Even if this is a true story, it isn't the lawsuit that made people think this. What makes people think that Apple products and Samsung products are the same is the fact that Samsung intentionally ripped them off to get exactly that. Apple did not do this. Samsung did and the lawsuit was so they could stop it. If this story is true, which it kind of sounds like it isn't, then the only reason people are being vocal about it is because of the news. They're now comparing the two side by side and saying "hey, they look the same so they must be like the same thing". Up until about two months ago I was dirt poor (as in I only ate once a day, if that) and my experience with Apple products has been then you definitely get what you pay for in a good way which is why I have bought so many despite my door poor-ness. Samsung making their products look like Apple's was meant so people like me (minus the tech savviness) would buy them thinking they'll get the same thing. You really don't.
But I digress. This post has it wrong. What he supposedly overheard in a Starbucks wasn't caused by the Apple v. Samsung ruling but was a direct result of what Samsung had been trying to do all along.
Not true. 'Regular' people probably didn't think anything about this before the lawsuit. Now they think something.
Cars and computers all look pretty similar, but people manage to distinguish them. The only difference between cars, computers and mobile devices is that mobile devices were only just invented in our lifetime. We have had the experience of seeing none of them, then only one brand, then finally more brands. Cars and computers? We were born (most of us) into the reality of them already existing. With all of the different brands and models.
Trust me, once mobile devices have been around for a person's entire lifetime, that person would laugh at this lawsuit just as much as we today would laugh at a lawsuit based on 'damages' incurred from mistaking a Ford for a Honda, or for mistaking a 50" LG Plasma for a 48" Sony LCD. Mobile devices seem different because they are new. That's not Samgsung's fault..
I always wonder if this is what they call the reality distortion effect. You get what you pay for?
Long time ago I had an ibook g4. Supposedly it was very nice back then, and very pricey too. However, after playing with it sometime, it just looked cute. Overpriced and cute. Apple products are a jail that looks very nice, but its a jail anyway.
Now I have an IPad (don't remember the generation) because my job. It is still overly priced and cute. Oh, and a jail. Is this what you are supposed to get for paying a high price?
Guess I'll never "get it". For me, it's just stylish and pricey stuff, that locks you in. Paying to give up your freedom... go figure.
I'm not afraid to say that on iOS, the "jail" makes the experience better for me. The entire iOS is amazing for what I need it for and for what many people need it for. I'm happy to pay the higher price because there's no other product that can substitute for the experience. I don't care about the "jail". If this is a jail then lock me up for life because it's a damn nice jail.
OSX on the other hand isn't a jail. You can install whatever you want. It's a computer. In fact I prefer Apple's jail to Microsoft's jail and pay more because I get a better experience and have found no substitute. Can I customize the OS? Fuck no! But if I wanted to then I wouldn't buy Apple because I know what I'm getting into before I buy. As a developer there isn't anything I can do on another platform that I can't on OS X. In fact, because its based on BSD I get the best of the Unix world and Apple's world. And Apple's world, or jail as you call it, is beautiful, well designed, has better font rendering, it's fast, it makes the right assumptions about my use, and so one. So I can't hack the kernel. So what? I don't need or want to. That's kind of why I bought an Apple to begin with.
Philosophies about freedom, free software, or really any philosophies or beliefs do not apply here. That argument is just a red herring. The value of the machine is in its substitutes. My Macs don't have any substitutes. There's not a single PC out there that can match the quality, beauty, and experience of my Macs. But not everyone uses them like I do so I can understand if others don't believe they're valuable. But as far as Samsung goes, what they did was basically try to trick people into thinking that they'll get the Apple experience on a Samsung just because they look alike.
And just so everyone knows, at my job I work 8+ hours a day on a Windows7 PC. I've had an Android phone. I also have a Linux laptop. I love my Linux box but it still doesn't hold a candle to my MacBook Air. This isn't about fashion. It's about people finding a product so impressive that they truly love it. I own a lot of stuff but very few of my possessions are as valuable to me as my Macs. Call me a fanboy. I don't give a shit. That argument is a lame copout. People see people like me being truly impressed with something, they don't get it, then they write it off as fanboyism. It's just a meaningless argument meant to explain something people don't understand. A lot like how people ascribe religious significants to events they don't understand. No, that's not hyperbole. It's just like that.
OSX on the other hand isn't a jail. You can install whatever you want. It's a computer.
As long as your credit card is on file with apple.
You might be surprised what happens to 'your' computer after an attempted purchase fails for any reason. You won't be able to update or install any software from the app-store anymore. This includes updates for and re-downloads of apps that you have 'bought'.
Totally false. The app store is for people who want simplicity. It's for the consumer market. Those people who infect their computers with viruses constantly because they think that sketchy looking banner telling them they've won todays lottery isn't sketchy at all and click it.
There's nothing stopping me from downloading and installing any app I want from whatever source I want on my Mac. Everyone all of the sudden thinks that the Mac App Store is the final nail in the iOSification coffin but it isn't. It's just a good idea for people totally unlike us and those people actually get a far better experience than any "free" system because of it. But again, no one is forced to go through the app store to download applications.
Honestly, I haven't even set Mountain Lion to let me download anything unrestricted. I set it to the medium setting where it'll give me a warning before installing non-app store apps and I like it that way. I like being reminded that what I'm about to install hasn't been vetted by Apple. That's fine with me. I just control+click it and run it the first time and I'm never bothered again. Sure, I could set it so I get no hassles but I like the feature.
When it comes down to it, I know what I'm getting into. I'm not so completely risk averse that I refuse to use something because some worst case scenario or edge case might happen at some point down the road to me.
I don't understand. He already bought it. Why should he have to have a valid credit card again? Aren't purchases locked to an account with a password and such?
The comment was made about an iOS device, which it is more applicable too. Apple has a monopoly on legit iOS App distribution, where Android tablets and phones can install apps from the wild.
It may sound like a small point, but the feeling that I didn't own my iPhone is a big reason I prefer Android.
I can agree with it in the case of an iOS-device, but in this case he said "Long time ago I had an ibook g4".
I am starting to get pretty tired of hearing that the products I use every day for professional work are toys, that I gave up my freedom to use them and worship Apple etc etc.
Long time ago I had an ibook g4. Supposedly it was very nice back then, and very pricey too. However, after playing with it sometime, it just looked cute. Overpriced and cute. Apple products are a jail that looks very nice, but its a jail anyway.
He comments first about the laptops. About laptops before the Mac App Store even...
> Apple has a monopoly on legit iOS App distribution,
I know why you think that, but you're missing that there is a completely legitimate app distribution mechanism outside the AppStore.
You can install (and distribute) whatever apps you want for iOS devices, and users can download them from the web and install them on the device. And I'm not talking about jailbreaking.
Since the first day the iPhone has shipped, you've been able to download and install apps built with javascript from anywhere on the web.
These are full apps, written in Javascript and running on the machine. They have access to the iOS design components such as the navigation controller and tab bar UI, etc, can read touches and orientation and even your current location.
You can turn off the network- put the device in airport mode- and they still run. These aren't links to web apps running on the web, they are full apps.
Apple only curates what goes on in the App Store. Apps distributed outside the App Store are not curated. Apple built this platform for apps specifically so it wouldn't have to curate them.
Its just that once the App Store came out, everyone switched to writing native apps (And at the time, writing native apps are what people were clamoring for) that that native app distirbution model won out.
But the javascript app platform is still there on the device and completely un-regulated by apple.
It's also still supported by Apple, and each year at WWDC they have a couple sessions talking about it.
I know it fits some people's ideology better to believe that Apple will only let you run apps approved by Apple on your device, but it simply isn't true.
Further, if you want native apps of arbitrary origin, you can join the developer program and run whatever native apps you want.
But Apple has always allowed this other distribution mechanism. These apps can't spread malware and so there is no need to regulate them. Since native apps can, they need to be curated, hence the AppStore.
It is disingenuous for people to pretend like Apple only wants you to buy apps from the AppStore-- because the javascript app platform has existed since a year before the AppStore and they continue to maintain it.
I've done some mobile javascript development and do commend Apple for pushing the limits of what can be done in-browser. The accelerometer support comes to mind, which came sooner and better than the same support on Android.
That said, I wasn't aware that the two environments could be considered equivalent. Can you call the camera API from javascript? Write a music player?
It would be one thing (though still unfortunate) if the App store monopoly were used only for quality control, but instances where politics were at play really left a bad taste in my mouth. Grooveshark, Google Voice, and Opera mobile come to mind as projects that if I am remembering correctly were blocked or delayed for political reasons. They all require a native environment that's richer than HTML apps can provide, to my knowledge.
Do you have any reference material or documentation for developing the javascript way? As a fairly new dev I would be interested in seeing that process as most of my "distribute outside of app store on ios" queries to the web say without jailbreaking, its impossible.
Here's a list of keywords. Just feed them to a generic Markov random sentence generator and you'll get your response: Gatekeeper, walled-garden App Store, iOSification, hardware obsolescence in 4-5 years, closed-source, GPL, soldered RAM and SSD and battery, overpriced, eye-candy, skeuomorphism, big brother, reality-distortion-field.
I don't want to be a jerk or offend "alberich", but I strongly disagree with him.
I just couldn't install any other usable operating system on the hardware other then Apple's OS. The specifications were closed, you couldn't get much anything useful installed on it because it depended on proprietary software that, of course, only worked on OS X.
edit: besides, things don't look much better nowdays, eh?
> you couldn't get much anything useful installed on it
I have node, redis, mysql, couchdb, mongodb, autoconf/automake/cmake, ffmpeg, erlang, git, hg, gnuplot, groovy, memchaced, lua, lynx, lib* (a million of them), nmap, rabbitmq, phantomjs, postgresql, siege, httpd, squid, spidermonkey, coffee-script, mit-scheme,pcre, lkgconfig, mosh, HTTPie, python, ruby, cairo, pango, x11 installed on my OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion (among other tools that I've forgot or don't use regularly). And I'm not even a "pro" user - just a regular developer.
But your requirements clearly differs from mine. Because you don't find them "useful". It's okay, not all of us use the same tools. But I'm sure the majority of developers use the aforementioned tools, and care less about kernel programming or other things that can't be done on a MacBook as efficiently as on ThinkPads (although Torvalds uses an Air).
Why on Earth did you buy it if that isn't what you wanted?
It's like buying a hardcover book and complaining that you couldn't get it to be any other book. They're not selling iOS devices as hobbyist machines for tinkerers. You buy an iPhone to be an iPhone, an iPad to be an iPad. That's not a bad thing, it's an attribute of the product you bought as much as its price and processor.
"besides, things don't look much better nowdays, eh?"
Sure they do. I can run both Linux and Windows without virtualization, and Apple even supports the latter officially through the Boot Camp-application.
I can't reply to Zirro's and pooriaazimi's posts, so I'll answear here.
Zirro: that is good to know. I wish it was the same with the IPad. Owning your hardware, in the sense that you can install alternative stuff on it, is very important for me.
pooriaazimi: the point was about the power to install anything, including a different OS. If it is like Zirro said, it is sure a big improvement on the desktop/laptop category. Sadly the IPad doesn't offer you the freedom for using anything that is not from Apple. I don't care much about it, because the IPad isn't mine anyways. I just wouldn't buy it if I had to choose (Android's devices look much more open).
ps. I'm sorry if I offended some people, it was not my intention. cheers :)
I would be curious for some example of non-proprietary software you could install on Linux that would not work in one of the many options available to OS X users: homebrew/macports/fink, dual-boot (or replace the OS), virtualization, or just build from source.
The 'jail' is beneficial in that it allows high-quality apps to be made. If iOS users could just install apps from anywhere, piracy would mean a reduction in the quality and quantity of apps that developers are willing to make for it.
Even tech-savvy people buy iOS devices knowing that they are restricted in this way, and reap the benefits.
No. But considering that I paid almost nothing for it makes a big difference. It's not like paying U$ 1k and being locked in.
with my Ibook I couldn't install other OS on working conditions because Apple wouldn't just open the specs, so there wasn't really other OSs to install. It is also not really an option to install other OSs on the IPad. And it costs a lot of money, that makes a big diference. You pay to be locked in to Apple.
Then when Samsung comes around and offers almost the same features, people start to worry that their overly priced stuff will not be so special anymore, and act like Samsung's products are just a poorly made ripoff.
Maybe there was something funky about the hardware in the iBook G4 but I remember installing Yellow Dog Linux on my old PowerBook G4 without too much trouble.
It was years ago so I don't recall the details but it was definitely possible and not terribly difficult.
You've been able to run Unix on Macs going back to the 1980s. In the 1990s there were several variations of Linux that ran on Macs, and Apple hired the mklinux guy to make sure that linux kernels ran ok on Macs.
The only time in the Mac's history that Apple wasn't working to make sure it could run Unix was 1984-1987ish before they released their flavor of Unix.
Even if the appearance of say... an iPad and a Galaxy tablet are very similar, I don't think it's fair to call the Galaxy a ripoff. That basic design is just where the industry was headed. Case in point: the Crunchpad was announced nearly two years before the iPad and has a nearly identical design.
Samsung didn't rip Apple off to trick people into thinking they had Apple products. What's the point of that? They want their products returned and customers angered? Apple had put more effort into designing their products so Samsung aped much of that in an attempt to replicate the aesthetics and appeal of Apple products.
Part of what's happening here is that people who don't deal with this stuff frequently (and don't have the background that we do) don't understand tech products. People go to WalMart and pick out the cheapest tablet and then will return it a few days later when they discover it is not an iPad.
Look at articles about the Surface tablet. When they talk about possible pricing it's always "Do they dare price it more expensive than an iPad or do they undercut the iPad and lose money?"
Clearly the iPad price isn't inflated.
Look at the on-contract and off-contract prices of iPhones. Compare to say, Galaxy S3. Or the new Droid. Or the new Evo.
Clearly the iPhone price isn't inflated.
Want a consumer-line notebook? Apples consumer notebooks are the Air line. Find a good competitor, say the ASUS Zenbook UX31E. It's about $950, vs $1200 for the Air. That is a big price difference. And the machines look an awful lot alike.
But the Air has a faster processer, faster RAM, faster SSD and faster graphics (3000 series vs 4000 series Intel). The Asus has 1600x900 vs the Air's 1440x900.
The Air also comes bundled with software that's all written by Apple as first-class companions to OSX. The bundled software on PCs is almost universally mocked and either ignored or uninstalled.
Their Pro line is more expensive, yes. But the products I listed above make a large majority of Apple's sales and profits. And the people that actually have bought a Pro line seldom complain. They seldom think they didn't get value, that they didn't get their monies worth.
I get it, there are certain people who see a Mercedes as a car, like any other. They see, well, the Mercedes has a 2.5L engine, a Kia has a 2.5L engine. The Mercedes has 8 air bags, so does a Ford Focus. The Mercedes has.... you get my point. For those people, certainly, a Mercedes doesn't sound right for you.
But you're ignorant if you don't see the value others see in it, and it's not just vanity or shallow brand obsession. You may not weigh that value as heavily in your life as they do, but any honest person has to at least acknowledge it.
What is fanboyism? Really, I'm serious. I don't think such a thing exists. I think it's all people who don't get why other people value product X explaining it away with the fanboyism argument. I don't mean to detract or disagree because that was my first reaction but when I got to thinking about it I realized that I could easily be labelled a fanboy. I don't want that argument used against me so I won't use it against someone else anymore. There's some kind of weird jealousy or something going on there but its also much more. I haven't quite nailed it yet but I think saying someone or some view is a "fanboy" is a lazy argument now.
But I secretly agree. But please ignore that last sentence.
But I digress. This post has it wrong. What he supposedly overheard in a Starbucks wasn't caused by the Apple v. Samsung ruling but was a direct result of what Samsung had been trying to do all along.