Same for me. Been looking to replace my dell notebook and was looking into the Macbook Air with ubuntu as the alternative. Was just comparing prices and specs on the Apple's website last week.
I used to think Apple's success was great for us consumers because it's more choice, and competition is why companies are innovating in the first place, right? But this latest injunction made me realize, if I give money to Apple, there will be less competition and not more. They're unfairly anti-competitive and will use any immoral hole in legislation to make sure consumers have no options. To make sure there is no competition. That is driving innovation backwards, not forward. Summing the pros and cons. Their own technological innovation is not worth their effort to stop the whole rest of the world from innovating. Their balance to the world is on the negative.
I'm not gonna give money to a company that is driving humanity backwards. My 0.00001% missing contribution will have the same value as my vote for the country's president. I'm voting with my wallet.
I'm getting Galaxy S3 instead of iPhone - easy decision now. Just more proof that shows that patents slow innovation, increase costs, and reduces/limits the amount of people who can get access to the technology; Innovation will occur if people have the tools they need to build the innovation, design new tools, and reach the public who would 'vote' on the technology by mechanisms like pre-buying. Patents need to go. People need to stop fearing competition. Controlled ecosystems are bad for everyone, including the people stressing over maintaining the control.
I've been using Macs since the 80s and I'm with you. I've felt so ashamed of what Apple has become I covered the Apple logo on my MacBook Pro. I use Linux instead of Mac OS already but that's more of a preference thing than anything else.
I'm doing this too. My current Mac is dying and it's going to be replaced with a PC. (If only ARM based laptops were available already).
I moved to Apple with OS X back in the G4 era on the basis of OS X, and it is going to be a pain to leave, but with the trends in OS X development being what they are it had to happen at some point.
Well, you chose to avoid good product because of the stupid ideology. Why stupid? Because you can easily find a reason to hate Google the same or even more (the whole FRAND thing e.g.).
OTOH, people are not rational, nothing new here so this love/hate boils down to subjective preferences rationalized a lot.
I like Apple because they make damn good products. Damn good products make them damn good money.
Google makes money from ads. I hate ads. But strangely enough I feel neutral about Google.
As for the patents and this case: it was said more than once there—hate the game, not the player.
Compare Android to Windows Phone, Android tablets to the Surface, and the Lumia to the Galaxy Nexus.
Google and their partners could have taken the high road and created their own take on what a touch screen phone OS is, but instead they took the low road and did a wholesale look and feel copy and paste job of iOS to get scale.
Copying look and feel isn't actual wrongdoing, but it's certainly not the high road.
Now Apple is taking the low road and trying to smack the fuck down Google legally, instead of taking the high road and competing on its own merits.
Both companies have taken the low road, and both companies are culpable here- no one comes out looking good in this story.
I don't understand why Apple is going after the Galaxy Nexus. In terms of UI, it's not really very similar to anything Apple makes, and to me at least, I don't think that either Apple or Google are trying to exploit consumer confusion to sell it.
The Galaxy S2 and S3 with TouchWiz, OTOH, are a different story. I would imagine that what Apple is really pissed off about is being the target of Samsung's shameless copy-and-undercut strategy that's worked so well for them in mobile in the past. TouchWiz is a really gauche copy of just about everything iOS. I'm actually quite happy that Samsung is getting called on this bullshit.
I think I understand why, having just bought one when I went to the US for WWDC last month (seems to have been fortunate timing).
Unlike some crapware-laden blatant iOS-wannabe Android phones, the Galaxy Nexus is a pretty great phone that is different and better than the iPhone in many ways. But, unlike most Android phones I have seen, it still provides a fairly elegant and clean user experience that is attractive to the same kind of user that the iPhone is (me, for instance; so far, I buy a new iPhone every time Apple introduces one).
Of course, better means different things to different people, but here are some of the things I found to be superior, per my preferences as a user:
• much bigger screen (I strongly prefer the tradeoff of making it marginally harder to reach the top opposite corner with my thumb in exchange for being able to see more usable information with my eyes) for better book reading and web browsing
• typing feels better and is more accurate (due to larger size & haptic feedback I think)
• incomparably better maps navigation; even when I already have my iPhone 4S in my hand I get the Galaxy Nexus out of the backpack if I need directions
• no worrying that Apple will rip me off retroactively, by disabling an app I bought from them (the Airfoil Speakers debacle) to protect some fucked licensing arrangement to make my phone work only with expensive proprietary hardware and not with standard commodity hardware
• can load any software I want, not just from the maker's app store, without requiring me to exploit a bug in the OS to jailbreak
• integrates with Google Voice
It does have deficiencies, too; it crashes much more than my iPhone, the OS lacks the level of polish in a lot of ways, camera isn't as good, etc. Which is better depends on the user, and still would probably be the iPhone for most.
My point is just that the $349 unlocked Galaxy Nexus has some aspects which could be considered advantages over the iPhone, but it is still appealing to exactly the kind of user that the iPhone appeals to. Somebody who wants a smooth, uncluttered, pretty pocket computer that "just works" with minimal hassle. Google removes the crapware, gets rid of the funk-ass nonstandard UI skins, provides all the system updates, automatically links up with whatever services in their ecosystem you use... so with this phone they've done the best job of creating that type of product.
Therefore, to the iPhone, I think the Galaxy Nexus is the most directly threatening Android phone yet produced.
So, supposing you were an asshole with some bogus patents to go trolling with, that's probably where you'd want to start.
Florian Müller has failed to disclose when he is consulting/working for companies he is writing about and has been pretty seriously wrong in his "predictions", most notably the Oracle v. Google case over Java/Android.
Isn't it ironic that the Galaxy Nexus (along with the rest of the Nexus line) is almost the only Android phone that Google can quickly update the software, remove/change the stuff that Apple supposedly "own" and sell it again quickly? If the ban happened for almost all other Android devices the pain would be much bigger. I am an Android phone and Macbook owner and I am really ashamed by Apple actions, I will not buy anything of them again until they change their attitude.
There's tens of similar surveys published online. None of them include "search-as-u-go". In fact Apple doesn't seem to think that it's that big enough of a deal to promote. They advertise tens of features & this isn't one of them. And that's because it's expected (everyone uses it already) or it's not that important to a buyer when choosing a phone to purchase.
It's just not reasonable to assume that the "search-as-u-go" technology could give any sort of significant advantage to Samsung to be the cause of a shift in market share or something with similarly "unascertainable" consequences, which is precisely what the ruling of irreparable damage relies on.
> Irreparable harm seems to imply that this could hurt Apple in a major way
Yes, this is what bothers me most about it. Litigating bogus patents is one thing, but this grandstanding about the impact of tiny features is sickening. Especially after we had the ruling from Posner that it has to be the specific feature in question that is causing the "irreparable" harm. It seems to me that the irreparable harm is drastically tilted in Google's direction here, as they are unable to market the latest version of their operating system, potentially for months until iOS6 is released. Compare that to the tiny (non-existent?) lost sales on Apple's side - supposedly due to customers saying "hey, since Google's phone can search for apps and contacts on the same screen, I'm buying that one!" - of their nearly obsolete iPhone4s, it seems ridiculously unfair to me.
First of all this makes me want one even more. Secondly I wonder if Steve Jobs would have cancelled this BS? I've been curious about Android development for the nearly four years I've been doing iOS development. I'll start porting my free ad-supported app to Android now. Bye Apple!
"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson, in the book, which hit shelves last October.
"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this," Jobs said.
What? Apple's aggressive use of patents started on Jobs' watch. He crowed about Apple's patents in keynotes. He swore (on record to his biographer) that he was going to destroy Android even if it cost Apple every penny they had.
Why in the world would you think that he would be cancelling this, or any other kind of patent action?
Jobs started, and was the driving force behind this nonsense. If anything, I hope his absence will allow Cook et al to "gracefully" withdraw themselves from his idiotic/evil plans to sue everyone into oblivion.
Apple can't simply drop all of the lawsuits, as to do so would be an admission that it was a bad idea from its conception. Instead, they can wait until they suffer one of these judgements, then push for a cross-licensing deal.
I don't think so. There are many pages online that say that Steve Jobs was absolutely against Android. As in, he wasn't in it for the money. He literally wanted to obliterate it. So, I think, if Steve was in charge, there would actually have been no "bond" or anything. He would just want a blanket ban, and that is all.
I'm working on a new iOS app and I've started porting it to Android as a result of all this. As an iOS developer I feel complicit in what Apple's doing lately.
I actually had added the Galaxy Nexus to my shopping cart yesterday and then tried to buy today but couldn't. It was only in reading this that I realized why.
Does anyone have any insights into how many days/weeks before Google will be able to sell it again?
Other than my own prejudice against the absurdity of patenting common sense software features, I don't understand why this suit doesn't affect all Android products?
It seems like the patented feature in question is pure software available on other Android phones.
Unlike with trademarks, patent holders get a lot of leeway about whom to sue and when without immediately endangering their patents through estoppel. I don't know what makes waiting more effective and evil, but that's why they have the option.
I believe the original title said Galaxy Nexus. Way to be misleading by implying it's the Nexus 7.
Also, people still read Foss Patents, the guy paid by Microsoft and Oracle to write negative stories on Google, and who was completely wrong on anything he said or suggested about the Google and Oracle trial?
Yes people still read FOSS patents because he is the ONLY one actually covering the cases in detail. And I actually find him to be 100x more professional than Groklaw e.g. their latest article, "Another Spanking for Apple From Judge Posner".
The Galaxy SIII is still available and basically the same phone. Seems like there are just too many Android devices for Apple to block them all, they're just picking on the Galaxy Nexus to take a pot-shot at Google directly.
Even if they were "basically the same phone" (which they're not, the S3 seems to be somewhat better hardware-wise), the price difference is quite significant:
How is banning a product that might possibly be in violation of an absurd law be in anyones best interest other than Apple's? Patent laws were intended to benefit consumers, not predatory capitalists.
Patents can't be justified on the basis of consumer benefit. While it's true that some consumers benefit from patents, they're not the sole (or even primary) beneficiary: the patent holders are.
Patents are justified because an individual has the right to the product of his mind [and his body (labor); in reality, there is no difference, but I'm emphasizing the mind here because the context is IP]. This is because survival as a human being (whether alone or in a group) requires thought in order to make the things needed to sustain a flourishing life. This is damned hard work!
Copying the product of someone else's thought (not the same as emulating another person's method of thought, and applying it to a new situation) deprives the originator of what is rightfully theirs: the untrammeled market for their innovation, which would not exist were it not for their thoughts and action.
(And no, not every idea is patentable, and not every patent applied for should be granted. No, patents can't last forever. But those are comparatively minor details that are incomprehensible if the fundamental idea stated above is not understood.)
Please let this case turn into a hideous disaster, so that the patent system is revealed to the public at large as the hideous disaster it is. Many a small company's dreams have been quietly smothered by this patent system; the public only starts to care if something nasty happens to a big corporation.
It needs to go the other way for the public to get it. A grand unveiling of a gee-whiz apple project that everyone obsesses about having, only to be denied because of a frivolous patent.
[+] [-] scarmig|13 years ago|reply
I know, I know: no one cares about nerd ideologies. But I'll do my part and lower their monthly revenues by 0.00001%.
[+] [-] vibrunazo|13 years ago|reply
I used to think Apple's success was great for us consumers because it's more choice, and competition is why companies are innovating in the first place, right? But this latest injunction made me realize, if I give money to Apple, there will be less competition and not more. They're unfairly anti-competitive and will use any immoral hole in legislation to make sure consumers have no options. To make sure there is no competition. That is driving innovation backwards, not forward. Summing the pros and cons. Their own technological innovation is not worth their effort to stop the whole rest of the world from innovating. Their balance to the world is on the negative.
I'm not gonna give money to a company that is driving humanity backwards. My 0.00001% missing contribution will have the same value as my vote for the country's president. I'm voting with my wallet.
[+] [-] loceng|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wollw|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fidotron|13 years ago|reply
I moved to Apple with OS X back in the G4 era on the basis of OS X, and it is going to be a pain to leave, but with the trends in OS X development being what they are it had to happen at some point.
[+] [-] arpit|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acchow|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rimantas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eagsalazar|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Karunamon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CountSessine|13 years ago|reply
What word do you have for things that are actually despicable?
Like actually hurting or killing people?
Or doing things that don't just involve selling telephones?
[+] [-] colinplamondon|13 years ago|reply
Google and their partners could have taken the high road and created their own take on what a touch screen phone OS is, but instead they took the low road and did a wholesale look and feel copy and paste job of iOS to get scale.
Copying look and feel isn't actual wrongdoing, but it's certainly not the high road.
Now Apple is taking the low road and trying to smack the fuck down Google legally, instead of taking the high road and competing on its own merits.
Both companies have taken the low road, and both companies are culpable here- no one comes out looking good in this story.
[+] [-] CountSessine|13 years ago|reply
The Galaxy S2 and S3 with TouchWiz, OTOH, are a different story. I would imagine that what Apple is really pissed off about is being the target of Samsung's shameless copy-and-undercut strategy that's worked so well for them in mobile in the past. TouchWiz is a really gauche copy of just about everything iOS. I'm actually quite happy that Samsung is getting called on this bullshit.
But the Galaxy Nexus? Huh?
[+] [-] veidr|13 years ago|reply
Unlike some crapware-laden blatant iOS-wannabe Android phones, the Galaxy Nexus is a pretty great phone that is different and better than the iPhone in many ways. But, unlike most Android phones I have seen, it still provides a fairly elegant and clean user experience that is attractive to the same kind of user that the iPhone is (me, for instance; so far, I buy a new iPhone every time Apple introduces one).
Of course, better means different things to different people, but here are some of the things I found to be superior, per my preferences as a user:
• much bigger screen (I strongly prefer the tradeoff of making it marginally harder to reach the top opposite corner with my thumb in exchange for being able to see more usable information with my eyes) for better book reading and web browsing
• typing feels better and is more accurate (due to larger size & haptic feedback I think)
• incomparably better maps navigation; even when I already have my iPhone 4S in my hand I get the Galaxy Nexus out of the backpack if I need directions
• no worrying that Apple will rip me off retroactively, by disabling an app I bought from them (the Airfoil Speakers debacle) to protect some fucked licensing arrangement to make my phone work only with expensive proprietary hardware and not with standard commodity hardware
• can load any software I want, not just from the maker's app store, without requiring me to exploit a bug in the OS to jailbreak
• integrates with Google Voice
It does have deficiencies, too; it crashes much more than my iPhone, the OS lacks the level of polish in a lot of ways, camera isn't as good, etc. Which is better depends on the user, and still would probably be the iPhone for most.
My point is just that the $349 unlocked Galaxy Nexus has some aspects which could be considered advantages over the iPhone, but it is still appealing to exactly the kind of user that the iPhone appeals to. Somebody who wants a smooth, uncluttered, pretty pocket computer that "just works" with minimal hassle. Google removes the crapware, gets rid of the funk-ass nonstandard UI skins, provides all the system updates, automatically links up with whatever services in their ecosystem you use... so with this phone they've done the best job of creating that type of product.
Therefore, to the iPhone, I think the Galaxy Nexus is the most directly threatening Android phone yet produced.
So, supposing you were an asshole with some bogus patents to go trolling with, that's probably where you'd want to start.
[+] [-] naner|13 years ago|reply
Florian Müller has failed to disclose when he is consulting/working for companies he is writing about and has been pretty seriously wrong in his "predictions", most notably the Oracle v. Google case over Java/Android.
[+] [-] juliano_q|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Evbn|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mharmon14|13 years ago|reply
But it's easy to see what game-changing technology is. Look at what people want in a phone:
http://mashable.com/2011/10/03/iphone-5-wish-list-starts-wit....
There's tens of similar surveys published online. None of them include "search-as-u-go". In fact Apple doesn't seem to think that it's that big enough of a deal to promote. They advertise tens of features & this isn't one of them. And that's because it's expected (everyone uses it already) or it's not that important to a buyer when choosing a phone to purchase.
It's just not reasonable to assume that the "search-as-u-go" technology could give any sort of significant advantage to Samsung to be the cause of a shift in market share or something with similarly "unascertainable" consequences, which is precisely what the ruling of irreparable damage relies on.
[+] [-] zmmmmm|13 years ago|reply
Yes, this is what bothers me most about it. Litigating bogus patents is one thing, but this grandstanding about the impact of tiny features is sickening. Especially after we had the ruling from Posner that it has to be the specific feature in question that is causing the "irreparable" harm. It seems to me that the irreparable harm is drastically tilted in Google's direction here, as they are unable to market the latest version of their operating system, potentially for months until iOS6 is released. Compare that to the tiny (non-existent?) lost sales on Apple's side - supposedly due to customers saying "hey, since Google's phone can search for apps and contacts on the same screen, I'm buying that one!" - of their nearly obsolete iPhone4s, it seems ridiculously unfair to me.
[+] [-] antidoh|13 years ago|reply
It's merely the way they've discovered to prevent this particular instance of competition.
[+] [-] spaghetti|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptoz|13 years ago|reply
"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this," Jobs said.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57445837-37/jobs-thermonuc...
[+] [-] jsnell|13 years ago|reply
Why in the world would you think that he would be cancelling this, or any other kind of patent action?
[+] [-] redthrowaway|13 years ago|reply
Apple can't simply drop all of the lawsuits, as to do so would be an admission that it was a bad idea from its conception. Instead, they can wait until they suffer one of these judgements, then push for a cross-licensing deal.
[+] [-] dtf|13 years ago|reply
Apple claims your product is a serious competitive threat. What better stamp of quality approval can you get?
[+] [-] sigkill|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cageface|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arpit|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ptrklly|13 years ago|reply
Does anyone have any insights into how many days/weeks before Google will be able to sell it again?
[+] [-] bickfordb|13 years ago|reply
It seems like the patented feature in question is pure software available on other Android phones.
[+] [-] prodigal_erik|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gouranga|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
Also, people still read Foss Patents, the guy paid by Microsoft and Oracle to write negative stories on Google, and who was completely wrong on anything he said or suggested about the Google and Oracle trial?
[+] [-] mjfern|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bad_user|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UnoriginalGuy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juriga|13 years ago|reply
Unlocked Galaxy S3 (Amazon): ~$660
Unlocked Galaxy Nexus (Google Play): $349
[+] [-] huggyface|13 years ago|reply
The Galaxy S III is an entirely different device sharing virtually nothing with the Galaxy Nexus.
[+] [-] LiroXIV|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] splamco|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] maxharris|13 years ago|reply
Patents are justified because an individual has the right to the product of his mind [and his body (labor); in reality, there is no difference, but I'm emphasizing the mind here because the context is IP]. This is because survival as a human being (whether alone or in a group) requires thought in order to make the things needed to sustain a flourishing life. This is damned hard work!
Copying the product of someone else's thought (not the same as emulating another person's method of thought, and applying it to a new situation) deprives the originator of what is rightfully theirs: the untrammeled market for their innovation, which would not exist were it not for their thoughts and action.
(And no, not every idea is patentable, and not every patent applied for should be granted. No, patents can't last forever. But those are comparatively minor details that are incomprehensible if the fundamental idea stated above is not understood.)
[+] [-] berberous|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmelbye|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stayclassytally|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wissler|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]