|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 07:43 AM EDT |
| Re: PJ - "If Apple would only stop suing, then all would be
right in the
world. Woz is right about that. Innovation
doesn't come from patents. Stasis
does. It's a
monopoly,
after all, so it makes you stand still instead
of
innovate" .
So, is Stasis , a state of attempted rule,
where
one
becomes
a tyrant , as other points of view, or other
creativity,
then,
is not allowed to exist due to the "prescribed" monopoly
grasping power,
and extinguishing other voices, eliminating other creative
direction(s), all done in
favor of it's own decreed self imposed superior
direction,
... is that freedom?
Or, is it how
corporations are to
exist, as if they don't do this, then
shareholders might sue the management on
the basis that the
management is not "doing all they can to protect shareholder
value" (even to the point of defending a monopoly position)?
Let us define
stasis (in more broad terms, as it
applies to
a system, or more
systems, overall, that we should
understand the power of this word, and how it
is hurting
more than the tech industry). It's about allowing a future
of
creativity to exist, and allow humans to be who they are.
See
for the metaphorical value, a look at statis, and
dynamism, from a more global
angle (as this battle between
the forces, is on the tech, about the tech, but
has even
more reach into daily lives and decisions):
Virginia
Postrel
(Dynamists & Stasists) - SYNOPSIS
OF "THE FUTURE AND
ITS ENEMIES"... (as a description, in depth, about this
topic, very well
written, so worthy in this discussion).
http://www.dynamist.com./tfaie/index.html
"...but all
share a devotion to what she calls "
stasis," a controlled, uniform
society that changes
only with permission from some central authority.
On
the other side is an emerging coalition in support of
what Postrel calls
"dynamism": an open-ended society
where creativity and enterprise,
operating under predictable
rules, generate progress in unpredictable ways.
Dynamists
are united not by a single political agenda but by an
appreciation
for such complex evolutionary processes as
scientific inquiry, market
competition, artistic
development, and technological invention.
Entrepreneurs and artists, scientists and legal theorists,
cultural analysts
and computer programmers, dynamists
are, says Postrel, "the party of
life."
See the
Interview with Virginia
Postrel at this link:
http://www.dynamist.com/tfaie/etc.html
Quote:
"Q: Your book is about the future. Should we be
fearful or
optimistic?
A: Both. It's human nature to look for ways to
improve the
world around us, whether that's coming up with a better
computer program or trying a new way to get your kid to
eat his
vegetables. Progress comes from trial and error,
when we're free to try things
and free to reject ideas that
don't work. That makes me optimistic about the
future. The
problem comes when people either try to stamp out
experimentation
or try to cram one possibly hare-brained
scheme down everyone's throat.
Q:
Is your book about politics?
A: This isn't really a book about politics.
It's about how
we as a society learn. It looks at a wide range of examples,
from Vidal Sassoon's hairstyling innovations to the
connection between optical
lens technology and the artistry
of Citizen Kane. Newt Gingrich does put in an
appearance,
but mostly to praise beach volleyball. What's political
about the
book is that it says our biggest political divide
today is over whether you
allow trial-and-error learning
to
take place—whether you're comfortable with
the open-ended,
unknown future .
So, just to
elaborate, stasis, is not really what humans
have ever wanted, in politics, or
in their daily lives
(doing whatever it is that we all do)...
FOSS, open
standards, GPL, CC, etc... are all about
dynamism , and allowing
creative
minds to grow in the directions that "feels"
natural for them to follow.
Stasis , is the enemy of all
that seems to be good... as in the
end, it is a wall that
gets build to benefit the few .
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
| Bezos on
Android: We Like It!
“We treat Android like Linux, and so it’s a base OS
layer,” Bezos told AllThingsD in an interview on Thursday. “We have a large
dedicated team that customizes Android and that’s what you see on the Kindle
Fire.” ---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
It might get better traction with the courts if the people who want their data
back would quit calling it "data" and started calling it "intellectual
property".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
LXer.com is pointing to a PDF at the St.Louis
Federal Reserve Bank on
The Case Against
Patents.
This is a 2012/06/29 draft of a 25 page document, first started
on 2012/02/29. I've no idea if a final version has been produced, or what it's
status might be when finished.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
iPhone 5 Pre-Order Sells
Out 20X Faster Than 4 And 4S, Further Highlighting Apple’s
Dominance
The iPhone 5 took just about 60 minutes [to sell
out]
[PJ: See why the thermonuclear patent war is not
needed, and considering the bad PR even counterproductive? Apple doesn't need
patent protection. People want *their* products. Period. Rounded corners don't
confuse anybody. They want the brand, not just the
device.
Actually, I think it had more to do with this: Delays In Sharp’s Display Could Cause Major iPhone 5 Shortage
. The "iPhone5 is so awesome" line from the fanboys is just spin. The real
problem is one of Apple's new key suppliers is doing a slow motion melt-down.
... However, the real issue Apple is contending with is that
Sharp is reportedly having trouble producing iPhone 5 displays in a timely
manner, which could lead to a shortage of phones, especially if demand for the
device is strong.
Apple switched from Samsung to Sharp as a
display provider, but Sharp is in the middle of going bankrupt. Foxcon (the
manufacturer of the iPhone) looked at bailing them out, but have just backed out
of the deal after looking at the books. Sharp has been in serious financial
trouble for a while, and they are rapidly running out of cash. Banks and other
investors have been walking away and getting ready to write off their money.
Parts businesses run on credit and delayed payments, but none of Sharp's
suppliers or subcontractors will want to be the ones left holding the bag when
the inevitable happens. Starting up production on a new product takes capital
(and for more than just the production lines themselves), but Sharp will be
scrabbling around for cash just to keep current products going.
Apple
has some alternate suppliers lined up (LG and JDI), but they can't make up for
Sharp. Samsung is a huge display manufacturer, but for some reason Apple doesn't
seem to want to deal with them ...
I'm waiting for the Apple Fanboys to
spin this fiasco into yet Another Great Apple Innovation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Karma - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 01:14 AM EDT
- Karma - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 04:41 AM EDT
- Maybe Apple will buy Sharp? - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
Nor did Bezos bother to say what version of Android the Fire's new
software was based on, or even the new Fire was running Android at all - you
could have walked away from the presentation thinking Amazon had developed a
custom operating system all its own. Even a brief hands-on with the new Fire
models just reinforces how far Amazon's pushed Android into the
background.
[PJ: That ... tells me Bezos doesn't get
the whole Open Source thingie yet.]
No, this tells me that
Bezos does "get whole Open Source thingie". Amazon is selling the Amazon brand,
not anyone else's. The tablets and readers are just platforms for delivering
"Amazon". "Android" is a Google brand. Google competes with Amazon in a lot of
areas. So, "Google" gets ignored, and "Amazon" gets promoted.
Microsoft also "gets the whole Open Source thingie". They also get the
mobile and tablet thingie. They just don't happen to like what those "thingies"
imply for Microsoft's future. The open source device thingy is all about
companies like Amazon using commodity software to bypass the PC and go direct to
the consumer with no intermediaries. Microsoft doesn't like that because it cuts
them (and their "MS Windows" brand) out of the picture. They want to sit in the
middle and collect a (large) cut of everything, but they can't do that if nobody
needs them anymore.
As for Bing, well we heard a while ago that some
Microsoft people tried to flog it off to Facebook, and Facebook turned them
down. Steve Balmer will be retiring at some point, and that point might be a lot
sooner than he planned if Microsoft's new phone and tablet aspirations don't
turn out better than their previous attempts. I won't be at all surprised if his
replacement dumps the consumer stuff and concentrates on enterprise markets.
That is, Microsoft becomes be more like IBM or Oracle, and less like Apple.
What would be nice is if Yahoo makes a comeback under their new
leadership based on being a neutral third party without any ties to anyone's
walled garden. Any sort of genuine "Free Software" platform needs at least one
(and preferably several) neutral service provider who can come up with the large
capital investment for physical infrastructure but doesn't have the control
freakery that seems to be in vogue now. In the short term though, it looks like
wall to wall walled gardens everywhere I look.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
For whatever reason this article shows up for me in German, which is
not on my list of languages. To get English I clicked on a random tab
at the top of the page then went back to "News". I won't post my
url as it's over 255 chars and horrible to behold.
My cynical take on the story: the CC0 will produce a slew of misguided
lawsuits by "owners" of derivative works who don't understand the
difference between this and PD.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
Did Apple lie again? I recall when Apple told the world in the early nineties
that the CPU they would use world run in circles around anything Intel had. It
did not.
Now
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/28770-apple-a6-is-not-a15-based
some claim it is not using the tame CPU some claim they use
"Although the tame Apple press speculated that the A6 is the world’s first
SoC based on ARM’s new A15 architecture, Anandtech has a different and perhaps
even more surprising theory."
So, what CPU did Apple claim they would use? I have no idea as I don't follow
their path slavishly.
/IMANAL (just didn't bother to login as it was Apple-juice, again)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: marcosdumay on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
That's the most likely explanation. The x86 manufacturers releasing Win8 only
chips are just saying that they have no hope to compete on a level playing
field.
Other possibilities are: "We need Windows to stay strong, so there will be
a market for x86 at the long term", or "We are trying to convince MS
to not switch to ARM". But both of those explanations have flaws.
What I don't understand is, why don't they create a good portable architecture?
Backwards compatibility isn't very important on this segment.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
Link
Apparently, they can use the kernel with a GPL
license, and everything else with Apache.
Android License
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
I think Mr. Ballmer has been immersed in buzz-word management for too long.
From the article:
I think that in a back-looking view, people
would say we were a software company.
"back-looking view"??? I
guess "historical" was too precise a term?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:34 AM EDT |
Article link. I hope the author of the article is just confusing things and
it doesn't mean what it seems to mean.
The American Library
Association has denounced publisher Hachette for an impending price hike that
would more than triple the cost of backlisted ebook
titles.
Backlisted? eBook titles are backlisted????
I can
see how a physical printed book becomes back-listed. The printing house can't
keep up with the demand and so time is needed for the printer to catch up. Or
perhaps the printing house's supply of paper is a stress point.
But an
eBook is just an electronic copy. How do you get behind in demand except by
having a very low-end host??? Perhaps even one that is still connected to the
internet via 56k modem.
Talk about your artificial supply/demand changes
on pricing.
Of course, I'm willing to be corrected if someone can point
out another reasonable method eBooks can "get behind supply" and become
"back-listed".
Or maybe I just don't understand what backlisted
means.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
