wklauss

No matter what Google says now, this sets a bad precedent and some of these patents could be used to go against Google on a trial. Wether or not Apple chooses to do so is another story.

I see this trial as a missed opportunity to rethink patent law in the US. However I don't blame Apple on this one, I blame Samsung. They made it so easy for Apple to make a case that now these patents have been somehow ratified. Had they not make their products so damn similar the jurors would have probably thought twice before the verdict and its implications.

So what if you are wrong? How long do we have to wait to see if you gave your father an inaccurate reading of the situation?

I mean, I remember a lot of the "Apple is at 90$ a share now, it will go down soon" crowd in the '06 in the Yahoo Finance forum posts and I'd love to see them now and sincerely ask them what were they thinking or why did they reach that conclusion back then.

I'm completely serious. This kind of "its the beginning of the end" prophecies are easy to make because you can always say "wait a little bit longer, it will happen" but other than anecdotal evidence, i don't know what prompt you to say "s soon as you have to sue your competition to remain competitive - you're done". Is this a real thing? No company has remained afloat and well after suing a rival?

Is there no way that Apple might be both suing and at the same time innovating in some other way or on any other markets? Does it have to be one or the other?

That is why companies are allowed to appeal the veredict (and presumably will do so), but the whole "jury trials are unfair" thing is not new and definitely affects all kind of cases, not just technology companies, and I don't think we will get a insightful answer on this subject on this forums (experts in law have been debating this issue for years).

As of now, this is the veredict, but its not game over for Samsung. If they think they have a case and they've been wronged, they should appeal and use this quotes as proof of wrongdoing by the jury. Let the judges decide on it, that's what they are for.

Capacitive screens were already used by one terminal, I think an LG phone. But the iPhone put something different in the market: multitouch and gestures. Some things like slide to unlock or pinch to zoom seem trivial now but they weren't really product of the normal evolution of phone interfaces. Locking the screen was done with a hardware button because it was deemed safer, zoom was double tapping in the part of the image you wanted to magnify.

Had the iPhone not been introduced I doubt small little details like these would have changed at all, and there are tons of these small subtleties in the current smartphone OSs.

Well, then there's no one to blame but the parts involved. For weeks they called witnesses and experts to the stand to explain the jury their claims. They should have bring better experts or explain things better. Also, both parts agreed on the jury during the selection process.

"Unbeknownst to Raskin, Jobs had his own reasons for visiting PARC: Xerox's venture capital arm had recently made an investment in Apple, and had agreed to show Apple what was going on in its lab."

I think this is kind of the point they make in Steve Jobs bio as well. Xerox allowed Apple to use some of the concepts in the lab because they were investors in the company. Also, if I recall correctly, Apple engineers went a little farther in the window metaphor, allowing, for example, to overlap and stack windows, something XEROX wasn't able or willing to do.

I think that was an odd situation that had a lot to do about how software was distributed and consumed then.

Even if Android keeps gaining marketshare -lets say it gets to 70/75%- I don't think this will play the same way as Mac/PC did in the 90s. Most of what people do these days with a computer / phone is platform agnostic (web browsing, for instance).

Not true. The last stock keyboard for Android doesn't resemble any other I know. Nor does the Windows Phone 7 / Windows 7 one.

This "there's no other way to do an X" argument is getting really tiring. I don't really care about this Apple vs Samsung nonsense (let the judge decide) but i think theres pretty strong evidence that you can do innovative and creative design if you put yourself to the task.

Exactly, but as you say the reason is that there's an easier and less risky (although it depends on the quality of the ID) way to get/steal money.

But that doesn't prove that requiring a physical ID is a safer method, just that there is a better workaround.

Its a good interesting piece but in this case could easily be that the employee in Mat's case didn't follow correct procedure or was not familiar with it (new employee?). Even if he knew the procedure for this cases there are all kinds of possible explanations: maybe the hacker pay him, maybe himself is the attacker, etc...

Physical IDs can be faked.

Phone is not the only way to access customer support. And for the look of this, BTW, Mat's gmail account got hacked first and then the social engineering on Apple side took part (the password reset was sent to his gmail account).

Im not suggesting that doing nothing is the same of doing something. Im just saying that not matter how secure and prepared Apple had been, this could have happened anyway.

Zero incident record, in any case, seems very unrealistic. I don't know any particular case first hand but then again i'm sure this is not the first time this happens with an iCloud account either. Mat is a public person and has commented his case publicly and thats why we are openly talking about it here.

I think the services can be improved without becoming too annoying. Someone in this thread suggested a 24 hour delay, which seems reasonable. You could also send a "last call" email and text message to make sure the right user is the one that has requested the password change. Apple could easily separate Find my Mac from "wiping", or add a second password for that.

None of these will be 100% effective, but it will make things more difficult for attackers and not too uncomfortable for users.

joke's on me then :)

But back to my point social engineering doesn't require voice. you can do it via email just as easily.

The fact that this happens doesn't have to do with any particular brand. Every company, Google included, is susceptible to this kind of social engineering attacks. Nothing is 100% safe. You can take every precaution possible and there will always be a weak link in the chain.

Apple will double down in security now, especially regarding iCloud, but even doing so there is a chance that this will happen again. Same for Microsoft, Sony and, yes, Google.

There's no magic solution other than being careful. And even with that security is always an illusion. Your door lock is easily opened, no matter how much money you put in it, the only thing preventing you from being robbed is that are more houses in your neighbourhood and that some of those could seem like an easier target.

You are tired, fair enough, but then don't try to make it a fanboy case, just let it slide.

I have my own perception about these things and that is that if this was an Apple case instead of a Google one it would have been overanalyzed and exaggerated ("devgate" or whatever other stupid name attached to it) and that one-sided stories would be welcomed instead of questioned.

This is probably coming across as a pro Apple statement, no doubt (and I do'nt really care, i don't make a big deal about what technology i decide to put in my pocket), but I also think it'd be against users and developer interests to say that the problem is not there or that is only a matter of perception based on your ecosystem preferences.

If there something wrong, or that needs improvement, it should be said regardless on what phone you use or your personal preference.

It seems you are trying to steer this into a "if you criticize Google you're an Apple fanboy, if you criticize Apple you're a Google fanboy" argument which is not only dangerous in itself but utterly ridiculous.

I think the demands he made are pretty reasonable. Both Google and Apple need to improve relations and communications with developers in cases like this and trying to avoid the subject or turn it into a fanboy war wont help the case.

So please, put back your Nexus in your holster, cowboy.

You could argue that the iPad does much more than surf the web and play videogames. It's a matter of how you use it and how well is integrated in your workflow.

I know plenty of medical staff who are receiving training now to use iPads as the sole computing device in the hospital, for example. Same for a lot of financial companies.

Microsoft is trying to sell the idea that you can have the best of both worlds (traditional PCs and tablets) without sacrifices but its simply not true. Something's gotta give. In the case of Surface I expect a lot of frustration trying to use a standard windows app on a small touchscreen. And if you are going to connect the device to an external monitor, keyboard and mouse, you might as well have a small desktop PC.

this is not new, either. Microsoft has tried time and again, first with TabeltPCs, then the overhyped UMPCs (remember those?) and its always hitting the same walls.

If you are going to do a big change in the paradigm you have to have the balls to do it completely and take the advantages that switching to a "pure" tablet experience can offer. Leave bloated software behind, leave all the legacy support, etc...

I'm not sure if I'm the only one that feels a little cheated with this article. It reads like PR for the product and Manjoo buries that Stone's Obvious Corp is an investor in BM in the the middle of the text even when he uses Stone's quotes at the beggining.

If you only take into account caloric production yes, meat is not very efficient. But there is a reason humans started to eat and domesticate animals. They provide us with fur, an other byproducts (fertilizer, etc...)

I understand the need to find some substitute with 7 billion people in the planet, but i think grown-in-a-lab meat will probably be a better alternative in the near future.