Apple Again Seeks Ban On 20+ Samsung Devices In US 235
An anonymous reader notes that Apple has renewed its patent attack against Samsung, asking U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh to prohibit Samsung from selling over 20 different phones and tablets. Apple made a similar request after it won a $1 billion judgment in 2012, but Koh did not allow it. An Appeals court later ruled that Apple could resubmit its request if it focused on the specific features at the center of the 2012 verdict, and that's what we're seeing today. Apple's filing said, "Samsung’s claim that it has discontinued selling the particular models found to infringe or design around Apple's patents in no way diminishes Apple’s need for injunctive relief. ... Because Samsung frequently brings new products to market, an injunction is important to providing Apple the relief it needs to combat any future infringement by Samsung through products not more than colorably different from those already found to infringe."
How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Competition is good for the market place. Apple is already doing well enough; no need to do them any favors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a matter of law. Why don't we wait for the judge to determine how the law applies here?
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is an ass.
Re:How about no? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Slashdot! We don't care what any silly judge says, or what the law says! We'll voice support for what we want the law to be, specially tailored to our limited knowledge of this situation, based on our own prejudices for or against the companies in question.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Interesting)
Except we already know that this was a Kangaroo court.
This patent war is a prime example of what is wrong with patents. The jury in this case decided based on one man's vendetta against Samsung. Go ahead, look it up.
You might learn something.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually what I find more disturbing than a biased juror is how Obama permitted apple to sell its phones even though samsung won a ban legally, yet didn't grant the same favor to samsung in the exact same circumstances. That's pretty obvious favoritism, and unlike the biased juror, it's perfectly legal and not subject to appeal.
Re:How about no? (Score:4, Informative)
That wasn't favoritism, that was corporatism. Apple was a big donor to Obama's campaign and Samsung wasn't as big a donor.
It's no better in any form, but put the blame where the blame is due.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason was that Samsung's patents were standards essential FRAND, which means they agreed to allow them to be part of a standard in exchange for lesser royalties and harder to seek injunctions. Apple's patents were not FRAND.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sammy and Moro are trying to extort unreasonable fees. Motogoog is in front of eu right now for monopoly abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and Apple is infringing and not paying the licensing fees. So, why do they get a free pass? Their products should be banned just the same.
They don't get a free pass, just wait for the court to set a rate, and Apple will pay Samsung the amount that the court decides, including past damages. Part of the FRAND obligation is to make it difficult to ban products.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty obvious favoritism
Welcome to politics.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bollocks.
Apple's patents were bullshit to start with, and are continually being overturned at the patent office. Samsung shouldn't _have_ to work around them, and it's far from clear that Samsung even infringed in the first place - that trial was a fucking farce.
Samsung's patents may be FRAND but that doesn't mean that people should be able to use them without paying a fair or reasonable amount. Apple used them and refused to negotiate. Just what the fuck are Samsung meant to do in that circumstance? Ignore the patent?
Obama was playing petty protectionism and nothing else. Sure, Samsung may own half of Korean politics but that doesn't make Obama's corruption any less.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I know I love my Galaxy S3 and have never had an iPhone due to not wanting to be locked to iTunes.
I'm actually surprised Apple is only going after them in the US, though the US is primarily the only place Apple is relevant, everywhere else it's pretty muc
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone buy an iPhone in the third quarter, when it was widely rumored Apple was set to introduce a new iPhone beginning of Q4? (in other words, the only meaning market share numbers for this industry are annualized.)
Not gonna happen. They do an annual fall release.
Patents encourage innovation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Software patents stifle innovation, because I go to all the trouble to create some new software from scratch, and then some greedy shyster walks up and demands I pay money to him. Even though he never created anything. He just patented a list of buzzwords describing some idea he claims to have had, but never implemented.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a nice theory. The reality is that the ten million or so vaguely worded and broad patents rubber-stamped by the patent office in return for fees serve to lock down almost all paths to innovative products.
Re: (Score:2)
And if all else fails, we have the President of the United States of America to overrule any and all legal binding verdicts!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's good that you differentiated between the two, since they're oft times different.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's tablet infringement claims were thrown out because of the copious amounts of prior art which the jury saw. The $1 billion judgement likely would've been thrown out too if they'd seen Samsung was working on iPhone-like designs before anyone outside Apple even knew what an iPhone was. In this particular case, the prejudice is in the jury, not the general public which got to see the documents the judge disallowed because of a technicality.
Re: (Score:2)
And here's what Apple smartphones looked like in 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_404 [wikipedia.org]
Re: How about no? (Score:2)
Re: How about no? (Score:2)
Um, no. (Score:5, Informative)
This "is a matter of law" only when law is on Apple's side. When Samsung got some of their devices blocked at ITC, they just came to Obama crying and Obama administration overturned ruling by decree. For me it's plain corruption, not a matter of law. Apple is a parasite who abuses laws when it suits them and using political connections to ignore laws when it works against them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, no different than any other mega-corporation, then.
Re:Um, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps not. But who gives a fuck if Samsung hides from taxes in Korea. The US is not in Korea last time I looked.
But, your buddies at Apple hide out in Ireland and pay only a tiny percentage of taxes they otherwise would. Meanwhile, we are firing teachers left and right. We cannot afford to fix our roads and bridges. But no, lets help companies like Apple and GE make insane profits operating in our society, while they contribute almost nothing back to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The usual method is via transfer pricing and/or licensing fees.
Except they don't. In Ireland a company owes taxes where it's controlled from (the US). But by US law, it owes them where its mailbox is (Ireland). Thus Apple pay them nowhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you mean like the ITC banned Apple products the president overturned it, stating that such bans should not happen, but then a similar Samsung ban happened and the president said nothing?
Yeah, the legal system works a treat in the US. No protectionism there at all.
1 billion for look and feel pattens. Things where were NEVER intended to be patented. Only in the USA.
Re: How about no? (Score:2)
When a company starts to fight other companies in court for patent issues it's a sign that the company is in decline and is losing its edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it's just a random evolutionary combination of features. Some mobile phones have a high performance GPU,others just offer basic graphics. Other have a stereoscopic cameras that can make 3D movies, others don't. Some have a super-large screen that just does basic 2D, others have the parallax view 3D screen. Others have a secondary camera. Then there's battery life, memory size, the shape and color of the case. Some colors go with certain applications and markets. Customers will view certain combina
Re: (Score:2)
We're still talking about "rounded corners" here, right?
Big pile 'o Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
the fact that they are moving
OSX towards a mandatory App store
All they did, a few versions ago, is allow developers to sign apps, and distribute through the app store - they have made ZERO moves since then towards a "mandatory" app store.
If you think allowing developers to sign applications and having the OS ask before running anything unsigned (note that does NOT mean from the app store) is bad then you have not seen the average person's computer.
and their totally over the top pricing.
You mean like pricing a Mac Pro $2k less than you can buy the individual parts for it?
I'm typing on my
last macbook air here ever... and it's a $1200 value that sold for $2200
And how much do you think a PC is worth after a year?
Good luck with the switch but the grass is pretty much DEAD on the other side of the lawn.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like pricing a Mac Pro $2k less than you can buy the individual parts for it?
In the last 10 years that is the one example of decent pricing you can give for Apple. In just about every other case Apple's markup over the industry baseline has been about 100%. Asus has a $1000 premium laptop? Apple sells the exact same specs for $2000.
And how much do you think a PC is worth after a year?
"Brand appeal" may explain insane resell value, but it doesnt justify it.
Good luck with the switch but the grass is pretty much DEAD on the other side of the lawn.
Ah, right, because all I have to do is plunk down several thousand dollars and Ill be in Apple nirvana, until the next time I need to upgrade. No thanks, Ill stick with my 8-core
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Except I don't want exactly the spec that Apple offer. They just can't offer me the PC I want. The closest they can get has a worse CPU, a worse graphics card, a monitor and keyboard I don't need (who the fuck buys a new monitor and keyboard every time they buy a PC), it lacks wifi, it has less storage (they can't even spec the storage I have in my desktop) and it costs £600 more.
That's £600 more today than I paid four fucking months ago. Prices have dropped since.
Sure, I could
Re: (Score:2)
Cederic is a different poster than me, so using his post to infer things about my perspective is a bit problematic. Regarding how well Apple has served various markets, see my other post-- it has photo examples of the sorts of gouging they do / did.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4603751&cid=45800583 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I have screenshots of past "Apple Challenges" Ive done, if youre interested. Heres one from 2011:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5064/5568018354_6d0b09d595_o.jpg [staticflickr.com]
Youll note that the HP has double the RAM, a better processor, and a substantially better video card, and costs $1000 less.
Its generally been like that for some time; the Apple margin has gotten better in some of the more competitive areas, but generally they have been insanely overpriced compared to what you get. And I really dont buy any nonsense
Re: (Score:2)
"Costs $1000 less"
With a coupon, and no mention of the case. I'm assuming traditional shitty flimsy plastic HP design right? With the screws for the hinge assembly attached right into that soft, breakable plastic, yes? Oh, and a 1366x768 LCD. CPU very slightly better on the HP, RAM is better (2x as much), GPU pretty even (6750M vs 6770M).
I can see why it was cheaper.
I thought you said your Apple Challenge graphic was going to support your argument? All you've shown here is a crappy HP laptop that made sever
Re: (Score:2)
There was no coupon code. Those discounts are bog-standard; vendors mark up the "retail price" but discount it. This is a fairly well established retail trick; JC Penny famously attempted to buck that trend by simply setting the price at what it should be, and they paid the price for it.
Youre really not going to convince me that half the ram, $1000 more, a slower CPU, and a slower GPU are all OK because the case is made of aluminum and a very very slightly better screen (1440 by 900 vs 1368 by 768). (SOU [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
*I'm* the one moving the goalposts?!
You claimed to have won an Apple Challenge and boldly claimed so because of the "better CPU, twice the RAM, better GPU" and very conspicuously left out the much worse screen and the classically poor HP laptop chassis (check around, there are decent PC laptop cases, but HP is very definitely not it).
Now you're claiming that the $1100 price, which is listed as "price after savings" on your own graphic is the real price of the laptop and that this standard across all laptop
Re: (Score:2)
So if I go to new egg right now I can expect a $500 discount on any laptop I choose? Sweet.
No, but if you go to Newegg youll see a watch listed as retailing for $900 with 92% off, going for $80; and suprisingly that same watch is available on amazon for around that price ($150 or so). And if you were to go to HP's website right now youd find all of their laptops seem to have 20% off until 1/4/2014-- i have new pics for you:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9qgiyz_vguVUXEza0hBai1SdWs&usp=sharing [google.com]
Its not a perfect match-- the HP Spectre handily beats the Air at $500 less, and while the H
Re: (Score:2)
They also force you to pay them a yearly $99 fee (even for OSS), so that your apps will run on OS X, since Gatekeeper is enabled by default.
System Preferences > Security and Privacy > General > Allow apps downloaded from: anywhere (checkbox)
Sorry, how is this forcing a $99 fee? I'm genuinely curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Simpler and safer: Control-click -> Open. That way, it allows only that one app, not every app.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you spent $10 million to develop something that can be stolen within an hour by anyone - would that not mean that you are breathtakingly inept and incompetent?
For example, suppose someone (let's call it duncecorp) invested $10 million in developing the progress bar. Why should that idea be protected? To encourage stupidity and ineptitude?
Re: (Score:2)
To use a car analogy, it cost Chevy a lot of time and money to come up with the specific shape of the Corvette. That design is protected by a design patent (note: not a method patent).
How long would it take Ford to copy the design and start rolling out copies of the Corvette? Say stick a Corvette body on a Mustang chassis.
Why don't Ford do that?
I'll argue that the "classic" iPhone design that is protected by the design patent that Apple has protected - a flat, glossy slab with a large screen, minimal button
Beam me up, Scotty. (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicator_%28Star_Trek%29
Apple is a terrorist. (Score:4, Funny)
Apple is a terrorist asking for the suspension of basic civil liberties just to suit their own bottom line. If there are other devices that "infringe on their rights", they need to go through the complete process to ban those. They should not get a free pass on due process. If they want to be anti-competitive jackasses, they need to follow the rule of law while doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can always ask for a ban, but it will only be approved if it's actually legit.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think pays off the amount on that cheque? The crap Apple (and others) pull is anti-competitive and anti-consumer.
Re:Apple is a terrorist. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple did not invent what we now call the smartphone. The iPhone merely has the distinction of being the first really popular such device.
IBM came out with their touch-based "Simon" phone in 1993, which although it had a black-and-white screen and lacked multitouch capabilities, still had many of the features we associate with smartphones today. Users dialed with a onscreen keypad, and Simon included a calendar, address book, can be understood alarm clock, and e-mail functionality.
A Swedish company, Neonode, came out with a touch screen phone in 2003 (arguably unimaginatively named the N1m) that even utilized gestures, including the now very familiar "slide to unlock" functionality... which so many people associate with the iPhone these days (although in actuality, the intuitiveness of slide-to-unlock gesture is really quite obvious when you compare such an operation to that of sliding a deadbolt open).
But arguably neither of these phones looked a lot like the iPhone... But this in no small part because technology really needed to catch up to the concept. Nonetheless, if you look at pictures of either of those devices, especially in operation, you will probably recognize many familiar concepts which we now come to expect in a smartphone today.
Enter the LG Prada, in 2006, a fully multitouch smartphone unveiled not that long before Apple publicly unveiled the iPhone, and which looks so similar to the iPhone that LG actually accused Apple of copying *THEM* (although in actuality, their release dates were near enough to each other that it is unlikely that either had had any significant influence on the other).
So perhaps, instead of anyone copying anybody else, smartphones look and operate the way they do because it is a design that comes spontaneously from a combination of the evolution of technology, intuitive operation, and overall practicality... not, as you put it, imitation that is both "transparent and egregious"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right... it's no coincidence.
The reason they are similar is, as I said, a matter of what is intuitive operation, combined with the state of what is technologically possible to achieve at the time, and overall practicality. The fact that the first generation of Android phones looked more like blackberries while those that came later looked more like iphones is no more reason to suspect that they copied the iphone than the fact that Apple's device looked like LG's first such device was a reason to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So a company changed and adapted in the face of competition. I suppose you may say Windows 8 now copied Apple too i.e. they changed the direction of development?
Changing direction isn't anything special. It happens daily in the software world, both in user facing applications and in the back end. You want to talk about influence just look at how many "innovative" features of iOS came many years after Android.
Heck we're all so quick to forget that the first version of iOS didn't even allow copy-paste operati
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I've got a hammer. It's got a handle thing, then a sort of shaft and a heavy bit on the other end.
And the tool shops are full of copies of it!
eh ? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does that work ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since they seem to be able to have the President waive their own bans, I can't see why they wouldn't ask for pretty much anything that would make them happy. There's quite obviously some biased process in place.
Re:eh ? (Score:4, Insightful)
How does that work ?
Corporatism/fascism [econlib.org]. Oh, wait, you mean that rhetorically, didn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
preemptive war, its something we do.
Just stop (Score:2, Interesting)
Just stop selling electronics to the US. Prohibit all export from Asia. The dollar won't be worth anything soon anyway and the US will never pay back is debts. Don't do business with dishonest people.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, whilst Asia is the biggest manufacturer, the USA is the world's biggest consumer. They need each other.
...not more than colorably different... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Design patents are real, we have to deal with them. I'm surprised of the constant bickering about this on ./ . Classic industry is using them for decades (easiest example: cars). IT is catching up.
Doesn't mean I like or endorse the concept of design patents though.
Re:...not more than colorably different... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:...not more than colorably different... (Score:4, Informative)
If the current patent mess had been in place when cars were first industrialized
It was. George B. Selden is credited as being an early patent troll. He patented a version of the internal combustion engine, then went around demanding licensing fees from automobile manufacturers. It was eventually overturned, but was a early indicator of the problems in the patent system. Read more here: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/11/05/the-original-patent-troll.aspx [fool.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If the current patent mess had been in place when cars were first industrialised
It's been this way for a lot longer than that. Since the invention of the static steam engine, patents have been used like this. James Watt was a pretty egregious "patent abuser" back in the day, that ensured that his engines were the only engines that worked efficiently, brutally enforcing his patents on specific parts of the design to great effect.
Re: (Score:2)
If the current patent mess had been in place when cars were first industrialized, one automaker would have had the patent on the gas pedal, another on brake lights, another on the turn signal lever, and still another on windshield wipers.
The current patent mess was in place then, except there were a lot fewer inventors so a lot fewer patents. But when Ford started building the Model T, guess what happened? The other auto makers sued Ford for patent infringement, even though they infringed no patents!
Oh, and
Re: (Score:2)
and still another on windshield wipers.
Funny you mention that. The history of windshield wipers had multi-year patent disputes between inventors, copy cats, major car companies etc for every tiny change in design.
There was a patent dispute about the manual wipers in the 1900s
There was a patent dispute about split wipers for each windows in the 1910s
There was a patent dispute about automatic wipers in the 1920s
There was a patent dispute about intermittent wipers in the 1970s (they even made a movie about this one).
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. This from a company that uses rounded corners as a patentable way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market. By that light, being a different color sounds like "innovation" to me ;)
Was that sarcasm? It didn't sound like it. So, learn to use a dictionary, start with the word "colorable"...
Re: (Score:3)
Was that sarcasm? It didn't sound like it. So, learn to use a dictionary, start with the word "colorable"...
I believe it's "colourable".
Third times the charm? (Score:2)
You know, you are making it increasingly difficult to like you Apple.
Poor Apple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Poor Apple. They just can't compete in a market that doesn't care about status symbols as much as basic functionality. Their only recourse, rather than making better products, is to keep others from making them, thus forcing users to pay more for less. So much for that little company seeing themselves as heros fighting against Big Brother in television ads, you're just another bully fighting over the mass market carcass now. You've fallen so far you're making Samsung look like David.
Re:Poor Apple. (Score:4, Insightful)
The top end Samsung devices are status symbols as well.
iPhones are ubiquitous. At a glance, people can't tell one from another, especially once they're in their protective case.
Phones are like watches. Gotta have a big one.
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell the difference, even in their cases, the iphones are absolutely tiny
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most cases I've seen for those phones have special holes to show the precious fruit so that anyone may be in awe of the person holding it. Those fragile things obviously need to be protected from the real world but showing that partly-eaten apple seems to be more important than providing more complete protection...
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they were used to doing. Waiting for technology to advance in several generations in every aspect of computer technology, so they could combine them together and have a completely new, unique and distinctive product that no-one had seen before. Just about every creative person dreams of doing that. When it was Apple vs. Microsoft/Intel, they only had to worry about the OS and CPU, desktop cases were more or less the same; gray box under the monitor.or mini-tower unit.
The shrinking size of compon
Current patent system is crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
If we had the same crazy patent environment when cars were being developed, every car would have a different way to control it. Patents should protect true invention for a relatively short period of time to allow the inventor to capitalize on his work. Now they are just barriers to keep the markets closed. Big companies cross license patents to keep their monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing you're missing out on is timeline. Checking wikipedia, modern cars were invented in 1886. Henry Ford started producing model Ts in the 1910s.
Over the course of the last 130 years patents haven't hurt cars in the slightest.
The key is that patents take a very long view of things. In 100 years your tablet will use technology from Apple that is long expired.
Re: (Score:2)
If we had the same crazy patent environment when cars were being developed, every car would have a different way to control it.
Early cars did have all sorts of control schemes. Some had steering tillers instead of wheels. There were throttle levers on the steering column on many vehicles. A Model T Ford has three pedals, two of which control the transmission. By the 1940s, things had settled down into something close to the current arrangement, but automatic transmission quadrants were not standardized until Congress stepped in. (GM had P-N-D-S-L-R, Ford and Chrysler had P-R-N-D-S-L). Standardization occured long after any relevant
So Apple, you want these devices banned... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft tried this - they were offering money off Surface and Surface Pros if you traded in an iPad.
Didn't work out so well for them.
I have a better idea (Score:2)
Dear Al Quaeda (Score:5, Funny)
Do the world some good, next time, target the U.S. Patent Office, Mosanto, and the Federal Reserve.
It'll be extremely awkward, we'll find it so hard to hate you. It'll be like the time the KKK counter-protested Westboro Baptists leaving us all going WTF, how did we wind up on the same side of the line as those !@#$s
Re: (Score:3)
Crap, this post is going to cause all my internet connections to slow down (work, home and cell). Hate when the NSA can't take a joke.
There is a simple solution (Score:2)
The Judge should rule, not only against Samsung, but every other device manufacturer. The end result, since all fucking phones are squar'ish. All smartphones by all manufacturers will be banned. Apple will be the sole seller of smartphones in the U.S.
Then, we turn around, sued Apple for a monopoly and break it into 20 separate companies that will spend the next 50 years reunifying.
We need Groklaw back... (Score:2)
The hammer is coming down (Score:2)
In Apple's best interest (Score:2)
Apple invests a few bucks in some lawyers and government lobbyists and in return they get an army of police to do their dirty work at a fraction of the cost. If Apple had to hire it's own police and equip them with guns to enforce such ridiculous demands, their products would be twice as expensive and no one would buy them. The government is a weapon with a great bang for the buck.
The best way to fight a corporation is with another corporation. Letting your enemies fight amongst themselves until they're bot
Re:20+ devices (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Stop shotgun approach: Uh, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're misunderstanding why this is done this way.
You have multiple devices partly due to having multiple, mutually exclusive carriers.
In addition, you may have a couple tiers of products, as not everyone is going to go for the Uber-'spensive top end device.
Their approach allows them to hit multiple carriers at multiple price points.
On top of that, having multiple offerings means they have a better chance of finding the devices people want and then slimming down their offering portfolio later, as they refine the devices that people are buying and abandon the ones that don't sell and finding a way to roll any possible unique/desirable features down into other devices.
Apple gets away with "You will fit your lifestyle to what we offer you. And LIKE IT!". They get away with it because they're Apple and people know that they're expected to put up with Apple's crazy bullshit for "teh schmexy".
For people who refuse to be cookie cutter'ed (see "sane people"), there's a plethora of choices and you can pick the one that intersects someplace acceptable along your "needs" and "budget limits" lines.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're misunderstanding why this is done this way.
You have multiple devices partly due to having multiple, mutually exclusive carriers.
Apple does the same. Apple makes different versions of the iPhone and iPad to work with all carriers that currently offer and/or support those devices.
In addition, you may have a couple tiers of products, as not everyone is going to go for the Uber-'spensive top end device.
Their approach allows them to hit multiple carriers at multiple price points.
Currently available iPhone models:
iPhone 4s (8GB) (black, white)
iPhone 5c (16GB, 32GB) (white, pink, yellow, blue, green)
iPhone 5s (16GB, 32GB, 64GB) (silver, space gray, gold)
Currently available iPad models:
iPad Mini (16GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)
iPad Mini w/ Retina (16GB, 32GB, 64GB, 128GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)
iPad 2 (16GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess again.
I'll freely admit that Apple has its own market segment.
I'll also freely admit that I simply do NOT fit into it. At all.
Re: (Score:2)
apple doesn't force people to buy their products any less than samsung does.
No, but it would dearly love to. If Apple could use "I desperately want _(some-non-negotiable-feature)_" as a way to force Android users to grudgingly surrender themselves into the soul-crushing (if tastefully-appointed) captivity of Apple's walled garden, it would do it in a heartbeat. Apple and Microsoft would dearly love to close "the Android Hole" that empowers users to run whatever they fucking feel like running, instead of limiting their software to apps that are neatly aligned with the priorities and