Looks like the end of the road for Samsung.

[Anubis]

or just use Google music for music which is 100% free
i have beta invites if you want one

 

[Fire&Blood]

Deja vu, we had a itunes thread already with that zenzero dude. Please no more.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Not sure where you're going with this. iCloud is 100% free. iTunes match is not free, and they never claimed it would be.

You could use iTunes, use iCloud, load up your music manually, and not pay $25/year.

Ending the syncing with iTunes is the most appealing part for her when I have described it to her.

Again, I am not criticizing the iCloud service or the iTunes match. Honestly $25 a year is a deal for what it gives you. The service is ok and is worth its price for all the features.

All I was saying is that even just a year ago I would have signed up day one. $25 to ditch iTunes basically? Done deal. But this year I have held back, because I understand that Apple's long-term strategy is centered on their ecosystem and if I chose to continue to support that path I am going to eventually financially support Apple.

Or you could always pay Spotify $10/mo or use Pandora for free :shrug:

Or even role my own with Subsonic. I will go through the options. It is not a huge deal, my point was more that I am wary of Apple's offerings now where before I was the idiot that bought the first revision of products.

 

[Ns1]

Or even role my own with Subsonic. I will go through the options. It is not a huge deal, my point was more that I am wary of Apple's offerings now where before I was the idiot that bought the first revision of products.

fair enough. I was very excited when I first heard about iTunes match but after seeing it now...meh.

 

[J-Money]

More and more this forum shows why many people here would fail at business.

If the patent offices allows something to be patented, it is the patent holders right to have it enforced. Period.

This is on the patent offices, not Apple. They are doing what they are legally allowed to do and it makes them more money which is the purpose of a business. It pleases the stock holders.

If anyone one of you ran a business and said 'Hey competitors lets be friends and co-operate" you would be such a failure.

I hope this doesn't go through, as I am a bigger fan of Samsung than Apple (have a Nexus S, next phone Galaxy S2 or Prime), but I also understand how businesses work.

 

[YoungGun21]

Legality and morality are different things. Yes what they are doing might be (MIGHT BE) legal, but that doesn't make it right or any less stupid. It is very stupid.

Why might it not be legal? What they are claiming is quite a stretch, they have lied in several lawsuits and legal documents, and they try to patent the dumbest things.

 

[annomander]

Legality and morality are different things. Yes what they are doing might be (MIGHT BE) legal, but that doesn't make it right or any less stupid. It is very stupid.

Why might it not be legal? What they are claiming is quite a stretch, they have lied in several lawsuits and legal documents, and they try to patent the dumbest things.

Does this morality standard only work when its Apple or do we make excuses on morality for Samsung copying design/package and accessories?

It's pretty sad after many months people still don't have a clue what this is all about and seem to think it just depends on a "rectangle"

or

they pretend ignorance otherwise having the full facts would hurt the APPLE BAD argument.

 

[YoungGun21]

Does this morality standard only work when its Apple or do we make excuses on morality for Samsung copying design/package and accessories?

It's pretty sad after many months people still don't have a clue what this is all about and seem to think it just depends on a "rectangle"

or

they pretend ignorance otherwise having the full facts would hurt the APPLE BAD argument.

Tell us all what it's about then mr smartypants.

And no, the morality standards work for every company.

 

[annomander]

Tell us all what it's about then mr smartypants.

And no, the morality standards work for every company.

You know very well what its about, theres enough links and articles over the web, its about the full package and this covers hell of a lot of different stuff.

If the morality standards work for every company then there should be more complaints about Samsung blatent copying.

I saw my first Samsung 8.9 today, and it was a wordful product, but it did look like a iPad

 

[YoungGun21]

You know very well what its about, theres enough links and articles over the web, its about the full package and this covers hell of a lot of different stuff.

If the morality standards work for every company then there should be more complaints about Samsung blatent copying.

I saw my first Samsung 8.9 today, and it was a wordful product, but it did look like a iPad

It isn't blatent, and that's why there is so much outrage about this.

Apple is just hungry for more money. There are tons of other companies that make products that are actually copies of iProducts. Like the same exact shit, except shit quality and hardware, but the looks are identical. Why don't they get sued? They don't make the money that Samsung does. End of story. I couldn't tell you the name of any of those companies, and that's why they don't get sued.

 

[Pliablemoose]

It isn't blatent, and that's why there is so much outrage about this.

Apple is just hungry for more money. There are tons of other companies that make products that are actually copies of iProducts. Like the same exact shit, except shit quality and hardware, but the looks are identical. Why don't they get sued? They don't make the money that Samsung does. End of story. I couldn't tell you the name of any of those companies, and that's why they don't get sued.

Apple trusted Samsung to supply parts and not blatantly rip them off. I can understand the motivation...

 

[J-Money]

It isn't blatent, and that's why there is so much outrage about this.

Apple is just hungry for more money. There are tons of other companies that make products that are actually copies of iProducts. Like the same exact shit, except shit quality and hardware, but the looks are identical. Why don't they get sued? They don't make the money that Samsung does. End of story. I couldn't tell you the name of any of those companies, and that's why they don't get sued.

Stock holders don't give a crap about a morality (as long as LEGAL) when it means more money. You even said yourself "Apple is just hungry for more money".

Guess what? Businesses main focus is to make money. Seems like a successful business move to want more, and Apple is very successful.

You can hate them all you want, it doesn't change the fact they are doing what a successful business would do in the best interests of stock holders.

If Samsungs own lawyers can't differentiate between two devices from 10 feet, the lawsuit obviously must have some kind of basis.

Again, I hope it fails, because I much prefer Samsung, but letting hate get in the way of a basic understanding of business is a problem on these forums.

 

[HeXen]

Samsung should do what China does when they rip something off. And when China rips something off, they rip it off good and get away with it.

 

[akugami]

US judge: Samsung's products infringe on Apple design patents



Apple: Innovating by Litigating. God forbid anyone compete with them. Ever.

Nevermind that Samsung is actually guilty of infringement. It's gotta be Apple that's the villain. Apple defending its copyrights is the correct thing for the company to do. If you want to argue that the infringement is not serious enough that it warrants an injunction, I'd agree with you. Whether you think the design patents are valid or not is also a different debate. But Apple is legally required to protect its patents and trademarks in order to protect the interests of Apple stakeholders.

How the hell do you patent a black rectangle. I don't get it.

Yet another person who ignores the fact that there is a lot more to Apple's design patent than "rectangle with rounded corners." There tends to be a lot of "ignoring facts" when it comes to Apple. It gets old how every thread has a "how did they patent a rectangle with rounded corners" comment.

You mean like Apple and PARC? Apple and the Audio Highway Listen Up MP3 player? Apple and ....

Being granted a design patent on the tablet from 2001 A Space Odyssey and Star Trek TNG wasn't innovation by Apple either.

With all due respect, Xerox gave permission to Apple to visit its PARC building. Xerox also received $1 million worth of pre-IPO Apple shares as part of the package. It gets repeated almost every time that Apple "stole" from Xerox's PARC when the fact is Xerox practically gave free reign for Apple to siphon ideas for $1 million in pre-IPO Apple stock.

Legality and morality are different things. Yes what they are doing might be (MIGHT BE) legal, but that doesn't make it right or any less stupid. It is very stupid.

Why might it not be legal? What they are claiming is quite a stretch, they have lied in several lawsuits and legal documents, and they try to patent the dumbest things.

Legally and morally it is wrong to copy Apple to the extent that Samsung has. Only people who ignore the facts can believe that Samsung did not intentionally copy Apple and model their products extremely closely to Apple products. I say this as someone who has bought two Samsung phones in the last year (for the parents) and three Samsung HDTV's in the last five years.

Lot's of companies patent dumb things. It's partially defensive in nature. Blame the patent offices. Not Apple.

It isn't blatent, and that's why there is so much outrage about this.

Apple is just hungry for more money. There are tons of other companies that make products that are actually copies of iProducts. Like the same exact shit, except shit quality and hardware, but the looks are identical. Why don't they get sued? They don't make the money that Samsung does. End of story. I couldn't tell you the name of any of those companies, and that's why they don't get sued.

It is blatant. And Samsung's corporate culture is slimy. This is a company with a CEO who is a convicted dirtbag. And this same company has a manager who has admitted to selling Apple secrets. And that's just one that admitted to it. I'm sure there are more who haven't.

Looking at the product design of Samsung's latest products and how they resemble Apple products, there is no way any unbiased person can come to any other conclusion but that Samsung has blatantly copied Apple. I repeat, there is zero, none, no way, that any unbiased person can come to the conclusion that Samsung did not blatantly copy Apple.

Whether the copying is enough to warrant an injunction, I say no. I'm not sure it's quite serious enough for that. But it is enough that Apple does have a legitimate case.

 

[YoungGun21]

Stock holders don't give a crap about a morality when it means more money. You even said yourself "Apple is just hungry for more money".

Guess what? Businesses main focus is to make money. Seems like a successful business move to want more, and Apple is very successful.

You can hate them all you want, it doesn't change the fact they are doing what a successful business would do in the best interests of stock holders.

If Samsungs own lawyers can't differentiate between two devices from 10 feet, the lawsuit obviously must have some kind of basis.

Again, I hope it fails, because I much prefer Samsung, but letting hate get in the way of a basic understanding of business is a problem on these forums.

I never said they weren't doing what businesses do. Businesses make money. Apple makes a shit ton. Cool. Glad we agree on that.

Now, on to the actual subject of ridiculous lawsuits...10ft is a pretty long way away to easily distinguish two products that are smaller than 10 inches. Let's be realistic. Take a phone from Motorola or LG, hold it up next to the IP4 from 7 feet away. I even moved you a little closer. Can you tell which is which? Should they be sued too?

 

[Pliablemoose]

I try to stay out of these threads, but Samsung screwed the pooch.

 

[J-Money]

I never said they weren't doing what businesses do. Businesses make money. Apple makes a shit ton. Cool. Glad we agree on that.

Now, on to the actual subject of ridiculous lawsuits...10ft is a pretty long way away to easily distinguish two products that are smaller than 10 inches. Let's be realistic. Take a phone from Motorola or LG, hold it up next to the IP4 from 7 feet away. I even moved you a little closer. Can you tell which is which? Should they be sued too?

You used "hungry for money" as a negative to justify why "Apple is bad". You used what any normal business would do to justify your hate.

I don't know if they should sue. I can tell the difference but I'm not who Apple would be worried about getting mixed up and buying the wrong one.

Apple will decide if they think it warrants a suit. Not me. The courts decide if the suit was warranted.

 

[YoungGun21]

You used "hungry for money" as a negative to justify why "Apple is bad". You used what any normal business would do to justify your hate.

I don't know if they should sue. I can tell the difference but I'm not who Apple would be worried about getting mixed up and buying the wrong one.

Apple will decide if they think it warrants a suit. Not me. The courts decide if the suit was warranted.

Apple exists to make money. Shareholders don't care how that is done. Do other people? Yes.

Hungry for money was negative. There is certainly a line that can be crossed (and has been crossed). Apple's attempts at lawsuits here are painfully desperate. I can guarantee you that nobody that works at Apple genuinely believes that Samsung would blatantly copy such simple ideas. They noticed that there were similarities, some hardcore Apple fanboy bloggers started saying that Samsung copied Apple, and *lightbulb* they saw an opportunity for money. Then when it didn't really work, they just keep trying.

I mean seriously...look at the Galaxy S phones. The first generation. Compare that to an iPhone. Some of my friends have IP3GS and IP4, I have a Fascinate. Resemblance? Sure. Would I mistake my phone for one of theirs? Not even close.

 

[annomander]

I can guarantee you that nobody that works at Apple genuinely believes that Samsung would blatantly copy such simple ideas.

Really, lets hear your guarantee?

You're sounding like a fanboy.

 

[J-Money]

Apple exists to make money. Shareholders don't care how that is done. Do other people? Yes.

Hungry for money was negative. There is certainly a line that can be crossed (and has been crossed). Apple's attempts at lawsuits here are painfully desperate. I can guarantee you that nobody that works at Apple genuinely believes that Samsung would blatantly copy such simple ideas. They noticed that there were similarities, some hardcore Apple fanboy bloggers started saying that Samsung copied Apple, and *lightbulb* they saw an opportunity for money. Then when it didn't really work, they just keep trying.

I mean seriously...look at the Galaxy S phones. The first generation. Compare that to an iPhone. Some of my friends have IP3GS and IP4, I have a Fascinate. Resemblance? Sure. Would I mistake my phone for one of theirs? Not even close.

A few posts ago you were saying someone can't tell an IP4 from a Motorola or LG now you are saying you would never mistake a phone. Which is it?

You seem so tied up on the fact that because you can tell the difference and you think it's dumb that you represent everyone. You don't. If Samsungs own lawyers could not tell the difference, average no-tech Joe will not tell the difference.

You really are looking like either an Android fanboy, Apple hater or both. What you are not looking like is someone who understands business.

And Apple has no reason for desperation, they have more money than the US treasury, I'm sure they are doing fine.

"Apple exists to make money. Shareholders don't care how that is done. Do other people? Yes. "

Other people DO NOT MATTER. Shareholders do.

The facts are:

1. Apple is a business, whose primary purpose is to make money.
2. Apple owns patents and copyrights.
3. Apple believes Samsung violated them and Apple has a right to defend them.
4. The courts possibly agree on the violation.
5. Outcome remains to be seen.

There is zero bad business practice here. In fact it's GOOD business on Apples part to defend it's rights.

You need to realize your beef is with the patent offices who allowed the patents. I think the personally think the patents are pretty dumb, but that's not the issue, it's the fact they were allowed.

If Samsung or HTC or whoever can find legitimate violations that Apple has done I hope they utilize their right to defend those patents too.

 

[YoungGun21]

A few posts ago you were saying someone can't tell an IP4 from a Motorola or LG now you are saying you would never mistake a phone. Which is it?

You seem so tied up on the fact that because you can tell the difference and you think it's dumb that you represent everyone. You don't. If Samsungs own lawyers could not tell the difference, average no-tech Joe will not tell the difference.

...

There is zero bad business practice here. In fact it's GOOD business on Apples part to defend it's rights.

You need to realize your beef is with the patent offices who allowed the patents.

One comparison was done at 7ft away, the other I was talking about close up. If anything, you should have known that. Try it yourself. Hold up two smartphones of similar size, shape, and color and have someone else stand 7-8ft away and try to guess which is which. Now hold them in front of their face. See how that works?

And yes I have beef with the patent office.

And yes it is bad business. This is a topic for a whole different thread, but just because a business is maximizing profit does not mean that what they are doing is considered good business. Think about all the things businesses do to cut costs like evade taxes, use dangerous chemicals, child labor, etc in order to reap profits. Good business eh?

 

[Pliablemoose]

One comparison was done at 7ft away, the other I was talking about close up. If anything, you should have known that. Try it yourself. Hold up two smartphones of similar size, shape, and color and have someone else stand 7-8ft away and try to guess which is which. Now hold them in front of their face. See how that works?

And yes I have beef with the patent office.

And yes it is bad business. This is a topic for a whole different thread, but just because a business is maximizing profit does not mean that what they are doing is considered bad business. Think about all the things businesses do to cut costs like evade taxes, use dangerous chemicals, child labor, etc in order to reap profits. Good business eh?

Where were your clothes made? Where were the components made in the computer you're using right now?

Seriously, I want to know...

 

[J-Money]

And yes it is bad business. This is a topic for a whole different thread, but just because a business is maximizing profit does not mean that what they are doing is considered good business. Think about all the things businesses do to cut costs like evade taxes, use dangerous chemicals, child labor, etc in order to reap profits. Good business eh?

Protecting ones copyrights is not akin to evading taxes, dangerous chemicals and child labor.

But I'd like to hear a response to Pliablemoose's question as well.

 

[YoungGun21]

Shirt-Honduras
Sweater-China

And need I say more? You are obviously trying to imply that outsourcing is a bad business practice or that all clothes are made in sweatshops, neither of which would be the truth.

 

[J-Money]

Shirt-Honduras
Sweater-China

And need I say more? You are obviously trying to imply that outsourcing is a bad business practice or that all clothes are made in sweatshops, neither of which would be the truth.

It isn't bad practice. It's legally allowed and good for business (ie profits).

Morally however? There is a good chance your Chinese made sweater could have been child labour or a sweatshop. China isn't exactly briming with high end clothiers. Did you raise a moral stink about it when you bought it or when it was given to you?

Or do morals only apply to Apple?