|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
"the time we have to change our methods has arrived"
sounds like - straight from a Bob Dylan's song !
or is it Samsung singing Bob Dylan[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
I did hear about the heaven and hell evidence. While I suppose one
interpretation
is that the top of the company was telling his folks to not copy, another
interpretation is that the top guy was telling his folks that he needs a
solution
and quick. Winks are not transcribed.
But, the specific design of product may not be the top guy's call. There are
lower
level managers who are incentivized to get results and upper management tends
to not want to hear details, especially the ones that could cause legal to
veto.
At the end of the day, what the CEO exhorted isn't evidence of not copying:
looking and comparing the products is the proof or disproof of any allegation.
The candid assessment of their product line is a fact that suggests a crisis
could
have motivated corner cutting in the design process. Doesn't prove copying, but
people do misbehave under pressure.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
There is that sentence: "When you compare the 2007 version of the iPhone
with our current Omnia, can you honestly say the Omnia is better."
I
have the iPhone 4, and Omnia 2. All things considered, I'd rather use the
latter, than the former. (IOS 5 v WinMo 6.5. Need I point out that apps for
the
Omnia2 are no longer available in the Verizon app store. Nonetheless, I
still
prefer it.)
I don't know when the iPhone4 or Omnia2 were
released.
For phone calls, texting, and sending emails, the Samsung Saga
was
better than either the Omnia2 or iPhone4.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 08:14 AM EDT |
surly apple's lawyer intentionally lied about the true nature and content of
the e-mail
- isn't this criminal in court ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Charles888 on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
It is just a challenge to employees to meet new world
environment, and using this change in the marketplace as a
advantageously disruptive catalyst.
I don't see where the gotcha is![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
| Bit of reader disagreement in Guardian comments. The
journalist that pj quoted
in her article replied
- he
still doesn't seem to get it! Seems to think that its Groklaw
spreading FUD! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: briand on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
It is difficult to completely be sure without the context of whatever had
previously been given as standing instructions, concerning Nokia.
If the previous instructions were, "Make it better than Nokia", I
would read the
pep talk one way: "Make it better than the iPhone".
However, and this is entirely speculative of course, if the previous
instructions
were "Copy Nokia slavishly", I would read the pep talk entirely
differently:
"Copy the iPhone slavishly".
Or, rather, I would say, the best way of summarizing the pep talk would be:
"You know what we told you to do regarding Nokia? Forget Nokia, it is now
Apple." In other words, without full context for Nokia, it isn't possible
to be
sure what the instructions actually were. However, for the employees, they
*were* aware of the Nokia context, and the Apple instructions, regardless of
what they were specifically, would have been clear and unambiguous.
In any language, context matters.
brian[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
