Gabe H's Profile

While I completely agree that it is so silly of companies like Apple to patent the silly little interfaces and the look of the software, I think that Apple and everyone else in the boat are doing this as a defensive move. I can't really fault a company that gets sued for patent infringement every other week for applying for a patent for every little thing they do. If they didn't, some mom and pop shop would patent the design, and sue every company that used it. It's ridiculous but happens all the time. The whole patent system is a little screwy and I think it is a good thing that it is now more difficult to acquire patents like these. It's good for the whole industry.

James, this is, by far, the most entertaining article I've read here. And, I couldn't agree more... I would argue that we haven't had social responsibility in America in a very, very long time.

I really like the current design except for one thing; I wish it were height adjustable. If I could get that one thing, the only other I would wish for would be to have to option of a touchscreen like the iPhone. I can imagine sitting at my desk and typing e-mails and working in Photoshop with my mouse, keyboard, pen stylus, etc, but sometimes I just need to walk over to my computer and look at swomething while standing or change my song in iTunes, etc. If I am brainstorming I like to work standing up often. It would even be great if there was the option to wall-mount the iMac. The only other thing I can think of is to put a couple of USB/Firewire ports on the front for easy access. None of this is groundbreaking stuff, but like you said, it's a pretty good machine as it stands.

I agree with many here. There are way too many tasks that are suited to a PC that mobile devices just can't accomplish without great compromise in ease of use. While I do not disagree that the PC may morph into another form that may include touchscreen interface, etc, I think the Mac will be here in whatever form that takes. For example, how many people would have thought they could manage and edit the thousands of digital photos they now have? And kids are still going to need to sit down and type a term paper. I do not doubt that these tasks will be done in a way that is new, but I do doubt that the majority of people will want to perform them on a mobile device.

Actually the accident with faulty airbags doesn't work either. It would be more like blaming the car manufacturer for not building superior handling and accident avoidance capabilities into the car. Or, if you prefer, it would be an ok analogy if Apple were blaming Norton Antivirus. The thing is, it's not the analogy here that is improper (read the whole thing before you criticize this time, Beeb). It's using the analogy to state that Apple's response is comparable to a situation in which a person's life was at risk. Devanshu states, "How would you have felt if you had E. Coli poisoning- or worse, died- and all the farmer responsible said, 'There is E. Coli in our spinach and we are really upset that human bodies are not more strong and healthy to protect against these things.'" Well, you cannot compare the two and then say that the response for one is the same as the other. That's what I was talking about when I said the analogy doesn't work and said the analogy itself is ok.

That depends on whether Microsoft forces vendors to make their music software/store the default in order to install Windows on it. Of course we couldn't possibly have a discussion without Beeblebrox trying to make it about why Apple fans are all Kool-Aid drinking myrmidons. Every single post!

Strong arm tactics are Microsoft dictating to other companies how they are allowed to deal with other companies if they are to use Microsoft's products. Strong arm tactics are Wal Mart dictating to movie studios what their agreements with anothher party are to be if they want to do business with Wal Mart. In my opinion this is illegal. It is attempting to influence the market to maintain your own advantages in such a way that prevents others from competing fairly. Not licensing the technology that you OWN is not a strong arm tactic. Apple worked for quite a while to perfect it's product. Why should they just give that up by letting cheaper competitors come in a ride the coattails of their success and hard work? That is not the same thing that Wal Mart is doing here by any stretch of the imagination and your thick-headed desire to blast "Apple-apologists" has completely confused your sense of what competition, monopoly and strong arm tactics are. Competition is NOT allowing others to jump onto the popular product that you own! Competition is allowing others to create their own product. Another company could easily create another iPod competitor that would have less restrictive DRM and try to compete. Apple does absolutely nothing to prevent any of the other companies out there to do this. If they did, THAT would be what Wal Mart is trying to do. Just because you and a lot of other people want to be able to take the most popular device out there and do everything you wnat with it, doesn't make Apple anti-competitive. It just means you and all those people need to read more before you make your buying decisions. The difference is that Apple has always done their own thing and said that they want to control their own products and who they sell to. They don't tell PC manufacturers that they can only install iTunes if they remove other jukebox software. They OWN the patents to the iPod. It is their intellectual property. It is their right to say to all other vendors what they can and can't do with it. Your examples are completely out of line with the subject at hand. The printer ink example may be similar, but guess what. The printer manufacturers own the tech that allows them to dictate who will manufacture ink cartridges as well. It is not anti-competitive either since there are a lot of other printers you can buy. Jesus, it's like complaining that your neighbor won't let you knock down the wall in their living room so you can expand your apartment. What we are talking about here is PROPERTY. In this country (for a little while longer at least) individuals and corporations are still allowed to own said property. There is no public ownership of something just because you have purchased it. Apple does some things that drive me crazy. I still haven't purchased one video off iTunes because I don't like the fact I can't burn it to disk. Call me an Apple-apologist if you like. That's fine, I could care less. But, if there's something I don't like I vote with my dollars. I don't go on a blog and insite flame-wars by blaming a company for not letting me do everything I want with their intellectual property. You're right about one thing. You are consistent with your criticism. Consistently wrong. And I'm no Apple-apologist. I'm a capitalist. And when the public starts demanding the right to dictate to privately held companies and corporations we will severely destroy all the incentive for companies to develop new and exciting technologies. Whether those companies be Apple with it's computers and iPods or Epson and HP with printers and ink.