4 ms·

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

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.

scarmig 14y ago
Sure, the MBA is a good product. But most of its competitors are also good products: there's not clearly a best one, at least for my needs. Indeed, I've been wavering back and forth for over a month over what I should choose: each has its own set of pros and cons. These recent events have emphasized one of Apple's cons and pushed me to other choices. I won't lose any sleep over the switch: I don't feel that I'm missing out on some life changing experience just for the sake of ideology. Now I'll likely end up with an ultrabook with a better screen but inferior battery life and build quality. A definite trade-off, but the amount it will affect my day to day life probably isn't significant.
napoleoncomplex 14y ago
I don't think it's in any way unreasonable or stupid for people to avoid products of a certain company based on disagreement with that company's business policy, no matter the quality of those products. I can't come up with something catchier than hate the game, not the player, but I think the game is always going to stay shitty if people support players who show no interest in changing the game.
- rimantas 14y ago
  I am not saying it is unreasonable, just that it is not rational. The whole disagreement thing is just what wee chose to pay attention to and what to ignore. You can take any tech company and paint it however you want just by cherry-picking.
  - scarmig 14y ago
    I agree, actually: most tech companies have some blood on their hands (though I genuinely think it's fair to say Apple has had a particularly bad track record compared to its competitors, at least on offensive patent litigation). That's why I'm constantly looking for new non-evil options, and my next phone is going to be B2G, if at all possible. Guess I won't be putting it on a Galaxy Nexus, though =)
huggyface 14y ago
the whole FRAND thing Why would I hate Google for that? Motorola was cooperative and competitive with partners and despite all of their innovation they ended up -- like most of their traditional smartphone partners -- with most of their creations ending up in standards. Getting attacked by Apple and Microsoft they try to force a settlement with what they have. there is nothing in that that makes me dislike Motorola cum Google. it was said more than once there—hate the game, not the player. The xbox may be blocked because of critical, foundational patents, but I'm supposed to feel bad about the parties because they tried to be cooperative about them. The Galaxy Nexus is blocked because of laughable patents. There is no question who the worse party is in this, and it's only a matter of time before something sticks and the iPhone/iPad is blocked from importation. We'll see how people like the game then.
- taligent 14y ago
  This is laughable wrong. Motorola has never been cooperative with Microsoft. They are the ones being the aggressor and have used FRAND patents to do so. They've been nothing but underhanded at every opportunity. And if Google/Motorola are so cooperative then why are the FTC/EU investigating them for anti-competitive behaviour ?
  - novalis 14y ago
    Being investigated and being found guilty are two separate things. Better wait for a conclusion on the process before further inferences.
  - huggyface 14y ago
    Oh how astonishingly boring. Microsoft sued Motorola after they couldn't extort them into making uncompetitive Windows Mobile devices. Motorola responded with standards-based patents and non-standards based patents, with the clear intention of trying to get a stalemate settlement. The "cooperative" part was that Motorola has thousands if not tens of thousands of patents that play a part in standards because they are a part of the whole moving things forward. And if Google/Motorola are so cooperative then why are the FTC/EU investigating them for anti-competitive behaviour ? Derpedeederp derp. The government investigates almost everything that any large multinational does. There are active investigations of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle....if it's a big company there's probably an investigation of it. Secondly that EXACTLY goes to my original point -- Motorola made the "mistake" of daring to be a good innovation citizen before some upstarts came along and started extorting and patent trolling for every hilariously trivial patent.
gergles 14y ago
> it was said more than once there—hate the game, not the player. No. This line of argument is so dumb it makes my head hurt. The "players" choose to participate in the "game". Apple could have quite easily decided not to pursue injunctions against Samsung, but they did. I can quite easily hate "the player" for choosing to play such an idiotic and stupid "game".

scarmig 14y ago

Sure, the MBA is a good product. But most of its competitors are also good products: there's not clearly a best one, at least for my needs. Indeed, I've been wavering back and forth for over a month over what I should choose: each has its own set of pros and cons. These recent events have emphasized one of Apple's cons and pushed me to other choices. I won't lose any sleep over the switch: I don't feel that I'm missing out on some life changing experience just for the sake of ideology. Now I'll likely end up with an ultrabook with a better screen but inferior battery life and build quality. A definite trade-off, but the amount it will affect my day to day life probably isn't significant.

napoleoncomplex 14y ago

I don't think it's in any way unreasonable or stupid for people to avoid products of a certain company based on disagreement with that company's business policy, no matter the quality of those products. I can't come up with something catchier than hate the game, not the player, but I think the game is always going to stay shitty if people support players who show no interest in changing the game.

rimantas 14y ago
I am not saying it is unreasonable, just that it is not rational. The whole disagreement thing is just what wee chose to pay attention to and what to ignore. You can take any tech company and paint it however you want just by cherry-picking.
- scarmig 14y ago
  I agree, actually: most tech companies have some blood on their hands (though I genuinely think it's fair to say Apple has had a particularly bad track record compared to its competitors, at least on offensive patent litigation). That's why I'm constantly looking for new non-evil options, and my next phone is going to be B2G, if at all possible. Guess I won't be putting it on a Galaxy Nexus, though =)

huggyface 14y ago

the whole FRAND thing Why would I hate Google for that? Motorola was cooperative and competitive with partners and despite all of their innovation they ended up -- like most of their traditional smartphone partners -- with most of their creations ending up in standards. Getting attacked by Apple and Microsoft they try to force a settlement with what they have. there is nothing in that that makes me dislike Motorola cum Google. it was said more than once there—hate the game, not the player. The xbox may be blocked because of critical, foundational patents, but I'm supposed to feel bad about the parties because they tried to be cooperative about them. The Galaxy Nexus is blocked because of laughable patents. There is no question who the worse party is in this, and it's only a matter of time before something sticks and the iPhone/iPad is blocked from importation. We'll see how people like the game then.

taligent 14y ago
This is laughable wrong. Motorola has never been cooperative with Microsoft. They are the ones being the aggressor and have used FRAND patents to do so. They've been nothing but underhanded at every opportunity. And if Google/Motorola are so cooperative then why are the FTC/EU investigating them for anti-competitive behaviour ?
- novalis 14y ago
  Being investigated and being found guilty are two separate things. Better wait for a conclusion on the process before further inferences.
- huggyface 14y ago
  Oh how astonishingly boring. Microsoft sued Motorola after they couldn't extort them into making uncompetitive Windows Mobile devices. Motorola responded with standards-based patents and non-standards based patents, with the clear intention of trying to get a stalemate settlement. The "cooperative" part was that Motorola has thousands if not tens of thousands of patents that play a part in standards because they are a part of the whole moving things forward. And if Google/Motorola are so cooperative then why are the FTC/EU investigating them for anti-competitive behaviour ? Derpedeederp derp. The government investigates almost everything that any large multinational does. There are active investigations of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle....if it's a big company there's probably an investigation of it. Secondly that EXACTLY goes to my original point -- Motorola made the "mistake" of daring to be a good innovation citizen before some upstarts came along and started extorting and patent trolling for every hilariously trivial patent.

gergles 14y ago

> it was said more than once there—hate the game, not the player. No. This line of argument is so dumb it makes my head hurt. The "players" choose to participate in the "game". Apple could have quite easily decided not to pursue injunctions against Samsung, but they did. I can quite easily hate "the player" for choosing to play such an idiotic and stupid "game".