|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
Cool is what tech consumers want. Exhibit A: today the iPhone brings
in
more revenue than the entirety of Microsoft.
No,
really.
One Apple product, something that didn’t exist five years ago,
has higher sales than
everything Microsoft has to offer. More than Windows,
Office, Xbox, Bing, Windows Phone,
and every other product that Microsoft has
created since 1975. In the quarter ended March
31, 2012, iPhone had sales of
$22.7 billion; Microsoft Corporation, $17.4 billion.
Vanity Fair
Yeah, I guess Apple could afford to ease off the
gas pedal now. Why don't they? Same
reason MS doesn't ease off the attacks on
every WIndows competitor. The air up there is
infectious with
megalomania.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
A bit over the top, don't you think?
You can disagree, of course, but to those who
have an eye for design, Apple's products are
beautiful. Some don't care about that, and that's
fine, but if you do care, it matters. It matters to
me. I love Linux, but I can't stand looking at
ugly hardware.
And it isn't just the look of the hardware. It's
all the thoughtful touches that Apple thinks up
that make life easier.
I don't like their litigation ways, but it's not
KoolAid to notice the beauty of their products.
It's why I don't think they need to sue people,
actually.
What is more serious, to me, is their
insistence on going toward Facebook. It's
contrary to their usual decisions to go only
with great quality. Facebook isn't for those
with great taste. It just isn't, so I think that
will cost them their normal customer base over
time.
That and the litigation go hand in hand, in that
both indicate a desire to reach large numbers of
new customers, who may not care a bit about
the things that used to appeal to Apple customers.
But perhaps they've calculated that in,
see that China and S. America and other non-US
places are where Facebook is growing, so maybe
they don't care. But it's a major change, as
deeply offensive to their usual base as it would
be to put out an ugly product. They do, at least,
make it opt-in, the Facebook sync, but it's, to me,
like putting ugly icons on your home page, and
I'm surprised they lack the good taste to see the
problem in the new approach.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
| One thing confused me about Bressler's deposition. On page 7, paragraphs 29 and
30, he seems to offer up some very contradictory logic.
In paragraph 29 he
states:
"Thus, each design patent at issue reflects but one of many
potential minimalist designs"
While in paragraph 30 he states:
"... these
Apple products are based upon the simplest possible use of a visually
uninterrupted and continuous
surface of glass-like materials that creates a
reflective surface covering the product face."
If it is the simplest, it
means that there is no other design which could be simpler. If it is simple,
then surely it is obvious. Also, by virtue of it being the simplest - does that
not invalidate the claim that there are many potential minimalist designs?
Surely nothing could be more minimal than "the simplest". Therefore there is
only one truly minimalist design, and it is one that all tablet
manufacturers/designers would naturally gravitate to given enough time.
Surely Fidler's tablet mock-ups are evidence that more than one person could
think of "the simplest" design - thus the idea is not worthy of being
patented.
Sign me,
a sad Apple user.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
