gibwell

18 ms·

121.
by gibwell 13y ago
At least you are in full agreement that lying and cheating are pervasive ethics at Samsung.
122.
by gibwell 13y ago
Are you trying to minimize the seriousness of what had been done here? Samsung illegally distributed information that was only disclosed under court protection for the purpose of a trial to it's executives, who used it to gain an advan
123.
by gibwell 13y ago
Even if Apple's patents were invalidated it would do nothing to excuse what you are calling 'sneaky tactics' by Samsung. What they are accused of is deeply illegal, and that isn't going to change. Apple hasn't done
124.
by gibwell 13y ago
How is that relevant to the linked article?
125.
Samsung faces sanctions over leak of confidential Apple documents(tech.fortune.cnn.com)
34 points by gibwell 13y ago|55 comments
126.
by gibwell 13y ago
Predatory pricing and monopolistic practices are not good for consumers. That's why they are illegal.
127.
by gibwell 13y ago
We're taking about people who sell PCs, not component vendors. If we include windows, we also should include intel and everyone else in the supply chain. But since this whole topic is about manufacturers who ship complete phones to p
128.
by gibwell 13y ago
MS keeping the desktop rather than losing it to Linux contradicts your thesis. You can dismiss it as a 'surprise' or acknowledge that your reasoning doesn't accord with reality.
129.
by gibwell 13y ago
Your example case relates to browsing activity. That is very different from email.
130.
by gibwell 13y ago
That isn't in dispute. The problem isn't advertising. It is reading people's email.
131.
by gibwell 13y ago
No it doesn't. Free email existed long before Google started reading people's email. The email scanning just makes extra profits for google and their advertisers at the expense of people's privacy.
132.
by gibwell 13y ago
That's fine for you, because you understand the trade offs. The allegation is that many users have been duped.
133.
by gibwell 13y ago
Illegal activity doesn't magically become legal just because the proceeds are used to give something away for free.
134.
by gibwell 13y ago
As stated in the case, most users don't know what the assistant is doing. So by your analogy the assistant is reading the mail without permission and then secretly using what they learn to make money for themselves. In such a case, we
135.
by gibwell 13y ago
The _only_ reason muggers take wallets at gunpoint is so that they can make money. Not every way of making money is desirable for society. Why is this so complicated to understand?
136.
by gibwell 13y ago
6% is also false. There is a word for market share without profits. Failure. Value is measured in money. Apple creates 45% of the value in the PC industry.
137.
by gibwell 13y ago
According to the judge, quite possibly not because it's not instrumental in providing the service. And also because such an interpretation would allow any business model based on exploiting the contents of the users email for profit
138.
by gibwell 13y ago
Then you didn't read the judge's opinion. The wiretapping statue apparently does make such a distinction.
139.
by gibwell 13y ago
According to the judge the wiretapping statutes allow only interception that is 'instrumental' to providing the service to the end user, and she specifically stated the opinion that the exception is not intended to be broad enough
140.
by gibwell 13y ago
You are contradicting yourself. You say that fill stack companies are hard to keep going and yet you say that non-full stack companies come and go even more easily. By your logic, non-full stack companies are even harder to keep going.
141.
by gibwell 13y ago
Sorry - this has nothing to do with the profits being shared by a plethora of companies. Apple receives almost half of the profits in the PC market. The rest is divided between your plethora. Apple chose not to serve the unprofitable par
142.
by gibwell 13y ago
Apple makes 45% of all profits in the PC market. Nobody else comes close. That isn't a small segment - they are the clear winner.
143.
by gibwell 13y ago
It's highly relevant. If we say Google can scan your email just to support an arbitrary business model, how can we make an argument that the NSA should be prevented from doing it in the name of national security. It isn't a good
144.
by gibwell 13y ago
One is to provide a feature for the end user's benefit. The other is taking the user's private communication and using it to make money for Google. If this business model is allowed, imagine all the other kinds of profile that co
145.
by gibwell 13y ago
Launched products are disruptive when they start taking over functionality that other products were once doing. Google Glass is, for now, a publicity vehicle to show that Google is forward thinking. Only when the product is launched will w
146.
by gibwell 13y ago
Whilst I agree that Nokia and Blackberry were disrupted by Android, not the iPhone, Apple is gaining customers everywhere. 'Marketshare' is a flawed concept because it assumes a unified market of undifferentiated customers. Appl
147.
by gibwell 13y ago
Sure, but this thread is about Samsung's routine use of deceptive practices - not whether they beat a particular other device.
148.
by gibwell 13y ago
Why do they need to act any different? Their current tactics are working very well.
149.
by gibwell 13y ago
It secretly 'guarantees' that the benchmarks don't run under real-world conditions. That is fraud.
150.
by gibwell 13y ago
This is nothing like that. The note doesn't have two modes that the user or the software can choose from. The adjustments are made secretly, and only when specifically named benchmarks are run.

More ›