This is not a dumb comment. B&M Gates foundation does put a lot of money into NPR. To think that the management and producers at NPR are not aware of this is ingenuous. Every editor in the country is aware of who's paying for the ads. There's certainly cases where MSFT has gotten prominent puff pieces placed into All Things Considered. Both AAPL and MSFT have "long arm" marketing strategies; don't put it past them to pull a stunt like this.
It's a dumb comment because NPR has nothing to do with This American Life even if you believe that the largest private charity foundation in the world is a shill for Microsoft.
Was this a stage play? If that's the case the "Reality Distortion Field"? is part of the schtick. If ThisAmLife crimped "facts" from it, it's their fault.
It's a one-man monologue, but the thing is, Daisey was widely interviewed and published, restating his claims about what he "found" in China. Not just on stage and This American Life, but also a NY Times Op/Ed, and interviews on CBS, etc.
I downvoted because the post was misleading (although admittedly the bgr.com article is as well)
>Apple's patents were worthless. They invented nothing; everything they claimed was prior art.
I posted the link to the San Francisco Canyon Company wiki article earlier. Apple had won injuctions in the courts and there's no reason to believe that there wasn't a big payday at the end of the line. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_1999_Jan_26/a...
>The real story is Microsoft bailed Apple out.
In Politifact terms, "half true" - the money meant nothing (see the 10-K link I posted below) but the gesture meant that investors felt better about Apple. Let's not forget that Mac Office was one of the most profitable products for MS back then and MS avoided potentially paying out a lot of money for patent infringement. There was also the patent cross-license agreement (which I think was renewed in the early 2000's and answers the question of why Apple didn't go after MS for the same things it went after Android vendors for).
I didn't downvote, but it just seems silly to me to accuse Apple of revisionist history. I think they're a lot more interested in the future than the past.
Apple at that point in history was very close to going out of business, Jobs said that himself. Nobody pretends otherwise. I don't think they are trying to foster any illusions that Apple was anything but a very sick, very poorly-run company in those days.
However ... if we adjust prices lower, people buy more. If we set prices higher, people buy less. Sellers price their product to maximize their profits.
I'm just saying that it's entirely possible to fulfill all economics perquisites for the purchase and still not make the purchase because we just plain don't like the price and won't feel good after paying it.
Apple "advocates" always said: apple invented the gui, apple invented mp3 players, apple makes the fastest PC, apple's not the "big brother" company, etc. etc. Every claim usually turns out false. The Rep for "reality distortion field" has firm basis in trugth.
We can't always take Apple's claims at face value. This article just exposed, once again, another pro-Apple fallacy: that they own mini-tablet-phones and everyone stole the idea from them.
Apple "advocates" never said any of those things. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually did read this stuff, so let me just say, you need to learn how to recognize a straw man argument when you see it.
Apple "advocates", including some in this very thread, do routinely dismiss as unimportant, sucky, etc. every pre-Apple contribution in some of these categories (especially smartphones and tablets). I generally think they're trying to emphasize the importance and originality of Apple's contribution, but I can see how someone else might interpret that as saying "Apple invented X".
I don't agree with this. Lets flip it the other way round and compare it with technology today. Lots of research labs have made AR Goggles and they've been featured in lots of movies / sci-fi. But lets say the google goggles are a hit and Apple starts making goggles, I believe Google can rightfully claim that Apple "copied" them.
Steve Jobs saying he's going to spend billions and billions on frivolous lawsuits should make still independent developers wary about getting boxed into his walled "ecosystem". Perhaps it's time to revise the laws on "thought property" to declaw the patent and copyright industries. We need more competition, not more "I have a lot of money therefore I get even more money" monopolies. Geez. Patent law is just turning into a subsidy for Silicon Valley.
Of course, all of those lawsuits might also make independent developers think that the only "safe" place is his walled "ecosystem". Yes, you pay taxes and you live at the pleasure of the king, but at least most of the time he's more interested fighting with the enemies outside than the subjects inside.
Linux is definitely cheaper than Apple.