"Apple. Your brand is being ruined by misplaced trust in a losing super-aggressive legal strategy."
I genuinely used to like Apple. I can actually remember regularly checking the website for the different gadgets I could buy. This was well before the Android v Apple "fan-boyism".
I switched off totally from the anti-consumerism that drives Apple. They make great devices that just work. I have no problems in borrowing an iPad for an hour, but they consistently take strategies beyond their products that have decremental effects to their customers and customers of other companies.
Who needs a third adapter for their phone (that will only work on iPhone5)? Who needs a different form factor for their SIM card so Apple can secure three year licencing deals with carriers? Who needs the walled garden of an App Store that prevents developers from releasing Apps that might cross over with iOS functionality... Who needs to write a book on Apple Software where the terms demand that they only distribute the book on Apple platforms..
Put honestly, there is very little that Apple does that could be interpreted as being for the "better-ment" of people that aren't Apple customers. They take a "fuck" everyone attitude that isn't a beneficiary of Apple stock.
I just think that this is a very toxic label for Apple to have against them.
Just to stress... I think Apple make great products, although I will never again contribute a single cent to anything that bears the Apple name. They have all but destroyed their brand that I once so sorely coveted (and this was a time not so long ago).
Who needs humility... Clearly, not Apple...
 : I hate swearing. Apologies.
 : This got changed shortly after considerable backlash.
 : I need to stop writing so many "Apple" critical comments..
If you look through any of my last 50 comments I'd guess
perhaps 10 are Apple related. It's wrong of me that I consistently
only comment on Apple posts.
Anyway, that was the day I deleted OS X and switched back to Linux forever. (I even ran Rockbox on my iPod until I replaced it with a $30 Sansa device with 10x the features.)
Apple's margins from content sales are slim; they push content to sell devices. As they've shown with music in the past, they'll get rid of DRM if the content providers allow it. So it's not entirely fair to blame Apple for that one.
There are several BitTorrent clients to choose from!
In any case, there's also a very simple explanation that should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it as to why Apple did this: because iTunes deals with DRM. A one-line change to block debugging is something I'd absolutely expect any app that uses DRM'd content to do.
So... who's very confused?
Whoo, any links please? I'd like gdb to crash on my programs as well!
Apple still, however, designed it into their product and tried to use it to prevent user inspection of system state.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend Apple here, just telling people how they can get around this if they feel like debugging iTunes or whatever.
After learning that the App Store actually uses Spotlight (!) to find out what's in /Applications, and that sometimes you need to reindex to get an upgrade, or change permissions set by App Store itself, I'm not so sure. And after seeing what iOS 6 did to my battery life, I'm even less sure...
I simply cannot believe that Apple's previous behaviour was sanctioned by its legal team. The idea of not just losing in court but then pissing the judge off...wow. There's a really childish part of me that hopes that Apple won't comply with this latest judgement just to see what the court does next. Monetary fines? Product bans? Executive jail time?
I believe that the best thing Apple can do now is fold, and grovel. However, I have no idea if they'll do that. I've said before in previous threads: the UK court system is much more invested in proving its own authority than Apple is invested in a silly argument with Samsung. And on that note, if you were Samsung, you'd likely be rolling in the aisles just about now.
EDIT: I see that they've complied. I see why, but I'm disappointed!
A large chunk of society hanging together and working relies on impartial but powerful judicial systems. It's one of those thin edge of the wedge situations. We don't want a system where people flout court rulings even if it's just about a notice on a website.
They really think they invented multitouch, rounded corners, that popularisation = invention, that their inventions are worth $30 per handset while everybody elses are worth $1, and that they occupy a special place in the world that exempts them from rules others must follow. Thus I don't actually see them in the "spoilt toddler" mode, rather more like an autistic adult person behaving rationally in a world that constantly baffles them because they have a different internal model of its rules. And I even see this as possibly essential to their success - you can't create products that defy conventional expectations unless you are slightly crazy - "the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that actually do" truly fits. Of course, this doesn't absolve them of anything, now that they occupy such a position of power in the world they need to grow up and live in reality.
The problem is that people disagree to the extent Apple should be compensated (or their ideas protected). More technology-minded people can see the roots of Apple's devices, and so think it's inevitable and all Apple did was "popularise" it, while others think that Apple's innovations were/are a stroke of genius, and without them we'd be floundering in a world of Windows CE and Symbian for the next decade.
The trouble is, no one's wrong. It's just a difference of opinion. And that's the patent system in a nutshell. People spend so much time arguing Android v. Apple that it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that we're really arguing "how far can a company have a monopoly on an idea? and even if they did invent something, is it fair that they can impede the progress of an entire industry to protect that invention?" Because I can assure you, even if Apple was responsible for every chip and every bit in the iPhone, from concept to execution, people would still want Android, and people would still resent Apple for wanting a monopoly.
So the Braun T3 radio and LE1 speaker are definitely post Apple, right?
There is a big difference between being inspired by a design, and blatantly ripping it off.
Indeed. Apple is now famous for both (Inspiration: LE1 speaker->iMac; Ripoff: Swiss Railway clock->iPhone clock). If the iPod design is "inspired by" the T3 radio design, and not a blatant ripoff, then current Samsung phones are definitely not ripoffs of the iPhone design.
Also, seconding what pbhjpbhj said, design is all that matters in the context of a design patent/registered design.
Just look at the hatchet job they done to Commodore. Anyone who remembers the mid-80s should remember that they were the driving force behing "Consumer Computing", not the expensive and underpowered Apple machines of the time.
 Euphemism, use your imagination.
I am very interested to see what their Nov 16th ad will look like. Given that it must appear in magazines as well as broadsheets it may be that the mags require it to have some sort of branding/style so as to not make the magazine appear cheap, unlike the image linked.
Apple has reacted poorly, but if I were British I would be a bit upset that my judges were wasting time on punishments like this. The point is to punish Apple, so just fine them and be over with it. The end result is the same, just without all this drama in the middle.
EDIT: I'm going to retract my opinion here because a few good points have been made and I shouldn't have spoken when I was not 100% informed on the matter. Sorry!
Apple sought to use UK courts to their own ends, and then threw a bitch fit when the ruling didn't go their way.
The judge is absolutely right to slap them down. You shouldn't get to pick and choose which court orders to respect, even if you're the richest company in the world. That's hardly the basis for a sound legal system is it?
Frankly, whoever authorised this reaction in the first place is a disrespectful idiot. They treated the UK like a fucking banana republic, and got reamed accordingly.
Self determination is a sacrosanct right, and this punishment crosses the line.
Maybe if no one had noticed and Samsung hadn't complained (I don't know if they did) then nothing would have happened. But you can't show contempt for a court ruling in a massively public way and expect no consequences.
Justice has to be seen to be done. And Apple caused this to drag on further than it should have.
Although it is ultimately quite petty, Apple are refusing to comply with court mandated actions and the court standing up to them is definitely something people want to see -- from my circle of British people anyway.
All I'm saying is that the apology is an inefficient punishment. It's meant to sting Apple which eventually means they lose money. All I'm saying is skip the drama and just take the money.
The best argument I've heard against this is that it would be difficult to determine the dollar value equivalent of the apology, which is certainly true.
It seems to be that it would be much easier to serve justice by compelling Apple to correct the misinformation, rather than trying to compute a price for this behavior.
That would mean that the fine would be no deterrent, and further fines could merely be the cost of doing business.
I'm not upset at the judge. I am upset at companies taking this stuff through court, and other companies not just putting a simple apology up.
Plus, it makes far more sense to tackle the root of the problem — the harm caused to Samsung's reputation — by ordering Apple to make public announcements that its allegations against them were false.
If industrial espionage sets back a company's R&D by a decade, you can't fix that with money. Throwing money at the problem won't magically get your research back. It won't magically get your market-leading position back after your competitors take advantage of your setback. And we're not even starting on what happens if the party doing the injuring goes bankrupt before paying all that is owed.
The idea that money is a magic panacea that fixes everything is completely wrong.
What would you offer as punishment in the example you just stated?
For another example, you could consider the case where a company has lost a dominant market position due to libel and slander from a competitor. Being given money wouldn't magically repair that company's market position.
So, to sum up:
- Apple said that Samsung copied the iPad;
- the court wants Apple punished for saying that;
- although the court never made any determination about whether Samsung copied the iPad;
- and Apple is still forbidden from saying that Samsung copied the iPad.
Nope, still confused.
Try reading the article again, the court case was over a registered design, not the iPad
Basically, if the case was "big" (over the issue of Samsung copying the iPad), then:
- the court would have had to rule on whether Samsung copied the iPad; and, if it ruled negatively, then
- Samsung could have claimed to have incurred a significant damage to its reputation after being smeared as a copycat, and
- the court would have had reason to prohibit Apple from reiterating the copying accusations.
However, if the case was "small" (over the issue of Community Registered Design No. 000181607-001, and explicitly excluding the question of whether Samsung copied the iPad), then:
- the court would merely have to rule on whether Samsung infringed that specific design, explicitly leaving open the question of whether they "copied the iPad" or not; and, having decided negatively, then
- the damage to Samsung's reputation would have been insignificant, since (some) people care about whether they are copycats or not, and the court's decision on that specific registered patent does not touch the greater question, and thus
- the court would have no grounds to prohibit Apple from saying: "the court ruled that Samsung didn't violate this specific registered design; however, we still believe that they copied our products, and here are a few other cases where they were found to infringe our IP".
You see what I mean? I don't see how you can have BIG damages, BIG punishment, BIG limitations on what Apple can say if you don't also have the BIG decision that would justify all that. And the court has said over and over that they have made no such decision.
Apple says 'they copy our products! See, look at this court case'
Case goes against them, they're ordered to apologise. They fail to stick to the terms and put a load of stuff around it that muddies the waters and talks about unrelated cases in other juristictions.
Judge gets annoyed and makes them take down the other stuff as misleading, specifically noting that they haven't even tested the question of the iPad, and that the decision in this case does not contradict decisions in other cases where this design was brought up.
And the court clearly does think it can make apple carry an unembellished statement, and they're probably right .otherwise I guarantee we'd be seeing appeals.