrade revenue spike, to own the company.

So you reckon Nokia-wielding Microsoft can't beat off Apple?

Re: no way

You are right that is a risk. If this is the right scenario, you're reasoning has lead me to think they will have an audio jack convertor connector. Users will want the latest iPhone and say to themselves I can just use my existing high end cans with the convertor. But then, once they have got the latest device, will dislike the fact their cans appear to be second rate because they are plugged into a lump of a convertor, so they will ask for a new set for Christmas anyway. I fully admit that in this case it will be fashion, or at least image at play over real benefit. But it will be highly lucrative nonetheless.

"Buying Beats was more about a a strategic alliance and a marketing tactic, nothing more."

I disagree with this point, not because I think it is anything other than a marketing tactic, I have to agree with that point if HD Audio is no real advantage. I happen to think it is a marketing opportunity Apple didn't particularly define but now don't want to be seen to be playing catch up. I'm guessing they will have reviewed all the iPhone connectors and the need for each, as they do from time to time, and will simply have concluded, in conjunction with the evidence of the PONO project, it's time to lead the pack in ditching the 3.5mm audio jack. They will probably get the device down to having just one connector.

There are a billion iOS device users out there. Everyone upgrading who wants anything other than the stock headphones is going to need a new set of cans. People will upgrade, even if they have existing expensive cans, because they will want latest tech, reason "I can use the stock headphones" and will do so but will soon miss their over ear phones and purchase new ones.

I also agree on your point about base heavy Beats headphones. I personally wouldn't touch them and will stay with my very unfashionable looking Bose's. But that said, I think for that, they are actually very good quality if simply preferentially heavy on the base. Many users are very happy for that and agree with that emphasis. Where Apple will gain is there will be a massive wave of upgrades and Apple will have control over the position of the headphones in the stores where 1/2 of all iOS device purchases take place. They are colourful, made of high quality materials and are a brand with Street cred. Just imagine Apple own brand headphones and its clear their brand wouldn't quite be right. If I'm right Apple are in a position to engineer a massive revenue boost for Beats and they figured they may as well own the company and reap the profits.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on Apple, but wholeheartedly agree with your view on this "HD audio" trend. I suspect Apple and other tech companies will have been shocked by the massive level of support the PONO Kickstarter project attracted. Regardless of the actual value of PONO, no leading edge tech company will be sitting back and risking being seen as stick in the mud, no matter the real world merits and the public perception on this being ahead of the tech world, will have given Apple an opportunity I expect they about to seize with both hands.

By HD audio BTW, I am of course using the loose term that has come associated with the new ultra-high def audio standards brought into focus by Neil Young's PONO player Kickstarter project. It's hotly contested as to whether this new standard will bring real discernible advantages. For the leading tech companies, regardless of the relative merits, they will have to be seen to be adopting the newer "higher quality" standard. This is where "fashion" can genuinely be said to play a role, because I suspect blind audio testing will establish no one can actually reliably tell the difference anyway.

Starts off well, but then collapses into facile and shallow trope "what keeps Apple revenues flowing is just fashion"

But no, fashion is suddenly this incredibly powerful beast (true) that for Apple has become a perennial, because, er, suddenly the theory trips over it's own laces.

For a better insight into one of the main reasons Apple succeed, this article is a good read:

http://rampantinnovation.com/2014/05/13/design-is-about-intent/

In summary Apple have design intent to their core. They avoid falling foul of the three design evasions:

1. The first design evasion "Preserving" - Apple have always been prepared to rip-up the blueprint for a previous design success where their competitors do not. Microsoft clearly have suffered badly from this evasion, and as this The Register article points out, where they have ripped up the blue-print (e.g. Windows phone) the result is much better.

2. Copying - Apple are perfectly prepared to copy but only after they have evaluated it is the best solution. They don't abdicate on the responsibility to place the design effort first and evaluate it is the best solution in the current context. Samsung have too often taken the copy first / think later short-cut. Their shameless equivalent of the Apple passbook is a good example of the level to which they are prepared to go in not thinking for themselves. It is pernicious because it can appear to help the company, but it also places an upper limit on user expectations as to what to expect of that company. It's a bit like saying I'll compromise my reputation to achieve scale. It can be done, but it's an existentially limiting trade to make. In life we all have to decide how we are going to live in that regard. If for example I become a photographer, and want to be taken seriously, I can't make a quick buck by shooting porn, or even doing low value magazines, and hope to easily recover my reputation as a top photographer.

3. Delegating - also pernicious because it dresses in the garb of reasoned scientific method. Microsoft fall foul of this problem (the office ribbon bar being an example). This is where design direction is surrendered to the uncoordinated masses through delegating the process to the results of focus group and user research. The abdicating "designer" always has an excuse to fall back on "our research showed..." Steve Jobs would give the Henry Ford quote to illustrate the problem of this third evasion. "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

Apple will fail if they start to diverge from their drive to put design first. Which brings me to their Beats purchase. I've been puzzled by this for some time and concluded Tim Cook had slipped up (I wrote my feelings up here and they seemed to be well received; http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/09/apple-looks-set-to-buy-dr-dre-beats-electronics#comment-35409955)

However, now I think that conclusion was wrong and it has suddenly clicked. Apple like to own the full stack. The oldest and most low-tech connector on a mobile device these days is the headphone jack. And we are heading for a new level HD audio. Apple like to be thought of as the technology firm who "owns" music.

Given they rarely allow themselves to fall foul of design evasion 1 - I predict they are about to go all in on HD audio. In Apple style they will simply wholly remove the 3.5mm headphone jack from all iOS devices coming out this year and moving forwards. In 2 years it will be near as dammit a forgotten connector. If they do this, there will be one hell of a user base purchasing new speaker/headphone tech with a new connector standard (possibly lightening and/ or a new higher throughput low power wireless standard / upgrade to low-power bluetooth). They have been losing some of their lustre as THE tech music company. By buying Beats, and going all in on HD Audio, they reap the profit from the inevitable Tsunami of consumer upgrade behaviour, and fully establish themselves as design leader amongst their peers.

Apple poaches Nokia photo guru Ari Partinen from Microsoft

"Nokia's cameras are considered to be the best in the business, whereas Apple's aren't"

That simply isn't the case. The DxOMark is the most comprehensive anal, exacting and science based of the benchmarks out there. Nokia's 808 is getting 77 on its' DxOMark and the iPhone 5S got 76.

Let's be clear, if I tape a point and shoot camera and a phone together it will offer better quality photos, be only a little bit bulkier and will be a lot better looking than the Nokia 808 (ok I exaggerate a little, but you get my drift).

Getting better quality is not difficult if you are not worrying about size. The fact the iPhone 5S is in 3rd on the overall DxOMark ranking for mobile phone cameras and yet has no raised camera lens/cowling says it all. There is some kick arse-tech in there. Sony are in first place with the Z2 scoring an astonishing 79. They, like Apple have no raised cowling, (though the camera housing is significantly larger on the Z2 than the iPhone 5S) and they are in a joint tech agreement sharing all phone-camera patents and tech with Apple.

Compare Apple/Sony handsets with the Nokia handsets that are normal handsets (e,g, that are not specialised units with enlarged cameras) and it's clear the Apple/Sony shared tech is further ahead. Though to be fair all these top camera handsets offer outstanding quality given the limited dimensions of the devices and the Nokia handsets are right up there mixing it with the best.

I'm sure this guy knows his stuff. I'm sure he will be extremely valuable to Apple and will bring some new thinking, but Nokia's mobile phone camera tech being "the best in the business" is one of those oft regurgitated seldom challenged Internet tropes that simply isn't backed up by the extremely comprehensive and science based testing of the DxOMark.

Oracle vs Google redux: Appeals court says APIs CAN TOO be copyrighted

Re: Probably the death knell of the "industry"

Agreed, and some contributors to this thread appear to be of the view, if you have a dispute with someone but consensus on The Register is such that your position is the less supported, you should be denied access to the legal system. Never mind that common sense says if Sun retain copyright but such API's use is allowed under fair use, that would seem to be the right ruling. People forget rulings like this apply to cases far beyond the current case and where different matters might be under dispute.

To me it seems entirely correct such API's are considered a part of Sun's work product but that they should be usable by another company under fair use. That may well be the ruling that results here. If in the future there is a case where a company has ripped off API's plus implementation code (which hasn't happened in this case), it is reasonable that because, through theft of the latter, they have shown a certain intent, they can then be said to have gone beyond fair use so have also thieved the former. Such a distinctions are important when e.g. calculating damages. If API's are divorced from copyright entirely, subtleties like this are lost.

It seems to me the legal system is there to examine the law from all angles and refine it. Commentards alighting on a single issue with pitch forks and bales of burning hay, singularly fail to do so.

Boffins tag Android app privacy fails

Simple. Buy an iPhone.

Seriously, as trollish as that comment may sound, there is no other way of looking at this than as the product of extremely bad design. Google dun bad. I understand there are other reasons you may not want to buy an iPhone, but on the basis if this issue, it's an answer.

Apple get criticised for it because of the implied delay, but they have a history of identifying which features benefit from careful planning, not rushing those features, and elaborating them with care before release. They did so with copy and paste (since copied wholesale by Android) and then multi-tasking and the result is superior OS control for preventing bad actors (Android's approach by contrast was more akin putting a bucket of money in the middle of the street and saying "now now everyone, be sure to only take what you need and leave enough for others" ). They erred on the side of caution and user control with app permissions, and compared with Android have generally got that whole area right. And they have taken the same approach with inter-app communications and data sharing (e.g, there is virtually non - except between apps owned by a single company and via registering to be able to receive process certain mime types). They knew it was something low on the feature list and that it has huge security implications. Few users really miss it/need it. Indeed Apple even restricted the shared clipboard facility when they realised there was a security threat. And if previously reliable sources are correct they are now ready to put a comprehensive framework in place at this years WWDC.

Generally the result is iOS, though more restricted, is proving to be far more secure (obvious major snafu's like the goto:fail cert bug aside - but at least such security issues when identified are quickly addressed with an update available to all users).

The verdict is in: Samsung to pay Apple $120m chump change, but gets tiny rebate

Re: "Beloved products like the iPhone..."

The word "love" has a wide range of meaning, and doesn't have to have a human target. When I say "I love spaghetti" nobody thinks I'm angling for a marriage, getting a boner over my plate of processed wheat - or, for that matter, cheating when tomorrow I express my love for Ravioli.

I personally find it strange when people aren't passionate about the things around them. We only have one life, and we should avoid valuing material possessions too highly, but then that thought can also in some senses be reversed; we only have one life and we shouldn't bother with crap or tolerate substandard design. The best design allows us to achieve our objectives while getting the hell out the way.

One of my own passions is typeface design. The typefaces I value are, without fail, in every case produced by people who are themselves passionate about typeface design.

I expect the designers of the things I buy to be passionate about what they design. This The Verge story about Leica gives the perfect example of what I mean:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5647694/leica-t-mirrorless-camera-photo-essay

Tell me the designers at Leica don't love what they do.

The prescient concept isn't from the verb "anthropomorphise," a more appropriate concept is the noun "aesthete." Personally I'm not a thoroughgoing aesthete; though I wouldn't mind being. But I am passionate about design.

And this is the real problem many have with Apple. The company, like Leica, produces products some suspect are for "aesthetes" and that attracts scorn. But if we are honest, most people want to be thought of as a bit aesthete themselves, and aren't because they haven't tried to educate themselves or have shied away from superior design due fearing it leads down a road to unaffordable expense (actually a fallacy, but a commonly held one)

I've noticed that when some people detect someone is adopting the ideal of an aesthete, they often feel challenged by it and get a bit nasty. They like to paint the putative aesthete as arrogant, pretentious or privileged and while sometimes (or even often) that may often be the case, it isn't necessarily so. The aesthete can just as often be a poor but passionate field photographer, filming an erupting volcanoe, or a farmer following Ruskin's rules for the English rural idyl. From the world of fiction, James Bond is a famous aesthete (yes he is arrogant, but also kind of cool).

The problem Samsung has is precisely that their devices are purchased by the kind of people who see being passionate about industrial design as grounds to be considered a bit of a dick. In the technologist market, the Samsung brand is identified with such people; they wear their disdain for anyone with a different view like a badge.

Wake up ! The result is before you and its called the Galaxy Gear :)

Google in NOT EVIL shocker: Bins student email ad scanning

Re: Thank you Google

The problem with many commentaries is they think it is reasonable to make a false dichotomy. You are attempting to equate knowing the difference between privacy and anonymity with agreement with your position that it is ok for a company to have a camera installed in a public toilet. It isn't.

"The cameras are already there and we can choose not to use the public toilet if we don't like them."

Do you think people always have choice about when they need the loo? Do you really think the internet is a luxury people living and working in modern society have a reasonable choice about using? Or has it now become akin to a utility? I think the latter, and a civilised society expects certain rights to be attached. There is a long and proud history of such. When travellers used horses and foot, a visitor to an Inn could expect to be able to receive a glass of water at no charge. That was a reasonable right Inn Keepers, who were allowed to trade in Alcoholic beverage, we expected to provide for. The same, BTW as I have a right not to be observed whilst using a public loo. Think about it for only a short while and its clear your example is pretty fucking asinine. A company can perfectly well be employed to monitor the loo when the loo door is unlocked, but not when I have my trousers down.

"You don't want to pay for the toilet. You don't want the company to sell your shit. You don't want the cameras and you complain if the cubical runs out of bog paper or someone left a floater. Not only that you'll also complain if the company closes the toilet cause it's unfinancial because it's your god given right to have free toilets."

"You're anonymous but not private. Learn the difference."

You don't know any of that about me or the extreme extent to which I am discriminating in the language and concepts I use. But one thing I can for sure say about you is you have said the above because you think its ok to put words in other people's mouths and then criticise them as though that is who they are. Since you think it's OK to paint inaccurate pictures of people and dole out "lessons" I'm going to go one better and having painted an accurate picture of you, dole out a well founded lesson. There is never, ever an excuse for doing that and, indeed, doing so just makes you a dick; dick.

Re: Thank you Google

"Is it just me or are some people dumb."

Yep they are. Google do not operate in a vacuum occupied by Google and their customer's alone. When they scan emails they can also build a profile for users emailing gmail users and also those who have never even sent email to a gmail user but whose emails have got captured in a conversation thread that has been. When Google read a users address book, they get the email addresses and contact details of users who don't use gmail. Their data-store analysis activity and the data they store itself have implications far beyond Gmail users. It has made Google one of the most powerful intelligence agencies on the planet. You have not been granted mandate to decide this is ok for all of us, because you think critics are "are dumb" and that Google should be allowed to continue un-examined and without criticism

Researcher says Apple fibs about crypto for iOS email attachments

Re: It's not a bug, it's a feature.

"Our encryption algorithm is so sneaky it's doing exactly what we said it would."

Another shameless sham of a security story by The Register. The data protection feature on the iPhone refers to the ability to switch on file system encryption, in which case the entire contents of the user directory in the underlying OS is encrypted. If you don't opt for data protection (it's an option in settings anyone can use - personally I don't bother) and jailbreak the device, then the filesystem is accessible just like it is on OSX, Linux and Windows and you can, duh, read your files that are stored there. The contents of the mail and personal files folders, including attachments, will be sitting there unencrypted, just as they are on your Linux machine, PC and Mac (though each of those likewise have disk encryption options). Outrageous huh !

Stories like this really show The Register up for what it is. Melodrama above truth every time.

Google forges a Silver bullet for Android, aims it at Samsung's heart

Definition of closed:

mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android-silver.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git

fatal: Authentication failed

Tim Cook: Apple's 'closer than it's ever been' to releasing new product range

Re: Nothing that innovative coming, then

@deadlockvictim

Exactly. The commentaries on this thread are so driven by fanboyism they either have no idea of computer history or are simply prepared to lie. It is the achievement Steve Jobs and Steve Wosniac were famous for and that set Steve Jobs on the sometimes rocky road to massive success. They launched the first home computer, plain and simple. Before that it was all electronics kits or machines costing $19,000. No one can present any counter examples or justify their counter claims because there are non and there are no counter claims that stand up to even cursory examination.

I know, I can still remember the moment the Apple II arrived like it was yesterday, staring longingly at through the window of my local electronics store. There is even a commenter above quoting the PCW 8256, which was launched in 1985 a full 8 years after the Apple II (the Apple I was made of wood to order and was never manufactured in bulk).

There were in fact two others launches in 77 after the Apple II but neither were as good. The other two other launches being the TRS-80 and the Commodore PET. The TRS-80 was the better of the two. The Commodore PET was hampered by an unimpressive text display resolution so low as to seriously compromise what it could be used for. Don't get me wrong, in those days any such machine with a CRT display output and that could be used for programming was legendary. My first computer was the ZX81, followed by the Oric1 and the Commodore 64.

Re: Nothing that innovative coming, then

@TomH "Apple has never been first to market with anything"

Apart from that inconsequential development in IT known as the Personal Computer. So, you know, there was that.

Lost treasure of Atari REVEALED

Re: Don't understand the fuss

If my memory serves me rightly, ET was released before it was scrapped. I have a memory of an ET sprite with the head moving independently of the body (an overlapping second sprite). I didn't buy it but remember seeing it quite well. Surely someone somewhere has a copy.

Apple's strong iPhone sales crush Wall Street moneymen's tepid expectations

Of course eventually their end will come. The question is when. I think later rather than sooner. Here's why.

Apple are notable precisely for not falling victim to the Inventors dilemma. They have a history of being prepared to cannibalise their own markets and existing revenue streams. So, for example:

They switched entirely from PowerPC to Intel and didn't try to maintain a PowerPC line for the sake of backwards compatibility.

They launched the iPhone which cannibalised the iPod. They launched the iPad which they knew, if successful, would undercut MacBook sales (and has).

They released the MacBook Air at a lower price point than the MacBook Pro, knowing it was a superior solution for the majority of existing MacBook Pro users.

With hindsight it seems obvious they should have done these things because with hindsight it is obvious their strategy has lead them from strength to strength. However contrast with Microsoft to see how the innovators dilemma can have a real effect. Microsoft were not prepared to cannibalise Windows and now have a commercially under performing tablet/Windows frankenstein OS. They were not prepared to cannibalise Office so are hanging on to an outmoded business model where their feature advantage and user base is steadily being eroded. For the sake of avoiding disruption they have clung to the OOXML file format, which utilises highly normalised data (which doesn't work well for collaborative working because the data involves relationships criss crossing the whole of the document file and isn't isolated to a unit the user currently happens to be working in). And they are being undercut by ever more capable free offerings from Google and Apple, which, in both cases support collaboration (and have highly denormalised file formats). Sure they don't yet have feature parity, but especially where Apple iWork is concerned, the general structure of the UI is far simpler, easy to follow and more effective. Collaborative capability, and Web based access by any users go a long way to overturn Office dominance and many of the advanced features are becoming less and less relevant in this modern socially networked world where work is increasingly done in small collaborative chunks (often utilising focussed vertical apps on mobile devices rather than generalised Mallet to crack and egg solutions like Office), and utilisation of long Office documents is breaking down.

In truth a business Apple can be usefully compared with is Disney. Walt Disney instilled a set of principles in the company and most notably, instilled a quality ethic and the expectation they should drive for excellence. Those principles have stood the test of time (that's the thing about principles, they tend to be timeless, so do). Sure following Disney's death, it is no longer the company it was when he was alive. But the principles he instilled have helped it endure nevertheless. I think the world has yet to wake up to the fact inventiveness isn't required for those principles to be effective and stand the company in good stead. Because Apple are a secretive product company, the general public and analysts alike can't see where the next hit is coming from. But if you have a company occupying the space Apple occupy and hold on to ensuring principles, success will follow.

Pure inventiveness is the wrong measure. Invention has always stood on the shoulders of the giants who have come before anyway. Execute on principles organised around regard for user needs and priorities. Work hard to do that and sure as eggs are eggs,innovative products will follow. To corrupt a phrase, innovation is after all 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.

Judge halts spread of zombie Nortel patents to Texas in Google trial

@Roo

Perhaps you can tell me what BSD is for and who is allowed to use it. Just you? Just your chosen band of OSS evangelists? Or anyone who follows the rules, including Apple? You do know much of BSD used by Apple is a commercial product, which Apple licensed? You do know that using some elements of FreeBSD has meant, in accordance with the rules they publish and maintain the core of OSX, Darwin, as an open source project/ repository and that it is available to the world? The same as they made WebKit available to the world. Remind me not to buy any of your work product from you. You seem to think anyone who buys a license to use something on an ongoing basis, if they didn't invent it, should find their right to use relinquished (and if not just what is your complaint?)

As for Google and Rockstar, contributors to this thread are forgetting a few key facts:

1) Google also competed for the Nortel patents the Rockstar consortium purchased. They lost.

2) The Rockstar consortium proposed the risk of losing the patents was great enough that all interested parties were better off biding in them as a consortium, a consortium Google were invited to join, but they turned down the offer. My heart bleeds for them.

3) Google claim they are anti software patents, but at the same time as making these claims I didn't notice them abandoning their own software patents for Adwords and page ranking through link analysis: the very software patents their business was built on and that meant Yahoo had to abandon the Internet advertising lead they once held to Google. Oh of course, Yahoo could have just ignored Google's software patents and competed with an Adwords clone. After all, listen to what Google say now to client device users and doing so is absolutely fine and dandy. The simple reality is Google are fucking hypocrites playing to the gallery where they know the gallery isn't interested in *their* software patents because they cover server side tech. By all means, Google, be against software patents, just don't be hypocritical while you are making the claim. Google's attitude is and always has been, "What is mine, is mine and what is yours is my own."

Apple cooperating at last on antitrust after months of wrangling – says court watchdog

Re: Re:

Yes agreed, though as I have said, Apple don't disagree with the facts and their rebuttal of the logic of the findings is an interesting read. Most haven't shown the detail:

So the question for Apple raised in their appeal, is what qualifies as a price fixing cartel. The court agree the agency model they put forward is lawful. So presenting the agency model as a preferred option, even if done so strongly, is not alone sufficient to say they behaved as part of a price fixing cartel. So the question was over the manner of the renegotiation to the agency model and if the publishers took co-ordinated action to force it on Amazon. Apple's argument is preferring to use the model does not make them culpable for forcing it on Amazon, it was the publishers choice to do that: and there is no evidence they took coercive action targeting Amazon and it can only be seen to be targeting them *because they were 90% of the market* - which, coming from the Anti-Trust authority, is not a good argument ! That logic also seems reasonable enough. They can't be convicted just for being happy to see the result.

They also go on to point out that though the agency model saw a rise in the price of new release books (which were priced at levels that other publishers could not match and used by Amazon to undercut competitors), it resulted in the price of books overall going down. It is reasonable to conclude that this was because for the first time, Amazon had effective competition for Ebooks. The data supports that and indeed that rather seems to back up that it is Amazon who are applying unreasonable market power. If simply the price of new releases went up that couldn't be said but that prices overall went down is very revealing of the dynamic at play.

Here's a more detailed write-up than the average:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/apple-e-book-appeal-higher-new-release-prices-boosted-competition/

Re: Does...

"The watchdog is there for the one specific purpose of monitoring compliance concerning book pricing."

Which actually is what Apple were complaining about. He is a friend of the judge, was there for that one purpose, but, in Kafka-esque style, appointed himself monitor of the entire company for all anti-trust matters - way beyond the scope of the remit given to him by the court - and cited Apple complaints about his expansion of scope as reason he needed the additional scope. To cap it all, he awarded himself an unfounded higher than market-rate reward for his un-sanctioned "service" plus charged for an additional lawyer admitting he needed the help because on his own he wasn't qualified for the job (but is, as noted, is a friend of the judge). Apple complained about him and his activities were curtailed and his charges slashed by the appeal court. The Register, of course, reported this as Apple failing to get him removed as they requested, when the reality is Apple will have thought there was little chance he would be removed, but certainly wanted his expansion of scope curtailed.

Now his expansion of scope *has* been curtailed, Apple are co-operating. It seems bizarre and hardly objective that he should write about this new level of co-operation as he did without mentioning the appeal court directed that his his gravy train should get back on the court approved route and agreed he had overstepped the mark.

Additionally, Apple don't dispute the facts of the case, but do dispute the logic of the conclusion and have appealed with a highly reasoned and well founded argument (not all appeals are, but with this one they really have some good arguments):

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/apple-files-appeal-in-e-book-antitrust-case/

After all at the end of the day, there is one monopoly in E-Books, its not Apple, and the monopolist was helped by the ruling and strengthened its grip on the EBook market. That is the monopolist was helped by the ruling of the US anti-trust powers, whose job it is to curtail unfair use of monopoly power. Something, right there, isn't right.

Amazon buys Comixology for content crossover capers

Brilliant headline.

Greg Christie to leave Apple as Jonathan Ive seizes design reins

@Andrew Newstead, agreed. The UI does fade away, in which case the bold, bright and distinct icon images are useful for helping the identification process. I think they do offer a small but real advantage and yes, very much agree the UI getting out the way of what you want to do is a key measure of success - if not THE key measure of success. I do think Ive has thought very carefully about these things. Additionally if there is one thing that I have learned regarding UI's, it is that users hate change. There will always be complaints. So with a change like iOS 7, the alternative scenarios are, complaints but no user revolt, or higher level of complaints plus user revolt. The former = success and after a while the complainers fall in line anyway.

For me the striking thing with Ive and iOS 7 is that the result is good where you expect he would have struggled but not so good where you would have expected him to be strongest. If we split UI design work into two parts, interaction design and visual design, you would have expected Ive would have been good with the visual design and struggled with the interaction design, but in fact, in iOS7 it appears it was the other way round. The interaction design improvements were balanced, powerful and well implemented (example: swipe from the right/left edge to go forward and back through hierarchical menus and web pages is a joy to use, especially on the iPhone), but the visual design elements (example, the Safari Icon) were not so good. That said, Ive clearly wanted to shake things up and as expected some of the more jarring extremes (read garish colours) have been dialled back in more recent updates.

From a high-level the visual look and feel is consistent and balanced but in the detail often seems naive and childlike (those icons again). Ives level of skill, achievements and experience make me undecided as to if this is simply a failing or a wholly deliberate and quite radical philosophy. Many artists seek to recapture the purity of expression young children have because at a young age there is an honesty and simplicity in children's drawings that captures the essence of things with an ease that is lost when we enter adolescence. That ability to capture an essence and so directly convey an idea serves the *functional* purpose of UI elements perfectly. Ive is either of the mind that designs with a naive "non-designery" appearance serve the purpose, serve the role an icon plays, better than something more refined, in which case he is actually being quite radical and a bit of a genius successfully making appearance wholly subservient to interaction design, OR the interaction design advantages are accidental, and his visual design aesthetic is, just a bit shit. I'm not wholly convinced, one way or the other and can genuinely argue both sides. To all accounts he was very single minded in driving out old thinking, and enjoyed disrupting the established cosy visual design pipeline, provocatively selecting the flat icon designs of non-pro-designers over those of the pro designers; that single minded ness speaks to the coherent philosophy I have described - and a brave one at that. But then, on the other hand, the removal of button outlines, while visually simplifying (also a theme in Ives design philosophy) also remove what interaction designers call an "affordance" cluing the user in on how to interact with the element (or more simply that they can interact with the element) and this runs counter to the purposes of interaction design.

So Ive, design genius across hardware and software, or a very lucky Barbie and Ken toy designer (at least where software is concerned). All will become clear in subsequent releases as things either further improve and his philosophy beds down such that there are improvements both interaction design-wise and visual design-wise, or they become a bit more unlaced. We shall see.

Apple execs: 'Consumers want what we don't have'

Re: Fixated on Apple

@DougS "But Apple's threat was/is limited, as they only play in the high end of the market."

How is that a limited threat, it's the only segment of the market making money!! After Apple and Samsung, all other Android vendors combined (excepting manufacturers internal to the Chinese market) make less than zero profit. e.g. lose money on Android. That's a terrible state of affairs. That's why Samsung see the threat as so great. Apple occupy the high end and are proving not just difficult to dislodge but continue to improve their position relative to that market.

This article shows why Apple are still killing it versus Android:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/04/04/apple_vs_android_developers_see_a_socioeconomic_divide.html

Google hands over $1.4m for unmarked Street View cars in Italy

I get it. The Reg left missed off some informative scare quotes. Google were fined by the The Italian Data "Protection" Authority.

Google's SWOLLEN WINDBAGS circle PLANET, dispensing INTERWEBS

Read the headline and I was convinced this was going to be an article about Eric Schmidt using the tether feature of his phone.

Apple: You're a copycat! Samsung: This is really about Google, isn't it?

Re: "Apple Newton was out first"

Oh Homer you seem not to have been able to parse quite simple logic. Saying x was an earlier implementation of feature y than z's is NOT a claim x was the *earliest* implementation of feature y. Read again my "claim" and you will see I have made no statement about the Newton being the earliest resistive touch device, and that I have quite rightly pointed out the argument Apple was not innovative because the iPad was predated by the Palm Pilot is a wholly inadequate given the Palm Pilot was predated by an earlier *Apple* device which clearly evidenced the two features (touch sensitivity and a grid of icons) cited. In the future, do try harder to actually parse basic logic old chap, your supposed to be a technologist. Bad humoured insults suggest your ability to analyse simple logic has been somewhat hampered by the red mist.

Re: Meh

@AC

kinda arguing against your own straw man there. Not what I've said at all, but it's quite fun to watch you vent against an imaginary enemy. Throw some more insults at the dullard. Get it off your chest. But if you come to blows, don't swing too hard, he's not real so there's a high chance you'll just spin on the spot and hit yourself.

Re: "Apple Newton was out first"

Well here's the thing Homey boy, its a little boring how you are incapable of grasping the argument that "first" does not equal "success" or even "good," and though it may be largely of identity with "inventive" isn't even necessarily "innovative" (innovation being more than invention, but also cultivation and integration of valued solutions such that they are brought to practical fruition and application) And the first electronics device made of plastic was way earlier than 30 years before the Linus Write-Top. So what?

Re: Meh

@NumptyScrub

"yet Apple enthusiasts almost always immediately claim Apple were the "first" with the iPhone and iPad when they demonstrably were not"

It's not too facetious to point out, that by definition, Apple were the first with the iPhone and the iPad and you have already appear to have agreed it is the cake baked with the ingredients, not the list of ingredients themselves. Plus you seem to have ignored the "horses mouth" admission of a key techie in the history of this, one who was quite happy to pay due respect to the achievements of a competitor. Why do you think it is Chris DeSilva thought the Google Android project (at the time Android looked far closer to the Blackberry OS than iOS) would have start-over if it wasn't for the fact the bar had just been moved significantly higher ? And why did RIM take a dive? Because of an OS that looked like their own, or because of Nokia's smartphones (which they were already, in business if not in technology terms, besting), or because of the significant fork in the smartphone design path brought by the iPhone? So all in all, who is it that is attempting to re-write history here?

I'm a little at a loss as to what your point is except to deny the important role the iPhone played. Now if you ask me if the Newton, the Palm Pilot or the Nokia 9000 were important devices I would have no difficulty acknowledging the part they played. Sour grapes and partisanship only serve to warp historical analysis. Psion should be in the mix too: they had far superior OS technology than Palm (though how they squandered that advantage is a sad story). Their OS was the root of Symbian, which they spun out as a separate company, though by the time they did this, they had lost their early lead and the endeavour was, unfortunately, further wrecked by vested interests and a lack of overall over the design direction for the OS.

Re: Meh

sorry, meant to say resistive, not haptic touch screen device. Old age.

Re: Meh

@Jason 5, selective memory, since the Apple Newton was out first, which was, oh a tile based haptic touch-screen device released 1993 when the Palm Pilot was released 1997. The "who was earliest" game is a silly one anyway. All modern tech products have components with considerable lineage which have been around in combination with other devices for many years. It's all about the cake that is baked with the ingredients, not the ingredients themselves.

"Phil that claimed Apple sunk most of the firm's R&D effort into the iPhone, yet we have Greg Christie on record as saying the dev team was "shockingly small""

That's a false choice, since there is no inconsistency in saying most of the R&D effort was against iPhone and that the dev team was shockingly small. Most companies use R&D spend as an accounting trick, because it can be used to minimise tax. Steve Jobs was well known for the fact he disliked large sprawling teams and he felt fluffing up R&D budget to reduce tax would lead to a dilution of focus on what R&D should be about.

On returning to Apple he slashed the R&D budget and also crucially cut the number of the products the company marketed to a fraction of what it was before. He understood you get far better and more intense value from small focussed R&D teams. Far from reducing focus on R&D, he was in fact the most R&D obsessed CEO of any tech company for the simple reason his modus operandi was to involve himself intimately as R&D commander in chief. To put it in somewhat melodramatic (but illustrative terms) he was the equivalent of the special forces officer who takes on an audacious plan with the words "my specialist unit 1/20th the size of your conventional forces will get the job done better and with fewer casualties." and then he went out and proved his argument in spectacular style.

Re: Meh

So Reg commentards who will never come close to making something like the iPhone in their lives think the most successful consumer electronics device in history is no big deal, yet in the recent book "Dogfight" Google's own Chris DeSalvo, working at the heart of the Android project, admitted on first seeing the iPhone:

“As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought ‘We’re going to have to start over.’”

So no, I guess it had no impact on the industry and all the ideas it embodied had no impact either. /sarcasm

BlackBerry ditches T-Mobile US after iPhone advert spat

Re: BEEP BEEP BEEP

"He wrote in a blog post that he was "outraged" by the campaign and couldn't understand why T-Mobile had run the "clearly inappropriate and ill-conceived" promotion without running it by BlackBerry first."

Perhaps, because, now let me think... they want to make money?

Dropbox nukes bloke's file share in DMCA brouhaha – then admits it made a 'HASH OF IT'

Re: well personally

You mean SFTP server. FTP is for suicidal morons.

Newsnight goes sour on Tech City miracle

Re: Big Mistake, Andrew

After reading the article, it made me laugh watching on iPlayer. Andrew was much too polite. He was suffering from that British disease (and I for one also suffer from it, badly) of being much more polite in public to the person who, in his head, he is having a wrestling match with than he is in the wrestling match that is happening in his head. It's a very British disease, which in my case has lead me, to recount to my friends imaginary conversations where, in my imagination, I have score hit after hit with witty rapier like blows. But the reality is I was, in actuality, I was probably sitting there rather meekly. Never mind. It was working in the other direction too. If there was friction didn't really come across and Eileen didn't score any blows against Andrew. After reading this piece I expected a boxing match, but relative to that frame, in reality it was two people dancing round each other shadow boxing and not actually trying to land any blows, and then the bell went for the end of the match.

I agree with Andrew re: the real locus of tech in the UK (M4 corridor, Cambridge etc) but I think it is also fair to point out, as a VC she is putting her reputation and money (I'm aware she is investing the money of others, but her own money is very likely to be there as well and certainly will be in terms of time), where her mouth is. Don't dis consumer services. There are many very good businesses based on the service industry. Silicon Roundabout will score many misses, but there only need to be a couple of big hits and it will be worthwhile. And I don't like the class politicking either, there is no "Private Schooled applicants only" clause on any of the grants. If there is a lack of state sector educated applicants, the fault lies with the attitude instilled by the state sector and the likes of the BBC (purveyors of positivity and enterprise inspiring productions like East Enders).

Getting a start-up going is demonstrably more related to attitude than resources, since most don't bring money in from mommey and pappy anyway, and those that do usually fail for the fact, if that is the case, the child usually doesn't know arse from elbow. Grant money is there for people who have taken the steps to set-up an enterprise and anyone who has tried will know relief only and not freebies are given. The risk remains high. We are not talking unconditional "state handout" here. Most attempting a startup are taking a considerable risk and they should be encouraged.

Partner firms: Microsoft kept Surface from you for YOUR OWN GOOD

Selling 1/10 the the number of Surfaces as iPads sold by Apple is actually quite good. The number of iPads sold is huge. Unparalleled for a device of its type. They are sold to a market more global than ever before. So let's be clear 1/10the number means MS have gained a toe hold in the market and can begin to expand.

Microsoft switches on Azure in China

"No - they just moved to Hong Kong - which is still part of China."

Clearly you haven't seen the stats for what has happened to Google usage since they left China. They to all intents and purposes don't exist there now. They are regularly blocked by the government and performance is dreadful.

Hong Kong is a special zone, and has completely different laws to mainland China and a tiny fraction of the population.

"Just like every other cloud vendor" apart from, er, GOOGLE. Why ? Because they were opening themselves up to a huge breach of human rights when the email accounts they were hosting for political dissidents were hacked by the Chinese government.

You do know people still disappear there without trace? It happened to a Chinese engineer working alongside the members of one of my teams. Not often but it does still happen. He vanished, and was seen being ushered into a police car. None of his Chinese colleagues wanted to talk about it and the company could find no record of charges brought against him.

I would be interested to understand why you think Google has left the largest market in the world to Baidu? Guess they just couldn't be arsed with the easily implemented local disclosure requirements.

I expect Microsoft are happy to contract operations to 21Vianet as the approach has the added advantage that when the government demand direct access to the data, as they inevitably will, MS would have been left in an awkward position. At least this way they can say their service is being run for them by a separate, local, legal entity who have to abide by local laws. Google have cut themselves out of China altogether. morally their position is more laudable, and they deserve credit for it. But financially and strategically it isn't good for them at all.

Original iPhone dev team was 'shockingly small' - Apple engineer

Re: And this is whats missing today

Why on earth would Johnny Ive be pushed?

TEN THINGS Google believes you believe about Glassholes and wishes you didn't

Re: This article does come over...

Larry Page was not wearing a pair when he spoke at TED this week. It would seem Google is cooling on the project. Robert Scoble, the biggest Glasshole out there, wrote a blog post decrying the fact they are very far from ready for commercial release and lamenting the fact there seems to be a growing disinterest on Google's part for pushing the project to completion. I expect they are coming to the view smart watches are a first more practical step to wearable computing, and even those haven't as yet been executed well. Google's new API and Motorola's latest hardware look interesting though.

Haunted Empire calls Apple 'a cult built around a dead man.' Tim Cook calls it 'nonsense'

Re: ADKC

"Claiming Apple to be the most profitable company in the world makes you look a tool"

Up is down ! black is white !

Apple are the most profitable company in the world. Period.

Re: Apple market cap (provably) utterly nonsense. Go on prove it. The point is my view on Apple's market cap is *opinion.* As is yours. If what you are saying has a single iota of reason, then analysts would have followed the proof, because it would be you-know, proof. And if this *proof* is evident to a commentard on TheRegister, it will for sure be evident to others.

YoY profits are walking backwards. Except YoY profits haven't walked backwards. One year, last year's profits were the first dip for many years (though revenue had still increased), but of course that doesn't qualify as Year-on-Year does it. Plus initial reports show the addition of China mobile has reversed this in any case so, again not a YoY profit dip. Plus of course their profit dip in the last year was far less significant than their leading competitor, Samsung, so their performance - the result of a maturing market - when compared to the rest of the market clearly remains industry leading. So please do go on, produce your proof.

Re: Doomed

Tim Cook is more considered, but I don't think it can be said he lacks Charisma. In comparison to Jobs, yes but not really in comparison with any other tech CEO (other than perhaps Larry Ellison, but then who, other than money loving egotists, would want to be Larry Ellison). Cook has a very sure presence and is extremely comfortable with himself.

You don't capture the most profitable end of the market so dominantly with only a "fan base." Sure Apple have a fan base, but the idea it extends to over a billion purchases by the wealthiest consumers on this planet is, I would say, a bit of a distortion. It's one of those memes people with Apple envy seem to latch onto but really it's just lazy reasoning on the part of people who have no interest in getting to the truth of how Apple have come to be the most profitable company in the world.

Re: ADKC

@streaky

Apple were not bankrupt when Jobs did the deal with MS. They needed to turn things around for sure and did, but they were not bankrupt.

The city certainly doesn't have a love affair with Apple. Their P/E ratio is far lower than it should be when compared with equivalent tech companies and their revenues continue to hold up in the face of the negative expectations on future earnings that have been keeping the P/E ratio down. In my view, the reason for this is they are a product company and investors can't see the product pipeline and don't believe it will continue. However, it has continued at a level that continually disabuses the depressed P/E only at any given moment, investors still aren't able to see the future products so continue to price negatively in the face of the evidential success. A more intelligent way to look at the question is to ask what other company in the world is positioned to be able to continue to dominate the earning potential of the high-end of the market. When asking the right question it becomes clear Apple is a machine that is uniquely positioned and will be continuing to perform well for the foreseeable future.

"In the real world they should fail"

What, in this real world, where they are the most profitable company in the world; they should fail. Not sure I follow your logic. Reality dictates the most profitable company in the world should in fact be labelled a failure?

I just can't compute the reasoning behind that, it just makes no sense how you could work that through in your head and actually think it is a reasonable statement... unless, wait,...Ah, I get it, it's fantasy wish-fulfilment from a grudge bearer.

8GB iPhone 5c is real, but no market-maker

"One thing is clear: Apple currently has little or no intention of duking it out at the bottom end of the smartphone market, where $US100 is reportedly the sweet spot for those seeking to connect “the next billion” to the internet. Microsoft and Google are more than willing to go there, as Nokia's newly-minted Android range and Google's generous licence terms for the operating system attest."

Well considering Samsung make most of their profit from the Galaxy range of handsets - e.g. their high end range - and Apple and Samsung between them last reported quarter made more than 100% of smartphone handset profits (more than 100% is possible because, the average profit for companies not Apple and Samsung was in fact a loss), it's pretty clear Apple have adopted the right strategy. The 5C was never an attempt to compete at the bottom end of the market, but an attempt to slightly expand their constituency to include customers who are not interested in paying top whack for a high-end model with every state of the art feature, but who nevertheless want the Apple experience and are still prepared to pay a significant amount for it. For sure they thought they would be selling more of the 5C. In hindsight, it should probably also have had a metal construction (a slight adaption of the iPhone 5). However the colours are eye catching and previously the introduction of colour after a period of colour uniformity has worked very well for them.

Also the 5C, when it was in the drawing board was planned to maintain volume in the face of an expected assault where the Samsung S4 would dilute the high-end; which never really materialised due to the S4 not being the ground breaking release Samsung had hoped it would be. Samsung failed to make inroads into Apple's share of the high-end market and Apple failed to make inroads into the high to mid level market.