# Apple



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

The iPhone 4. Apples latest pocket-sized fondling slab. The crowd loved the steel sides that double as the antennae. Until some users found that it drops their signal strength dramatically. KIss data rates and phone calls goodbye.

Apple had the sheer front to initially say that users were holding the phone incorrectly. Correct, it's not a hardware fault, it's just you plebes not holding the phone how Apple say you should hold it. It's another world first! You're Apple's bitch now :lol:

It seems though that Apple have been working hard to get to the bottom of the problem, and after extensive investigations have found that it's a software fault! You're saved!



> [The iPhone] mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength. For example, we sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2 bars.


You've been seeing great reception like you do on other handsets when in fact you've got shit coverage or have attentuated the signal so badly by holding the phone that a previously good signal is now rubbish.

Or could it be that by holding your iPhone 4 "incorrectly" you've actually been causing the signal meter to show you an accurate reflection of poor signal strength?



> Users observing a drop of several bars when they grip their iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with very weak signal strength, but they don't know it because we are erroneously displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place.


..and because they were holding the phone wrong, which makes the phone work "right", right? So holding your phone in a certain way affects the software that the iPhone 4 uses to calculate signal strength, revealing that you had crap reception all along. You fool! Apple remains flawless! Majestic! :lol:

It's got nothing to do with someone putting uninsulated bare metal antennae on the outside of the phone so the user can increase attenuation just by holding them, or worse detune them by connecting the 2 antennae together. :lol:

A software update will be issued to lower your expectations, and alter the laws of physics, thus removing the problem. Users who continue to experience dropped calls due to the now accurately shown signal strength can apply to be taken away for "thought reconditioning". The call didn't drop, and the signal didn't attenuate - you just hit the onscreen "disconnect" button with your ear. And that's got nothing to do with the iPhone's dodgy proximity detector. You have the wrong kind of head, and you need to buy gloves before using your iPhone to make calls. :roll:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Yeah, but it makes you look cool 8)

Smoke as well, all the cool kids do it.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

8) 
I see, so working on the principle of "Eat shit! Billions of flies_ can't _be wrong!"


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Even I have to admit, that stuff about the software being 'incorrect' has to be rubbish... :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> So holding your phone in a certain way affects the software that the iPhone 4 uses to calculate signal strength, revealing that you had crap reception all along.


I was originally going to write a long tirade about how you completely and utterly missed the point about the non-linear display of signal strength and dynamic range and why this fix from Apple will actually go some way towards at least clearing up the confusion around the antenna design problem (there is a problem, quite obviously, but it's probably not as bad as the Apple-hating engineer wannabes all over the net would like to make out)...

Anyway, to save me the trouble, Anandtech did a very good piece on this with some actual measurements. This was written before the fix was announced but it should help in understanding that there are, in fact, two separate issues - Apple are addressing the only one that can be fixed in software. They're not, as you seem to believe, making up stories to explain the other problem:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

G


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I've updated my phone to OS4.0(8A293) and its basically unusable.


You might find this post from Kev helpful then. Worked for me!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177142&start=60#p1803728

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

G


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

A friend who got a new iphone complained that the 4g has worse reception in his house than his previous iphone 3Gs, apple offered to sell him a 4G booster to plug in at home for £150!!!! After much arguing with apple they offered to send it out if he paid the postage and packaging.

Is this Apple's master plan - sell everyone a booster for £150 and boost the signal in each area :lol:

Ant


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Spandex said:


> ...it should help in understanding that there are, in fact, two separate issues - Apple are addressing the only one that can be fixed in software. They're not, as you seem to believe, making up stories to explain the other problem


Mr Spandex, welcome 

What I believe is irrelevant. Apple have yet to acknowledge any flaw in designing an uninsulted antenna on the outside of the device, in placing the two antennae where fingers are likely to bridge them or that there is any fault in that regard. Users are holding their phones wrong according to Apple, and left-handers probably needn't bother.

The software issue detailed in Apple's open letter is their answer to the numerous reception issues that people have had. So whilst I may make a correlation, it seems to be one that is obvious to many people. People hold their phones, reception drops, calls drop, Apple issues software fudge.

As you rightly suggest, many people on the internet are unable to validate Apple's claims, though the Anandtech article (which I had read already) makes for good, impartial information free of any Apple halo effect.

Apple have designed a product with fundamental flaws. As Anandtech note,


> The drop in signal from holding the phone with your left hand arguably remains a problem. Changing the bars visualization may indeed help mask it, and to be fair the phone works fine all the way down to -113 dBm, but it will persist - software updates can change physics as much as they can change hardware design. At the end of the day, Apple should add an insulative coating to the stainless steel band, or subsidize bumper cases. It's that simple.


Anandtech's article is also clear. When held normally, the 3GS was measured as having attenuation of 1.9dB vs. 19.8dB for the iPhone 4. Hold the phone tightly and it's 24.6dB. The display of signal strength may be flawed, but firstly there is no standard metric across phones, and secondly, it doesn't fix the issue that just holding the phone can cause so much degredation that dropping calls is more likely.

Apple may not want to acknowledge the problem, but people are complaining and some are already preparing cases against them. Interesting times ahead I think. I bet they still go out and buy iPhone 5 next year though :roll:


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

antmanb said:


> Is this Apple's master plan - sell everyone a booster for £150 and boost the signal in each area :lol:


How arrogant are they? Oh yes, the solution to your MOBILE phone issue to to buy a signal booster for your house. What's the guy supposed to do when he leaves home? Take the booster with him and plug it in wherever he goes? :lol: :lol:

Luckily, they are now offering full refunds:


Apple said:


> As a reminder, if you are not fully satisfied, you can return your undamaged iPhone to any Apple Retail Store or the online Apple Store within 30 days of purchase for a full refund.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> What I believe is irrelevant.


Finally, we agree on something :wink: . Unfortunately, it's only irrelevant because your desperation to mock Apple as an entity is so strong that it now seems you're unable to think rationally when one of their products is involved. For anyone else reading this, please go and read the Anandtech article in full yourselves. It will tell you everything you need to know about the iPhone antenna problems and the paragraphs that Scooby is willing to quote are only a small (and misleading) part of that.



ScoobyTT said:


> Apple may not want to acknowledge the problem, but people are complaining and some are already preparing cases against them. Interesting times ahead I think.


Interesting in what way? Interesting like all the other class actions against Apple over the years for faults ranging from the the genuine to the outright deranged? Interesting like the thousands of mind-numbingly stupid class action suites filed in the US every year, fuelled solely by the lawyers and plaintiff's desire for an easy buck? What you really mean is "there is a hint of a suggestion of a chance that I'll get to see Apple fall flat on their face and it's making me aroused". It's sad really.

People who like Apple products are generally happy to quietly enjoy them... People who hate Apple products seem obsessed with loudly boring the arse of anyone who stands still long enough about every (real or imaginary) fault, failing or oversight. It baffles me, really it does.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Well I would have quoted the whole article but why bore the arse off everyone? It's the flame room not a consumer review site to digest every article in full :roll: I think the conclusion from the Anandtech article is clear - generally it's good and reception is improved in some areas, but there ARE inescapable issues, as they say, and an obvious fault that needs rectifying by Apple. There's nothing misleading about that. It's not my conclusion or remark, it's theirs.

Interesting in that there is an obvious design fault and Apple are phenomenally bad at admitting any faults, so it'll be interesting to see what happens as it's a hardware-based fault. WIll they have the grace of Toyota in ensuring future customer satisfaction, or will they just expect their customers to lump it until iPhone 5?

Any attribution of arousal is yours alone and frankly, quite crazy. Your need to reduce everything to someone being aroused by something is a recurring theme of yours. It says more about you than it does about me, or Apple. Perhaps you've found some new and interesting ways to interact with your favourite products. Possibly whilst wearing spandex.

I want to like Apple products, they interest me, but there's always a fly in the ointment and it's the voices of frustrated Apple owners that I find most valuable, because they're the people that have been let down by bad design choices and engineering.

Don't feel baffled. Your opinions are equally irrelevant.


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

ScoobyTT said:


> Well I would have quoted the whole article but why bore the arse off everyone? It's the flame room not a consumer review site to digest every article in full :roll: I think the conclusion from the Anandtech article is clear - generally it's good and reception is improved in some areas, but there ARE inescapable issues, as they say, and an obvious fault that needs rectifying by Apple. There's nothing misleading about that. It's not my conclusion or remark, it's theirs.
> 
> Interesting in that there is an obvious design fault and Apple are phenomenally bad at admitting any faults, so it'll be interesting to see what happens as it's a hardware-based fault. WIll they have the grace of Toyota in ensuring future customer satisfaction, or will they just expect their customers to lump it until iPhone 5?
> 
> ...


Very well said 

Spandex loves trying to wind people up, and with his huge bias towards apple you have touched a nerve i think. this thread could go on........


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> Well I would have quoted the whole article but why bore the arse off everyone?


You deliberately only quoted the parts that backed up your original claims. Having read your original post, I find it hard to believe you were trying to avoid boring the arse off people.


ScoobyTT said:


> Your need to reduce everything to someone being aroused by something is a recurring theme of yours.


 It is? Do you have any evidence for this, or are you making things up again?


JNmercury00 said:


> Spandex loves trying to wind people up, and with his huge bias towards apple you have touched a nerve i think. this thread could go on........


Huge bias towards Apple? When people post stupid, poorly thought out rubbish about technology they barely understand, I feel a slightly futile urge to point out the innacuracies. It doesn't matter whether it's about Apple or anyone else. It's just unfortunate that Scooby seems to be slightly fanatical about making up complaints about their products (don't worry though. Despite his numerous moaning posts about them, he actually 'wants to like' Apple products thus saving him from being at all biased himself).


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I don't own an iPhone, nor really have an interest in the reception thing, but why not join in eh?

I agree that the key point to take away from the review is the signal is reduced, and there seems to be a lot of iPhone users having real issues with the reception quality of calls. I hadn't heard about the bars not being correct until this press-release. It seems to me two completely different things, unless the call quality is somehow intelligently reduced depending on the bar readings (e.g. I've only got 1 bar, so I'm going to increase compression or drop the call).

These posts about Apple do serve a useful purpose, and they are the same posts that have been applied to many major companies. They alert people to the issues and ethics around products produced by companies that can do no evil.

Apple's image is the main selling point of their products. Now apart from everybody chuckling quietly to themselves when somebody successful fails, it is also important that people are not mislead by massive marketing departments. Sure the iPhone has a very slick UI, but it has also done a lot of damage to the idea of a smartphone and the freedom of consumers.

ScoobyTT helps bring all the issues to light. You can still go out and buy your Apple love-toy if you want to, but don't say nobody didn't warn you.

I generally agree with Spandex's sentiments as they are normally well balanced, but this time I think you're playing devil's advocate out of habit.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> I generally agree with Spandex's sentiments as they are normally well balanced, but this time I think you're playing devil's advocate out of habit.


I don't feel that I'm playing devils advocate and I mentioned in my first post that there is definitely an attenuation issue caused by the position of your hand (well, the issue is that it's slightly worse than other currently available smartphones). I'm an engineer and an iPhone 4 owner. Scooby, on the other hand, is just a tech-blog reader with an axe to grind. What possible reason would someone have for continuously complaining about products they don't even own?

I don't agree that these posts help consumers by pushing companies into addressing issues either. I'd say that the Anandtech article probably did more on it's own than all the misinformation splattered across forums ever could. The only thing these sorts of posts achieve is to cloud the issue with opinion and bias. I know what it's like to read technical complaints about products I've worked on. I know that sometimes you can get valuable info from those complaints (it can be like having a test team of hundreds of thousands)... But I also know that often, the loudest voices are the ones with the least information and they can make it very difficult for the useful data to surface.

I can tell you now, Apple want to fix any issues on their phones. Not because they're wonderful people, or because they love their customers, but because it's in their best interest to do so. What they don't want is to waste time and money fighting a PR war at the same time, just because they're the company it's fashionable to hate.


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Or, now here's a radical thought, perhaps scoobyTT's posts are *gasp* just for fun??

I always think they're pretty amusing and tinged with just enough outlandish conclusions and piss-taking that they are for comedy value based on a dislike for apple.

In my experience companies rarely, if ever, admit when they make mistakes. At the very least their legal department will never let them admit this unless there is absolutely no choice. BP anyone?

I question how much Apple really are bothered about fixing their phones until maybe the release of the next version. Apple renownedly get the first release wrong and only fix with the next phone/laptop etc. (i say that as a card carrying owner of an iphone, macbook pro and various ipods). I have had piss poor levels of customer services from apple uk, including them insisting I would have to pay pay the latest OS for my mac in order to be able to use my iphone and use the itunes store following another upgrade to itunes (i was about 4 software releases behind on the OS). Obviusly i went nuts saying i'd prefer them to refund me the cost of the phone and i'll go with someone else for my phone.

Anyway long story short - I called up on a saturday evening and got the US customer services team who bent over backwards to accmodate me, apologised that i couldn't use my apple products as I should, immediately authroised for the new software to be sent to me free of charge and fixed the problem in one five minute call.

Apple UK have a lot to learn.

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

antmanb said:


> Or, now here's a radical thought, perhaps scoobyTT's posts are *gasp* just for fun??


Then perhaps he should preface his posts with a note explaining that it's a complete work of fiction, as unfortunately a lot of people reading these threads won't realise that he's just selectively culled a load of 'facts' from his daily tech blog reading list in order to illustrate the story of the day. I personally think the rants would be a lot more entertaining if they had even a small amount of credibility too.

As for Apples customer service, I've never had any issues with it, but I'm more willing to fix problems myself (e.g. when my Macbook HDD died within warranty, it was easier to just buy a new one and try to recover as much as possible myself than hand it over to someone else). In your case, I can understand Apples initial response to a degree - your phone, computer and iTunes were, I presume, all working fine on the versions you were running... You only needed the latest OS X if you wanted to upgrade the phone or iTunes? I'm sure there is plenty of hardware out there that has features that can only be accessed by upgrading to the latest version of Windows. I doubt anyone would be sending you a free copy of that though.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> As for Apples customer service, I've never had any issues with it...


Speaking from personal experience, so not read on a forum or stolen from any other source, I have to confirm that Apple's customer service is far superior to any other I've encountered.

Recently my Time Machine died. It was out of warranty, but a quick search on the Apple forums revealed that many other users had suffered similarly. It turns out the built-in PSU was faulty and overheating and frying other components close to it.

After a phone call to Apple UK, a quick explanation and exchange of details, a new Time Machine was sent out and back working within my network less than 24 hours after the other had broken down. My only complaint against Apple was that the data on the hard drive in the old unit was simply lost and I had no opportunity to recover it. Thankfully, it only contained a back-up of data already on my iMac so its loss was no real issue. Apple also confirmed that all hard drives from returned products are destroyed so I have no worries about security either.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> antmanb said:
> 
> 
> > Or, now here's a radical thought, perhaps scoobyTT's posts are *gasp* just for fun??
> ...


Or maybe you just need to get a sense of humour? Or another radical idea, skip the posts if they upset you so?



Spandex said:


> As for Apples customer service, I've never had any issues with it, but I'm more willing to fix problems myself (e.g. when my Macbook HDD died within warranty, it was easier to just buy a new one and try to recover as much as possible myself than hand it over to someone else).


Let me clarify so that i'm crystal clear - you are willing to "fix problems" yourself, and by this you mean, when your laptop died within warranty you opened your wallet and paid for a new one???  That doesn't sound anything like fixing something to me but YMMV.



Spandex said:


> In your case, I can understand Apples initial response to a degree - your phone, computer and iTunes were, I presume, all working fine on the versions you were running... You only needed the latest OS X if you wanted to upgrade the phone or iTunes? I'm sure there is plenty of hardware out there that has features that can only be accessed by upgrading to the latest version of Windows. I doubt anyone would be sending you a free copy of that though.


No not quite - my iPhone was crashing frequently and calls were not being connected so I was told to update my itunes software and then update my iphone. Both of these things I did - all smiles and happiness that the phone worked better. Then a couple of weeks later i tried to access the itunes store to download some music but it didn't work (following the latest download of itunes i had done in order to update my phone (which hadn't been working properly) i needed the latest version of safari but the latest version of safari was not supported by my OS) after much rudeness from apple uk and costs of around £150 being thrown about for the new software I kept asking why i couldn't simply revert to the older versions of the software so that itunes worked fine, but they were not willing to assist me to do this. The one and only solution being proposed was going to cost me £150.

Anyway, like i said apple US bent over backwards for me - gave me direct email addresses for the customer services bod who dealt with it - he authorised the freebie through his highest bosses so the monkeys in the UK wouldn't over-rule the decision (something he said he expected them to do without the level of authority he obtained).

The moral of the story - I love apple products and continue to buy them, they're simple to use, look fantastic and I love them (right back to my beige mac classic that looked like on old style tv). But like many other companies that we can all complain about (Audi anyone??!!!) it isn't always black and white, scoobyTT's posts are funny and make me smile because apple have pissed me off in the past several times about different things and always lead back to one thing - piss poor UK customer services. I have found my solution - phone them on a saturday night and get through to the people who will actually help you.

Ant


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

rustyintegrale said:


> Recently my Time Machine died.


Apple can sell you an iTardis?!? 

(presumably they sorted it so quickly 'cos they already knew it would go wrong...)


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Spandex said:


> I can tell you now, Apple want to fix any issues on their phones. Not because they're wonderful people, or because they love their customers, but because it's in their best interest to do so.


That sounds like a major assumption to me. Apple, like most other companies want to churn as much of a profit as possible and keep their investors investing.

The costs involve in acknowledging critical flaws and the recalls to fix would likely to be at odds with these aims.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Dash said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > I can tell you now, Apple want to fix any issues on their phones. Not because they're wonderful people, or because they love their customers, but because it's in their best interest to do so.
> ...


Or perhaps they'll decide that the best way to "churn as much profit as possible" is to actually fix their customer's problems, so they'll then buy from Apple again and still be prepared to pay a premium to do so? No point saving a few quid now if it loses you a fortune later on (just look back at Dell if you want an example of cheapskate customer service contributing to a decline in business).


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

antmanb said:


> Let me clarify so that i'm crystal clear - you are willing to "fix problems" yourself, and by this you mean, when your laptop died within warranty you opened your wallet and paid for a new one???  That doesn't sound anything like fixing something to me but YMMV.


I said my laptop's HDD died. I just bought and fitted a new drive. Then I recovered about 80% of the files from the old one before it failed completely.



antmanb said:


> I kept asking why i couldn't simply revert to the older versions of the software so that itunes worked fine, but they were not willing to assist me to do this. The one and only solution being proposed was going to cost me £150.


Well, I've downgraded iTunes and iPhone versions before, so I think I'd have just done that myself. I guess I'd have missed out on a free copy of OS X though, so maybe a good moan is worth it.

Anyway, my point was that I expect to do as much as possible myself before resorting to customer service for any product I own. One of the best things about Apple products though is that when they do fail, you don't have to go through the usual finger pointing and squirming you get from most companies. Their policy (if you can get to one of their stores) is typically one of replacement on the spot rather than letting you walk away pissed off while they try to work out how to get out of fixing it for free.


Dash said:


> That sounds like a major assumption to me. Apple, like most other companies want to churn as much of a profit as possible and keep their investors investing.
> 
> The costs involve in acknowledging critical flaws and the recalls to fix would likely to be at odds with these aims.


I'm not for a second expecting them to recall the phone. The fault is nowhere near severe enough. But, keeping customers satisfied with your products is a good way to retain them and Apple has a good record of holding onto repeat buyers. Fixing bugs won't win you many new customers, it's true, but it's still a financially beneficial thing to do. Retention is more important than expansion at the moment, I'd have thought.


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> I said my laptop's HDD died. I just bought and fitted a new drive. Then I recovered about 80% of the files from the old one before it failed completely.


Sorry i mis-read that bit. Though you obviously made the right decision because apple (or any other company for that matter) don't ever recover or give you much of a chance to try to recover anything so your options were obviously limited.



Spandex said:


> Well, I've downgraded iTunes and iPhone versions before, so I think I'd have just done that myself. I guess I'd have missed out on a free copy of OS X though, so maybe a good moan is worth it.


Well i'm not IT proficient enough to downgrade versions of anything hence my asking for help, which apple refused as it wouldn't have made them any money.



Spandex said:


> One of the best things about Apple products though is that when they do fail, you don't have to go through the usual finger pointing and squirming you get from most companies. Their policy (if you can get to one of their stores) is typically one of replacement on the spot rather than letting you walk away pissed off while they try to work out how to get out of fixing it for free.


Apple (like every other company) do what is best for apple. My in store experience of Apple is better than the customer services experience but still they do a simple formula that every company uses - if the cost of fixing under warranty outweighs the cost of giving you a _reconditioned replacement_ then swap it out straight away. 9 times out of 10 replacement is cheaper than fixing (because of the mark up on the hardware). Bonus for Apple - the reconditioned replacement only remains under warranty for as long as the original warranty would have run.

Like i said I don't hate Apple - i am extremely fond of their products, but realisitcally complaining about the company (in the flame room no less) seems fair game to me.

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

antmanb said:


> complaining about the company (in the flame room no less) seems fair game to me.


For you and I who have actual experience of these issues, yes. I find it harder to understand someone complaining about products they don't own.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Spandex said:


> antmanb said:
> 
> 
> > Or, now here's a radical thought, perhaps scoobyTT's posts are *gasp* just for fun??
> ...


Well I'm sure there are a lot of people who watch the likes of Have I got News For You, Mock The Week, Charlie Brooker etc. and don't realize that they're not selectively culling from the available facts and applying a sprinkling of sniggering powder. Let alone making shit up. People who don't realize that are idiots. As for adding disclaimers to my posts... :lol: :lol: 1) It's the flame room. 2) See 1.

The mainstream news is in itself a selective culling of "facts" with appropriate spin or selection to paint a given picture.



Spandex said:


> I personally think the rants would be a lot more entertaining if they had even a small amount of credibility too.


Credibility to table 5! 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10490572.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8761240.stm

In there you'll find association between Apple's software fix and the attentuation hardware problem (one of my "mistakes"), the obvious point that one won't fix the other, an excellent quote from Skeletor himself who said: "Just avoid holding it in that way." (now THAT's customer service!), and the sheer gall of the reporter in saying that it's a major design flaw. On TV! Hell they even have a chuckle at the idea that Apple has no left-handed employees. :lol: How dare they taint the marque of Apple and all its saintly goodness. I bet that reporter doesn't even own one, and there he is gobbing off about it. What an arsehole.



The BBC said:


> The official advice is to "avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band". Alternatively, said Apple, customers could buy a case to shield the antenna.


How fortuitous that Apple just happen to have such a product already available when it hasn't been for previous iPhones! Having problems with your phone? Shhh.... buy this. Lucky too that this case customers can buy is available before the software alteration which will be a few weeks yet. 



Spandex said:


> You deliberately only quoted the parts that backed up your original claims.


I think you'll find that's standard procedure for anyone making an argument.



Spandex said:


> Having read your original post, I find it hard to believe you were trying to avoid boring the arse off people.


Other people seem to "get it", you don't and that's fine. Let us know when your arse falls off though. :wink:



Spandex said:


> When people post stupid, poorly thought out rubbish about technology they barely understand...


 See there you go making personal assumptions again. :roll: Aren't Apple products all about making technology accessible to luddites who barely understand it, don't need to and don't want to? The kind of luddites who probably don't want to care about whether they're holding their phone "that way"? Wasn't that the point the last time I questioned the hallow name of Apple? I bet Rory Cellan-Jones doesn't have to put up with this shit 

Anyway, there's good news in all of this: bumpers are available before the software fix, which alleviate the problem. They consist of a piece of injection moulded plastic with extensions for buttons, and cost only $29. Joe Public can determine whether the product represents good value relative to manufacturing costs in commercial volumes.* 

*disclaimer: manufacturing costs unavailable at time of writing.



Spandex said:


> Scooby seems to be slightly fanatical about making up complaints about their products


Yeah, don't look now but the mainstream media and a whole raft of iPhone owners are in on it too. :lol:



Spandex said:


> I find it harder to understand someone complaining about products they don't own.


You know how after a football game everyone's practically qualified to be a manager, coach, pundit, or commentator? Do any of them own football clubs? No. They're actually serious though. :roll: But really, you don't have to understand it.

Interesting though that you don't leap in to counter any of my posts on other subjects, products or services. It's almost as if you're heavily biased towards Apple. :roll:

I'm not complaining about products I don't own, I'm lampooning the available info. There's a difference. Thanks to those who "get" that and contributed.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> ...


As far as I can tell, your justification for trotting out a load of 'facts' that you got second hand from the media is that if the media do it, then it's must be ok. Unfortunately, the BBCs reporting on technology is notoriously, hilariously piss poor. For you to use them as a source is bad enough, but as justification?? Although, presumably in order to maintain their position of impartiality, their positive stories about Apple are as inaccurate as their negative ones.


ScoobyTT said:


> Interesting though that you don't leap in to counter any of my posts on other subjects, products or services. It's almost as if you're heavily biased towards Apple. :roll:


That's kind of my whole point. I don't leap in to counter posts when I don't know enough about the subject. I don't count reading a few articles written by people who know barely more than I do about something as qualification to make pronouncements about the product in question. The reason you don't see me making sweeping statements on the HTC threads, for example, is because I stopped buying their phones when I got my first iPhone and I don't feel I know enough about their products anymore. Sure, I could head over there and start ranting (I wouldn't buy an HTC, so that's justification enough, right?), but personally, I think I'd look a bit stupid when I had to admit that I've never even owned the phone and I was just blindly repeating something some monkey wrote on Gizmodo.

You keep writing poorly researched anti-Apple posts, and I'll keep pointing out that they're poorly researched. If that makes me biased towards Apple, then it has to make you equally biased against them. If you want a bit of balance, I can make a list of other technologies I know more about than you and I can point out that you're wrong about them instead :-*


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

Spandex said:


> ScoobyTT said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


You sound like a broken record!

Simple: Apple fucked up, fanboys will defend their favourite brand to the death. End of :wink:


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Spandex said:


> As far as I can tell, your justification for trotting out a load of 'facts' that you got second hand from the media is that if the media do it, then it's must be ok. Unfortunately, the BBCs reporting on technology is notoriously, hilariously piss poor. For you to use them as a source is bad enough, but as justification?? Although, presumably in order to maintain their position of impartiality, their positive stories about Apple are as inaccurate as their negative ones.


I think you're perhaps confusing me with someone who gives a shit :lol:

But while I'm here, I think you've missed a lot of my commentary on mainstream media and advertising. I suspect though that you consider their articles to be more hiliriously piss poor when they disagree with your own viewpoint. Whether the BBC is accurate or not in its reporting is irrelevant here. There is a problem with the iPhone 4, Apple are skating around it, and so far apart from refer to one article of your own which you think agrees with your view (when objectively it looks at both stances and acknowledges that there is a problem that Apple need to sort out), the basis of your arguments consists of little more than complaining about the fact that I'm posting about it. You've brought nothing new to the table.

As I believe someone's already pointed out, no-one's forcing you to read these posts, or reply to them if they bother you that much.



Spandex said:


> That's kind of my whole point. I don't leap in to counter posts when I don't know enough about the subject.


What's Gizmodo? And why should I care? Let's face it, if the world was left to you, whole branches of televised entertainment would be banned because the people on them aren't qualified about the subject. I propose we start by shutting down the BBC unless each correspondent has a degree in their chosen area of baseless hackery, and give the new Spandex State Media full control. You know, you may prefer North Korea. They don't like dissent or social commentary either.



Spandex said:


> You keep writing poorly researched anti-Apple posts, and I'll keep pointing out that they're poorly researched.


It's the flame room! Research isn't mandatory! :roll: I read the same media as everyone else, so my information sources are the same as theirs. I choose to have a laugh at them. You can't. Tough.

@JNmercury00: Spot on! There's no point debating it. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## christurbo (Mar 6, 2005)

The only way they can test accurately is with a GSM tester plugged into the antenna.

I have an iPhone 4 and have no such problems! :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> There is a problem with the iPhone 4, Apple are skating around it, and so far apart from refer to one article of your own which you think agrees with your view (when objectively it looks at both stances and acknowledges that there is a problem that Apple need to sort out), the basis of your arguments consists of little more than complaining about the fact that I'm posting about it. You've brought nothing new to the table.


I've said enough times that there is a problem with signal attenuation when holding the iPhone a certain way (so many times, in fact that apparently I'm starting to sound like a broken record). I'm well aware that the Anandtech article mentions this, which is one of the reasons I linked to it. However, I certainly do think it agrees with my point of view (or rather, I agree with theirs) but not because I believe it's all in Apples favour. They appear very impartial and have done more investigation than any other article I've read. If impartiality is all I've 'brought to the table', then I can live with that. I certainly achieved more than you.



ScoobyTT said:


> It's the flame room! Research isn't mandatory!


I don't think there's any mention of research in the flame room etiquette post. Did you think the flame room was where you were supposed to go when you didn't know what you were talking about?


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Spandex said:


> I've said enough times that there is a problem with signal attenuation when holding the iPhone a certain way (so many times, in fact that apparently I'm starting to sound like a broken record). I'm well aware that the Anandtech article mentions this, which is one of the reasons I linked to it.


Riiiiiiiiiiight... so I mention a fault that exists and that you agree exists, using the same article, and somehow I don't know what I'm talking about and am wrong to mention it. Yawn. :lol:

So we're agreed. There's an issue with the iPhone 4, which so far Apple have yet to do much about apart from recommend bumper purchases or that users hold their phones in another way. Some people experience great customer service, some experience shit service. Fanbois who said poor resolution didn't matter when it came to the iPad will continue to cream themselves about the fantastic resolution of the iPhone 4, which is almost in the same ballpark but on a much smaller device. And Wayne Rooney will still look like a potato in the morning.

It's all good! :wink: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> Riiiiiiiiiiight... so I mention a fault that exists and that you agree exists, using the same article, and somehow I don't know what I'm talking about and am wrong to mention it. Yawn. :lol:


No, I told you your 'analysis' of the software fix and the reasons why Apple had put it out were completely wrong. I don't think I ever disagreed about the existance of the signal attenuation issue. Please try to keep up.


----------



## jammyd (Oct 11, 2008)

I was going to read this but fell asleep from all the bickering!!!!! :roll: [smiley=furious3.gif]


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I'll summarise the thread so far:

Scooby thinks the iPhone 4 isn't all it's cracked up to be, and Apple's reaction to people criticisms has been poor.

Spandex agrees that there may be issues, but without hard evidence won't be drawn into anything certain. He disagrees Scooby's view on Apple's reaction.

There is uncertainty to the rules around accuracy of posts in the flame room, and whether people should really post anything at all.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

There remains a certain degree of certainty that the iPad has no real purpose though. Shhh.. don't mention the shit specs!



Spandex said:


> No, I told you your 'analysis' of the software fix and the reasons why Apple had put it out were completely wrong. I don't think I ever disagreed about the existance of the signal attenuation issue. Please try to keep up.


See that's where you made your fundamental flaw: you regarded a sideways swipe at two connected news stories about Apple (not to mention their cloak and dagger approach to admitting problems), as any form of serious "analysis". You shot yourself in the foot as soon as you thought that really. :lol:

Still, in order to settle this once and for all, we see what happens when an Apple customer (who we'll call "Bob") manages to get some FaceTime with Skeletor himself through the power of WiFi! In this dramatic re-enactment we find both parties transported to a virtual world underneath a WiFi hotspot. Note that the iPhone 4 still only displays 2 bars for Bob, because he's left handed.

Bob waits for a software update that'll prove just how poor reception in his area really is. The two bars he's seeing now aren't really there, and neither is the glowing Wifi hotspot. Skeletor, contesting the antenna issue immediately lets rip with his Staff of Magical Marketing Bullshit, but fails to sway Bob's opinion that the product he bought is defective. Holding his sword correctly, and with no resulting Greyskull power attenuation, he dispatches the marketing hokum into oblivion.

Skeletor then uses his divine powers to re-animate the antenna engineer who designed the steel antenna and who had been turned into a tree for his failure, for a delegated confrontation with Bob. Being an engineer, he's no match for Bob's ham-fisted approach to getting customer satisfaction, and legs it.

Skeletor then suggests that a Faraday Cage might help Bob learn the true meaning of signal attenuation, whilst also providing a suitable metaphor for iTunes content purchase lock-in, which Bob must then try to escape from. Bob jailbreaks his Jesus Phone and breaks free in dramatic fashion!...






...Seeing that Bob is now free to install any apps he likes, an infuriated Skeltor then deploys his "power balls" - a whole suite of new "apps" only available on iOS4 and designed to totally avoid the issue with a sequence of distractions and gimmicks. Bob dispenses with the new apps because they make his phone run like shit, downgrades to iOS3 and another wave of megalomania bites the dust.

Skeletor, vexed, can then only continue to deny the hardware fault, and deploys the Mystic Amorphous Blob of Appley Satisfaction, to crush any remaining heresy and stifle meaningful competition on the platform. Bob shows that it's not just Apple products that blow, and sends the blob packing back to Skeletor with an RMA!

Finally Bob is coiled by the Serpent Of Marketing, from whom he is ultimately forced to buy a bumper, watch adverts courtesy of iAd and await iPhone 5.

Poor Bob.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

You've been at the RPGs again haven't you?

Last night I had first (or should that be left) hand experience of this signal problem.

My very old HTC phone which is taped together maintained full signal, whilst my friend's iPhone 4, held in his left hand (as he does for texting) dropped off the network. Fail.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I've had trouble importing RPGs ever since they became popular with the Taleban.



Dash said:


> My very old HTC phone which is taped together maintained full signal, whilst my friend's iPhone 4, held in his left hand (as he does for texting) dropped off the network. Fail.


Did you suggest to your friend that he try holding his phone in another, more Jobsian way?

This just in: And it's from Google Analytics so consists of real analysis! Apparently iPad, iPhone and Mac users spend the most on sex toys at LoveHoney.com. I draw no conclusions from this. :wink: 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/toy_revelation/

I'm sure it's just a usability thing...


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is it was Professor Plum, with the iron bar, in the library!


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Roger!


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

Charlie


----------



## bluush (Feb 24, 2010)

its all well and good this new on-line technology, however, dont you think this argument would be much better played out in a pub with beer and everything.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Spandex's posts are critical to maintain balance and thought out debates.


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

Charlie said:


> Charlie


I much preferred your original post


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Well TODAY IS THE DAY! No, not Skeletor's Dolmio day, the day that Apple hold an impromptu press conference regarding the iPhone 4.

With the news yesterday (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-1 ... -flaw.html) that Apple's senior antenna engineer warned His Steviness that the iPhone 4 was potentially a steaming turd, just what will Apple say this evening?

My predictions are that they will deny any design fault, but perhaps say there were "manufacturing issues" with a number of handsets. Will they offer free bumpers to pissed off fanbois? WIll they comment on how remarkably lucky it is that they made such an accessory for the first time?

Footage has already leaked of Steve Jobs practising his delivery for the press conference:






Come on Apple, stop duckiing the issue!


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

The message is simple...





 

Cheers

rich


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Can I have my bumper now?


----------



## westty (Jan 3, 2004)

Dash said:


> You've been at the RPGs again haven't you?
> 
> Last night I had first (or should that be left) hand experience of this signal problem.
> 
> My very old HTC phone which is taped together maintained full signal, whilst my friend's iPhone 4, held in his left hand (as he does for texting) dropped off the network. Fail.


Without trying to flame this even further! My Nokia 5800 always has a couple of bars more reception than my mates iphone and i can generally make calls when he wouldn't be able to due to lack of signal ....but his is the iphone 3! ..... Methinks the iphone 5 is needed ... soon!

Made me laugh the other night, we were outside the pub having a smoke and he was playing around with his iphone when a young lady walked by wearing a very short skirt and she most obviously had no underwear on , so i said 'quick take a photo' and he said 'i haven't got a flash so i cant' lol..... as you can imagine i was ripping the piss for the rest of the night. Has the iphone 4 got a camera flash? should think by the iphone 25 it will have everything on it that the competition has


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

westty said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > You've been at the RPGs again haven't you?
> ...


No, by the iphone 25 it will have everything that competition NOW has. It will be lacking certain critical functions that all other phones have, but fear not the iphone 25.X will start to add some of the things every other phone 10 generations behind it had!

Ant


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I'll get the marshmallows!


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Give Apple credit, they made the first really touch-friendly end-user interface for mobile phones.

The rest of it is a load of over-priced tosh, but that's not the point, it's _cool_, and whilst it remains that way the cool kids will still buy them. You can educate people, but if they still want an iPhone then just chuckle to yourself.

My phone is well and truly past it. It hasn't come out of an upgrade feeling too bright, so I'm in the market for a new phone. So after a bit of looking about I think I'll try and get this one to stumble through to November-ish and get an Android "Gingerbread" based phone.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> You can educate people, but if they still want an iPhone then just chuckle to yourself.


This is the problem though. No one tries to 'educate'... They just snipe away at Apple because they get more of a reaction that way (and what's the point of making snarky comments if you don't get a reaction, right?). No one would care if they took pot shots at Nokia, HTC or the whole of Android.

So, lets turn this around... I've used Android, but never for any length of time. I've not seen how it really competed with the iPhone OS, but I'd be interested to hear from actual users. I'm not talking about scratching the surface with spec sheets and lists of unnecessary functionality - both 'sides' can do that... What I'd like to know where it really differentiates itself.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Me too! I'll be taking the plunge and let you know how I get on with it in the new year.

As we covered previously, different strokes for different folks. So different features will appeal to different people. A killer UI for one, is not something that bothers me. Being able to tether my laptop, and use the screen in the winter though are serious considerations.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

The latest in the saga:
http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinkin ... t-results/

Remember, just because Deity Steve Jobs' truth does not always match the facts.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Another interesting site I saw related to this... Someone is compiling scans of other phone manuals that tell you how not to hold your phone. Seems the only difference between them and Apple is the amount of attention they (didn't) get:

http://gallery.me.com/davebc#100265


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

The others don't have antennae that you can effectively short out though. Putting a fleshwad between an encased antenna and its signal is a bit different to some asshat putting an uninsulated metal antenna right next to another one. Still, the Jobsian Reality Distortion FIeld will continue to say there is no issue with the iPhone, and the punters will believe their piss-poor handling of the whole debacle. And the fanbois will continue to believe that no criticism of Apple is EVER justified.

My money is on the white iPhone 4, which has been delayed, either having an insulated antenna, or a different design to reposition the bridge between the two. Purely because there is no fault.

Antennas aside, there's Apple's tactics with regard to stamping on other companies that, for instance, already had products called "iPad". No Steve, you don't have an automatic right to stick an "i" in front of everything and say it's yours. Not to mention their steady supply of vague catch-all patents for things that really aren't innovative at all. Take their latest offering:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/31 ... e_patents/

Of course, Apple's numerous woolly patents almost say more about the sorry state of patenting these days than they do about Apple. At least New Zealand has the right idea.


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Going to hang until Xmas for iphone 5g


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

:lol: :lol: :lol: Now _THAT_'s MAGICAL! I expect a patent to be filed soon allowing phones to "achieve better connection when held, or not held by the hands, feet, or any other body part of a human or other animal, using a system of a protruding antenna". Naturally they'll target anyone with prior art for infringement. :roll: :wink:


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

ScoobyTT said:


> The others don't have antennae that you can effectively short out though. Putting a fleshwad between an encased antenna and its signal is a bit different to some asshat putting an uninsulated metal antenna right next to another one. Still, the Jobsian Reality Distortion FIeld will continue to say there is no issue with the iPhone, and the punters will believe their piss-poor handling of the whole debacle. And the fanbois will continue to believe that no criticism of Apple is EVER justified.
> 
> My money is on the white iPhone 4, which has been delayed, either having an insulated antenna, or a different design to reposition the bridge between the two. Purely because there is no fault.
> 
> ...


To be fair, computer software cannot be patented anywhere outside the US, and you can only enforce the monopoly rights a patent brings in the countries where it is registered so I don't see it being much use to apple. That and the fact those patents in the article simply aren't inventive enough to get protection, I don't think they'll stand up to the examination process to be honest (i hope that's not just wishful thinking on my part!).

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

antmanb said:


> To be fair, computer software cannot be patented anywhere outside the US, and you can only enforce the monopoly rights a patent brings in the countries where it is registered so I don't see it being much use to apple. That and the fact those patents in the article simply aren't inventive enough to get protection, I don't think they'll stand up to the examination process to be honest (i hope that's not just wishful thinking on my part!).


To be fair to Scooby, he has absolutely no idea how many patents Apple hold, let alone how many of them would be classed as 'woolly' by himself or anyone else.


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> antmanb said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, computer software cannot be patented anywhere outside the US, and you can only enforce the monopoly rights a patent brings in the countries where it is registered so I don't see it being much use to apple. That and the fact those patents in the article simply aren't inventive enough to get protection, I don't think they'll stand up to the examination process to be honest (i hope that's not just wishful thinking on my part!).
> ...


I see the moneky up your arse is still up there :-* :lol:

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

antmanb said:


> I see the moneky up your arse is still up there :-* :lol:


He's just opened a bag of popcorn and is settling in for the long haul...


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> antmanb said:
> 
> 
> > I see the moneky up your arse is still up there :-* :lol:
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ant


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

And to be fair to Spandex, he always resorts to rather small-minded personal jibes and assumptions. I guess some people are just like that. :roll:

Run out of popcorn for the monkey? There's an app for that. I bet that monkey gets some pretty massive signal attenuation up there too. The monkey has got an iPhone too, right?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> And to be fair to Spandex, he always resorts to rather small-minded personal jibes and assumptions. I guess some people are just like that. :roll:
> 
> Run out of popcorn for the monkey? There's an app for that. I bet that monkey gets some pretty massive signal attenuation up there too. The monkey has got an iPhone too, right?


No personal jibes here. Just a fairly safe assumption that you don't have any real knowledge about Apple's patent portfolio. Feel free to prove me wrong. If it takes you more than an hour I'm going to have to assume you've had to research it. :wink:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

They're always getting into the news for patents, just see the images!

http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=apple+patent


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> They're always getting into the news for patents, just see the images!
> 
> http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=apple+patent


Well, 'getting in the news' is hardly relevant. If you'd search a bit more, you'll realise how meaningless that link is:

http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=microsoft+patent
http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=sony+patent

Really, all these tell you is that people are interested enough in these companies patents to report them on blogs. It makes no comment on how 'good' these patents are. Also, loads of the images are duplicates because with popular companies the story will be picked up by thousands of blogs, all carrying the same pictures.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I don't think anybody claimed that other companies don't have patents. The link was so you could have a look at some of the silly ones (I'm sure you can decide for yourself what constitutes silly).


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Dash said:


> I don't think anybody claimed that other companies don't have patents. The link was so you could have a look at some of the silly ones (I'm sure you can decide for yourself what constitutes silly).


I'll open the bidding with this one:
http://www.slashgear.com/apple-dumps-sc ... ps-272217/

I call prior art on Synaptics touchpads which have done this for years. And my phone which has touch sensitive buttons in the bezel whose function changes by context. However, my views aside it's a fairly good example of a patent that's not much more than a variation (if that) of an existing idea left wide open just waiting for someone to infringe it.

Over the years of news perusal I've seen quite a few Apple patent filings that cast a rather broad brush over little more than an idea. The impression is one of a company that patents anything and everything it can, no matter how trite it is, or how similar to something that already exists. The concept of "prior art" seems somewhat lost. When they're not filing patents they're trying to sue other manufacturers for breaching them. It's all a bit tiresome really given their bully-boy form on taking hold of the iPad name from other products that already had rights to the name, such as some of these:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/26 ... m_fujitsu/

Not to mention their ludicrous claim to terms they don't have trademarks on, whilst taking pops at people who develop for their platform. Thou shalt not use the word "pad" in your application name.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/13 ... trademark/

Hard not to find Apple just a little churlish and arrogant.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I'm sure Apple have plenty of stupid patents, although I would put that down to the US patent system and the nature of software patents more than anything else (Microsoft patents are certainly no better). As FFII.org put it:



> When patents are applied to software, the result is such that instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any 'means of trapping mammals'.


Apple's patents get in the news because they're Apple. There are thousands of more 'wooly' patents filed every year by other companies but you don't hear of those because no one is interested in the company that filed them.

Your analysis of the Apple patent for a touch screen scroll-bar isn't accurate. I'd actually say that's not a particularly good example of a 'woolly' patent. The Synaptics touch pads aren't touch screens and it's this new application that's patentable. The whole point of patents is that they protect applications of technology or concepts rather than the technology or concepts themselves (this is where it breaks down somewhat with software, as the whole 'invention' in software is actually _how_ you do something, rather than what you do).


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

On the one hand with software that's a good thing as it means that others can meaningfully achieve the same end, but in a different way. On the other, the patent system does seem to be in something of a mess. Still, nout we can do about it, except maybe get law degrees and earn big bucks getting paid to debate patent semantics and who's infringed who!


----------



## andyTT180 (Mar 19, 2010)

I hate apples too I cut one today and it went brown within 20 minutes :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

andyTT180 said:


> I hate apples too I cut one today and it went brown within 20 minutes :lol: :lol: :lol:


Once again, someone slating Apples without doing their research. Firstly, you should choose an apple that naturally doesn't brown much like Arangeh or Granny Smith. If you're still having problems, cut the apple under water and leave it there until you want to use it...


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

The patent system isn't that bad, just it is in America where you can patent ideas. Alas, due to the costs involved, only major organisations can afford to do business in this way.

Look at SCO, they don't produce anything any more. Their business is exclusively suing people for patent infringement on the ideas they own (or don't as it seems).

My favourite was Amazon's attempt at patenting the one-click buy now button on their web-site. :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> The patent system isn't that bad, just it is in America where you can patent ideas. Alas, due to the costs involved, only major organisations can afford to do business in this way.


It's not really the patent system in America (normal patents over there work in much the same way as over here).. It's more to do with the fact that they allow software patents but they apply the same principles as standard patents. A lot of people don't feel this works as the invention in software is more to do with how something is done than what it's doing. Non-software patents allow for both, so when similar rules are applied to software, the end result is often that a very simple idea can be patented. This goes against the spirit of the patent system, which is why there is such a big call for it all to be reviewed.

Apple aren't really doing anything wrong here, any more than Microsoft or any of the other companies in the US patenting software. They're working with the system that's in place in their country, the same as anyone else would. What needs fixing is the patent system as a whole to take into account how technology has changed since it was originally implemented.


----------



## fishface (Nov 25, 2006)

I watched hundreds of idiots queueing to get in the new flagship Apple store in Covent Garden yesterday, what ever for?

There are no new products on dispalay, it has all the same things that the one in Regent Street has only 1/2 a mile away, I just don't get all the hysteria over it, I wouldn't lower my self to join in the hype and waste my time :?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Heh.. I was actually scouring the news to see if they'd been giving away freebies as I couldn't understand the queues otherwise.

The other way to look at it though is that it just goes to show how much some people love Apple products. It's easy to make fun of those people and act all superior but at the end of the day, they're using products they absolutely love every day and presumably, they enjoyed their day out in the Apple store.

My Saturday morning was spent in Currys and Tescos so they probably had more fun than me.


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

fishface said:


> I watched hundreds of idiots queueing to get in the new flagship Apple store in Covent Garden yesterday, what ever for?
> 
> There are no new products on dispalay, it has all the same things that the one in Regent Street has only 1/2 a mile away, I just don't get all the hysteria over it, I wouldn't lower my self to join in the hype and waste my time :?


Everytime I go in an apple store I see loads of kids using the free wifi and looking on Facebook presumably writing something along the lines of 'in the apple store in regent St, how cool am I?'


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

Apple is absolutely amazing though and all of their products are far superior to the competition.

I used to have apple macs about 10 years ago and back then you couldn't get any software for them so they were pointless, nowadays the only thing a PC is better at is gaming and I'd rather play games on a console so that's not a bother.

I bought an iphone when the 3G first came out and was so impressed with it that I now have a MacBook, iMac and a mac mini which are all incredible!

With all that said I would consider myself a huge fan of apple however I would never queue up or rush to buy anything and find that very bizarre! (unless there's something free!)


----------



## fishface (Nov 25, 2006)

The one thing I find different about an Apple Store to everywhere else is the way you are left alone and even encouraged to play, who ever you are what ever age!
I am amazed that these devices still work with all the banging,bashing, prodding, poking and fiddling they get, it certainly says something about their products and their marketing strategy.

In contrast some time ago I was looking at PC's in a certain large chain store, and somehow managed to circumvent the password lock. Some snotty looking manager came rushing over and dressed me down in front of other customers for daring to touch the bloody thing, "we lock them to stop people playing with them!".

I looked down on him being 6'1" against his 5' 10" thanked him for embarracing a potential customer and suggested he placed his wonderful computer I had now decided not to buy up his acney covered shitty arse!


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

fishface said:


> The one thing I find different about an Apple Store to everywhere else is the way you are left alone and even encouraged to play, who ever you are what ever age!
> I am amazed that these devices still work with all the banging,bashing, prodding, poking and fiddling they get, it certainly says something about their products and their marketing strategy.
> 
> In contrast some time ago I was looking at PC's in a certain large chain store, and somehow managed to circumvent the password lock. Some snotty looking manager came rushing over and dressed me down in front of other customers for daring to touch the bloody thing, "we lock them to stop people playing with them!".
> ...


You have been dieing to tell that story haven't you! :lol:


----------



## fishface (Nov 25, 2006)

First opportunity :roll:


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2010)

Iphone 4 was so successful, they've sacked the guy responsible for it! :lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/techn ... .html?_r=2


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I've decided what I dislike about Apple most, is their content with the cult/fan status. What kind of world are we living in where people become fans of corporations?

Worship should be reserved for religious deities. The level of idolism that goes into these sorts of products is unhealthy, whether you're religious or not. They're phones, if you like one, buy one and have done about it (which to be fair, most people here do).


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> I've decided what I dislike about Apple most, is their content with the cult/fan status. What kind of world are we living in where people become fans of corporations?
> 
> Worship should be reserved for religious deities. The level of idolism that goes into these sorts of products is unhealthy, whether you're religious or not. They're phones, if you like one, buy one and have done about it (which to be fair, most people here do).


This is the thing I don't get though. I can't stand this personification of corporations either, but for me to then say "because of their cult status, I hate Apple" is just hypocritical. By hating them, I'd be guilty of personifying them myself. Despite liking most of Apples products, I don't really like their marketing or their image, but they're just a company. It makes no difference to my purchase. But, there are actually people out there so stupid that they would refuse to buy an Apple product *purely* because it's made by Apple. Even if it's the best one out there. They'll have an inferior product and a smug look on their face, like they've achieved something. I've met these people. I've talked to them about it. I still don't understand it.

This is why Scoobys constant Apple bashing posts grate so much with me, I think. Because by disliking them so much, you are making yourself no better than the people who love them unquestioningly. I rarely see Microsoft products that I like, but I wouldn't ever consider starting a thread on a forum to moan about them. I just don't buy them. Problem solved.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I can understand brand loyalty, or avoidance of brands.

I buy an Audi because they are reliable [sic].

I buy Apple products because they have easy to use interfaces.

I don't buy Nestle products because of their devastating ethics.

etc. etc.

But with Apple (and other companies), it's more than that - maybe devotion?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

More patent fun:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06 ... _party_ui/


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> More patent fun:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06 ... _party_ui/


I was waiting for someone to post this without reading the details. That image in the patent is actually showing how the functionality in the actual patent claim will be available to third party apps (such as the one shown in the image). Apple have in no way attempted to patent that app or its functionality. In fact, the images in a patent are not actually part of the patent claim, they're merely illustrations, so even if Apple *had* attempted to palm this screenshot off as their own software (which they didn't), it would mean nothing legally.

In the end, this is no different from someone using the outline of a TT to illustrate a car in their car-related patent. Audi wouldn't be jumping up and down claiming that someone was trying to patent their car.

What I found most amusing about all this is the glee with which the tech media jumped on this story in the desperate hope they had just got one up on Apple. The whole article has been written without any kind of research into the legal side, and I can't even believe they read the patent application in full either, as it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see what the illustration is for.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I only posted the link, I didn't comment on it. The article does not make any accusations, merely saying it would have been nice to consult the developer first.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> I only posted the link, I didn't comment on it. The article does not make any accusations, merely saying it would have been nice to consult the developer first.


Well, "*more* patent fun" certainly implied that it was *more* of the same sort of thing you'd discussed earlier (i.e. Apple somehow behaving badly through their patent applications). As for the article, it starts with:


> Apple has apparently lifted the look-and-feel of an iPhone app from German developer FutureTap and used it in a software patent application, putting that developer in a sticky situation.


Which certainly goes beyond a mere statement of the facts (the facts being that they 'lifted' nothing and have put no one in any kind of situation, sticky or otherwise.

I'm sorry, but this and all the other articles posted when this story broke are just more examples of the piss poor excuse for journalism we have to put up with now and the biggest problem is that people just blindly believe it all because it's easier than taking the time to think about it themselves. You can also be sure that if it wasn't related to Apple potentially making a mistake, it would never have been written.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

More as in, we discussed Patents in the context of Apple previously. You're the one making the assumption to the nature of the post.

The design is clearly lifted, it might not be a patent issue, but is most likely a copyright issue. Apple do not own the design of screen, and have not asked to use it.

The sticky situation is also clearly stated by the developer!



> "We've always been more than grateful for the platform Apple created. And, in fact, still are," he writes. "However, we can't ignore it if the #1 recognition value of our (currently) only app potentially is under fire.


That seems suitably sticky to me.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

And to be fair to the piss-poor journalists, it would appear that they did read the patent:


The Register Hack said:


> Our reading of Apple's patent application shows it to describe, in part, many of the capabilities of Where To?, but the exceptionally wide net that the filing casts encompasses far more functionality.


Whether the patent lifts someone else's work is perhaps moot, if it's an example of Apple patenting ideas that are already out there and casting a broad brush over it. Given their attitude in thinking they have rights to anything beginning with "i" even if other companies already have those rights, it wouldn't surprise me. Nor would it surprise me if they later persued the maker of "Where To" for infringement :lol: I suspect they'll probably just try and buy the company though, or otherwise silence them. :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> The design is clearly lifted, it might not be a patent issue, but is most likely a copyright issue. Apple do not own the design of screen, and have not asked to use it.


The design isn't 'lifted'. They even have the name of the app at the top of the screen. It's an example of an app that can use the functionality described in the patent. Neither is it a copyright issue, any more than if I were to post a screenshot of their app in this forum. As for the developer calling it a "sticky situation", this just shows that they don't really understand either.



ScoobyTT said:


> And to be fair to the piss-poor journalists, it would appear that they did read the patent:
> 
> 
> The Register Hack said:
> ...


Ok, they read the patent. It's still amazing that they didn't understand it. I've read it and it's bloody obvious. The app is not included in the patent claim (the claim is the important part and is the part that will be protected if the application is approved). The functionality described *is* that of the Where To app, because they are describing an example of the type of app that could use the functionality described in the claim. Again, this example is *not* part of the claim itself and isn't being patented by Apple.

The Register 'hack' should probably be assigned to stories that aren't about patents from now on.


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > The design is clearly lifted, it might not be a patent issue, but is most likely a copyright issue. Apple do not own the design of screen, and have not asked to use it.
> ...


Of course it is a copyright issue!! If you copy anything (like an image or text that is capable of copyright protection) and publish it without the copyright owner's consent then you are in breach of copyright.

Ever tried to screen grab something with a Getty image on it and put it on a website? You will get a bill for thousands of pounds for their "standard" licence fee for using their copyrighted image.

If apple have a taken a picture that belongs to someone else and included it in their patent application they have breached copyright. Frankly trying to defend them on every count gets pretty difficult and tiresome.



Spandex said:


> Ok, they read the patent. It's still amazing that they didn't understand it. I've read it and it's bloody obvious. The app is not included in the patent claim (the claim is the important part and is the part that will be protected if the application is approved). The functionality described *is* that of the Where To app, because they are describing an example of the type of app that could use the functionality described in the claim. Again, this example is *not* part of the claim itself and isn't being patented by Apple.


OK i'm neither interested in reading the patent nor do i know the US patent system inside and out, but if Apple, in support of the claims in the patent, are using something someone else has created as an example to support the claims then they must be:

1. Admitting they are not the first inventor; and
2. Defeating the novelty in their own patent by pointing out the prior art.

So my question is, if that is the case, why hasn't the application ended up in the bin, rather than actually being published?

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

antmanb said:


> If apple have a taken a picture that belongs to someone else and included it in their patent application they have breached copyright. Frankly trying to defend them on every count gets pretty difficult and tiresome.


Yes. Yes it does. So instead, I'll just sit here and watch while Apple *don't* get sued for breach of copyright. You can do the same.



antmanb said:


> OK i'm neither interested in reading the patent nor do i know the US patent system inside and out, but if Apple, in support of the claims in the patent, are using something someone else has created as an example to support the claims then they must be:
> 
> 1. Admitting they are not the first inventor; and
> 2. Defeating the novelty in their own patent by pointing out the prior art.
> ...


Ok, I've said it a few times but maybe I've not explained it well enough. The image showing the 'Where To?' app running on an iphone is:

1. An example of a 3rd party app that fits into a certain genre (in this case 'travel') that would make use of the actual invention. Apple are *not* saying that they invented the app. The functionality described in the patent claim is something that could be used by Apple and 3rd party apps.

2. Not included in the claim. That's the biggest reason why Apple are definitely, without any doubt, *not* saying they invented the 'Where To?' app. The images *aren't* part of the claim in any patent application. They are there to help make the claim easier to understand, but that's it. Nothing in that image would be protected by this patent if it were successful (and Apple know this).

If I invented a new type of safety feature for cars and in my patent application I wanted a diagram showing it installed on an actual car I could, if I wanted, draw the outline of an Audi TT with my wonder device fitted. I wouldn't be breaching any copyright and I wouldn't be claiming ownership of the cars design.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I suppose it comes down to how close to the original work the diagram is.

If you drew an Audi TT well enough for the purposes of the works then I think that would be breaching Audi's copyright on the TTs designs.

I don't think, technically, you are able to screen-shot an application and post it somewhere. Fair Use comes into it, but then that differs from country-to-country, and this is where it gets even more confusing. Copyright laws differ all around the world, and then what they say and what is accepted is different (transferring a bought CD to your iPod, for example, is illegal in the UK).


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> Yes. Yes it does. So instead, I'll just sit here and watch while Apple *don't* get sued for breach of copyright. You can do the same.


Yes and I will continue to drive around on motorways at at least 80 mph and not get points or a fine, does that mean that i wasn't breaking the law and speeding?



Spandex said:


> If I invented a new type of safety feature for cars and in my patent application I wanted a diagram showing it installed on an actual car I could, if I wanted, draw the outline of an Audi TT with my wonder device fitted. I wouldn't be breaching any copyright and I wouldn't be claiming ownership of the cars design.


If it was possible to tell from your "outline" that you had drawn an audi TT, then arguably you would be in breach of audi's copyright either by creating a 2-D image from the 3-D car or in breach of the copyright of the design drawings. Likelihood of audi bringing a claim is slim to nil, unless they thought you were trying to gain some kind of unfair advantage for your patent application/product by including the TT outline because it might show that you were trying to say that audi endorsed the application.

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I think you're assuming that copyright law is much more strict than it really is. You're also assuming the only possible reason Apple wouldn't get sued is because of their 'bullying tactics'. This is based more on your opinion of Apple than on any actual facts regarding copyright and fair use laws.


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> I think you're assuming that copyright law is much more strict than it really is. You're also assuming the only possible reason Apple wouldn't get sued is because of their 'bullying tactics'. This is based more on your opinion of Apple than on any actual facts regarding copyright and fair use laws.


I'm assuming nothing. I'm an english qualified IP lawyer so am more than qualified to talk about English copyright law, it's application, and causes of action for litigation. I never once mentioned "bullying tactics" I think that was you. I was merely replying to you saying you'd sit and watch while Apple do not get sued. Apple may not get sued for any number of reasons, one of which is that you have to have a willing claimant with deep pockets to sue a big corporation.

"Fair use" is a concept of US copyright law not english law so i don't profess to know the inner workings of those defences. We have defences under UK law but they are not about "fair use", you have to bring your defence within one of the sections set out in chapter III of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. I would happily bore everyone stupid with this since it's my bread and better, but since I think you're the only one with an issue i'll refrain from boring everyone else.

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Well, time will tell, but I don't think we'll be seeing a court case regarding Apples use of a line drawing representing one screen of an application (which, chances are apple have the rights to use as part of the iphone developers license agreement, seeing as screen shots are displayed in the app store and on apple.com) any time soon.

As far as i can see, there is no grounds for complaint or even mild indignation from the 'Where To?' app developers regarding any part of this patent application. Once again, it's just an example of the glee with which the press will jump on any story which shows Apple in a negative light, often forgetting to do any real research (like reading and actually understanding the patent) in their haste.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv-entertainmen ... -22484479/

:roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bit of a non-story until Apple actually announce the product, if it exists at all, but it'll be interesting to see what they'd have to do to use the itv name. I doubt they'd get away with a deal like the one they did with Cisco over the iPhone trademark.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Or any of the companies that had the iPad name already in the bag. Apple don't give a flying shite if someone else is already using i-Whatever, they'll just use it anyway with the arrogant belief that they have some god-given right to anything that starts with "i".

Not that I care. It helps me easily identify products I don't want to have! Including ITV. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Apple don't just ignore trade marks and no one says anything. Deals are done, but they're not spoken about to the press so you wouldn't know that. Apple do throw their weight around when they make these deals, but why wouldn't they? They're a big company with a lot of financial power.



ScoobyTT said:


> Apple don't give a flying shite if someone else is already using i-Whatever, they'll just use it anyway with the arrogant belief that they have some god-given right to anything that starts with "i".


It would help me understand your posts about Apple if you could explain why you think this is a bad thing...


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Simply because iPad can be trademarked, iPod, iMac, and so on. Having a collection of registered names starting "i" doesn't mean you have any right to claim everything starting with "i". You can't own a letter of the alphabet :lol:

Plus there's a certain degree of arrogance in failing to even consider a government's request for information. See here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/17 ... ps_trains/


TheRegister.co.uk said:


> ...the Japanese government's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) ordered Apple to come clean on the problem, and to inform the government what it plans to do about it.
> 
> "The ministry repeatedly asked Apple Japan to take market measures, such as giving warnings or recalling the products, but it has failed to do so," a METI spokesman said. And so, apparently tired of asking, the government issued its directive.


So fine, Apple did finally act saying they would replace batteries, though whether this would be done before or after they explode isn't clear, and if they do, the chances are they'll want you to say nothing about it and carry on in the hope that no-one else's battery goes Chernobyl on them like they did with this poor bloke:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/03/ipod_flames/



Apple said:


> "You will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential", the letter told Stanborough, with any verbal slippages resulting in "Apple seeking injunctive relief, damages and legal costs against the defaulting persons or parties".


So it's ok for them to deny liability if their product catches fire, explodes, and damages you (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/08 ... ze_horror/) or your property (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/10/saab_inferno/) as a result? But if you so much as tell anyone they'll persue YOU for damages? :lol: On what grounds? That they made a defective product and only eventually (if the article is accurate) would bother to do the decent thing and offer a refund - replete with unnecessary legal threats.

I can't help thinking that a decent, ethical company's primary interest would be pleasing a customer who's had a dangerous situation with a product, and ensuring the safety of other customers by finding out what batch of products might be affected, and ordering a battery recall if necessary as other companies such as Dell and Sony have done in the past.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Well, i was talking about the trademark situation, not defective batteries, although when the Sony-made battery issue happened a few years ago, Apple were amongst the affected manufacturers and they recalled the batteries just the same as Sony, Dell, et al.

Anyway, back to the trademark, I just don't get comments about Apple's 'arrogance'. They're a company. A company can't be arrogant - that's a human trait. If you apply human traits to companies, then none of them come off well (I mean, they all advertise... That kind of self promotion is hardly attractive in a human, is it?).

If they want to walk all over over companies and they get away with it, how is that bad? Isn't that what companies are supposed to do? They're there to make money any way they can. If it makes financial sense for them to ignore a trademark, then that's absolutely what they should do. And this applies to any company, not just Apple.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

There is a fine line between doing business and doing unethical business. Lots of large companies fall foul of this as they see dollar signs.

In my experience Apple is quite bad for it's ethics, not the worst. Due to excellent marketing by Apple people are happy to disregard these unethical practices, and some even defend the company time and time again. Apple put a lot of hard work into hiding their poor ethics, Scooby has done an excellent job of raising the issues to the people here.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> There is a fine line between doing business and doing unethical business. Lots of large companies fall foul of this as they see dollar signs.
> 
> In my experience Apple is quite bad for it's ethics, not the worst. Due to excellent marketing by Apple people are happy to disregard these unethical practices, and some even defend the company time and time again. Apple put a lot of hard work into hiding their poor ethics, Scooby has done an excellent job of raising the issues to the people here.


Ethics? Those aren't ethical decisions... Whether or not to use child labour is an ethical decision. Refusing to work with governments that abuse human rights is an ethical decision. Throwing your weight around with other companies has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics relates to morality. This is a human thing and only applies to humans. Companies can't have 'morals' and the only time we expect them to apply moral behavior is when dealing with humans, not other companies.

You have a strange definition of ethics if you think one company getting one over on another company is ethically wrong.

As for what Scooby has done here, all I can see is a complete and unapologetic bias against Apple (to the point where even he admits the facts aren't that important). I could probably find more accurate and impartial news in one issue of the Daily Mail than I could in all of his posts about Apple.


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Of course a company can be "arrogant" or any other number of human traits, the company is run by human beings and reference to a company "being" anything is a reference to the Directors/Managers/MD that run that company and make the decisions for that company.

The argument that a company isn't a human being was run for years to try to stop corporate manslaughter offences being brought but at some point you really do have to say - how much damage should this inanimate unaccountable thing be able to do before the people behind it have to actually stand up and be responsible? (just to clarify this last paragrpah is not with reference to Apple)



Spandex said:


> As for what Scooby has done here, all I can see is a complete and unapologetic bias against Apple (to the point where even he admits the facts aren't that important). I could probably find more accurate and impartial news in one issue of the Daily Mail than I could in all of his posts about Apple.


And yet you completely fail to even comment on the personal injury and settlement agreement Scooby posted about...presumably you can't really counter that so lets just throw the same ole crap about bias and refer to his first post in this thread?

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

antmanb said:


> Of course a company can be "arrogant" or any other number of human traits, the company is run by human beings and reference to a company "being" anything is a reference to the Directors/Managers/MD that run that company and make the decisions for that company.


Make up your mind. Is it the company that's arrogant or the CEO/whoever? When I make reference to Apple, I'm talking about the company. That's why I say 'Apple'. If I was talking about Steve Jobs (who is pretty arrogant, from what I've read) then I would refer to him by name.

On top of that, when talking about situations involving two companies, the only things governing them should be laws. Not morals or ethics or any other human notions. There is nothing ethically wrong with Apple using some other companies trademark. There are laws involved and Apple would have to decide what the financial and PR risks were with that course of action. That's it.



antmanb said:


> The argument that a company isn't a human being was run for years to try to stop corporate manslaughter offences being brought but at some point you really do have to say - how much damage should this inanimate unaccountable thing be able to do before the people behind it have to actually stand up and be responsible? (just to clarify this last paragrpah is not with reference to Apple)


I don't understand your point. Surely, the laws regarding corporate manslaughter aren't applicable to an individual? So doesn't that show that the law, at least, understands that there's a difference and that they should be treated differently in law? In a corporate manslaughter case, I don't think anyone would be sitting there arguing about the ethics and morals of the company involved. They would talk about legal requirements like duty of care, wouldn't they?



antmanb said:


> And yet you completely fail to even comment on the personal injury and settlement agreement Scooby posted about...presumably you can't really counter that so lets just throw the same ole crap about bias and refer to his first post in this thread?


I'm not commenting on it because I didn't see anything wrong with what he'd posted. Apple clearly had a legal responsibility there (presumably working with the battery manufacturer) to resolve the problem. The fact that they choose to try to keep the matter quiet is up to them. If they succeed, they avoid any risk to iPod sales - If it gets out, bad PR for them. Sounds like a business decision to me, not an ethical one.

I'm not saying Apple can do no wrong. They do PLENTY wrong. But I judge them as a company, not as a person. Steve Jobs might be an annoying little twat, but when I buy their products I don't have to talk to him, so why would I care?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Completely disagree Spandex. Ethics and morals can cover companies, and they cover more than human rights. Human rights is an obvious extreme of the spectrum. Not abusing monopoly is a common unethical business practice, one that society has decided should not be allowed.

A "company" is just a set of assets, it doesn't _do_ anything. The people who work for the company define it's direction, policies, goals and attitude. So yes, a company can be arrogant as defined by the culture and it's attitude.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> Completely disagree Spandex. Ethics and morals can cover companies, and they cover more than human rights. Human rights is an obvious extreme of the spectrum. Not abusing monopoly is a common unethical business practice, one that society has decided should not be allowed.
> 
> A "company" is just a set of assets, it doesn't _do_ anything. The people who work for the company define it's direction, policies, goals and attitude. So yes, a company can be arrogant as defined by the culture and it's attitude.


Abuse of a monopoly is not unethical at all. The reason it's considered bad is that it removes competition and this reduces choice in the market. This is seen as an undesirable thing in our capitalist society, but it's a long way from being an immoral thing, surely???

As for arrogance, I still don't get why you'd apply a human trait to a company. I can understand how it's _possible_ to do that, but you seem to be doing it selectively. If you judge companies the same way you'd judge humans then they are all pretty much deplorable. They're all arrogant, self-promoting, self-righteous, selfish and shallow. They have to be. Their job is to sell things and to do that they have to make the customer believe their product is the best. If they're good at it, other companies in the same market have to suffer.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Dash said:


> Completely disagree Spandex. Ethics and morals can cover companies, and they cover more than human rights. Human rights is an obvious extreme of the spectrum. Not abusing monopoly is a common unethical business practice, one that society has decided should not be allowed.
> 
> A "company" is just a set of assets, it doesn't _do_ anything. The people who work for the company define it's direction, policies, goals and attitude. So yes, a company can be arrogant as defined by the culture and it's attitude.


Although I get what you're saying, and I think a significant proportion of people these days do want to work for a company they feel is a "good" company that plays "fair", they also want to work for a company that is successful, so they have more secure jobs, better bonuses, better non-financial benefits and so on. Which means finding ways to make their product/service sell in preference to a competitors. 
Put it another way - I've yet to meet anyone in any company who's said "I think our market share's a bit big now, it's only fair to let X and Y catch up a bit".
Whether their success amounts to "abusing" their market position is something that is pretty much impossible to decide from inside a company, unless it's outright fraud, collusion etc. So - as you point out - its falls to "society" (read regulators and competitors complaining to them) to make that decision. 
I guess in short my point is that just because a company is ruled to have been abusing its position from outside doesn't mean that the people working for it believed (or now agree) this to be the case.

Perhaps slightly pedantic - though I think important - is also that it isn't just the people who work for a company that decide it's direction. It's also (or should be) the shareholders. Trouble is, these tend to be fairly faceless, often inactive and - when they do have their say - may not have "ethical" behaviour as their top priority.


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> antmanb said:
> 
> 
> > Of course a company can be "arrogant" or any other number of human traits, the company is run by human beings and reference to a company "being" anything is a reference to the Directors/Managers/MD that run that company and make the decisions for that company.
> ...


I don't need to make up mind - the company is the company - it is what it is - a legal entity that is run by human beings. A company is an inanimate object, without humans, it cannot trade, it cannot make money, it cannot market, it cannot write a letter, it cannot make up policy - in short it cannot do anything whatsoever.



Spandex said:


> On top of that, when talking about situations involving two companies, the only things governing them should be laws. Not morals or ethics or any other human notions. There is nothing ethically wrong with Apple using some other companies trademark. There are laws involved and Apple would have to decide what the financial and PR risks were with that course of action. That's it.


If the company is this inanimate inhuman thing then explain to me how it can use another companes trade mark? The company has no brain to think to use another's trade mark, it has no hands/opposable thumbs to copy the trade mark of another company and use it. Back to those pesky humans who act as the company to do those things. Are you saying that those humans should not be subject to the same rulse/morality/ethics as other human beings because they're acting as directors?

I actually think that is the crux of the matter. Directors/CEOs of companies often act like they are outside the scope of humanity when acting in their professional roles, that's why they come under such criticism.



Spandex said:


> antmanb said:
> 
> 
> > The argument that a company isn't a human being was run for years to try to stop corporate manslaughter offences being brought but at some point you really do have to say - how much damage should this inanimate unaccountable thing be able to do before the people behind it have to actually stand up and be responsible? (just to clarify this last paragrpah is not with reference to Apple)
> ...


The rules of corporate manslaughter apply to corporations, but the ultimate legal sanction for an offence is the imprisonment of the culpabale legal officer of the company - so yes I think if I was the CEO of a company i would be pretty scared as an individual that i might end up in the jail if someone was killed because of the wrecklessness of my company. It was the only way to truly focus the directors minds about health and safety and risk assessments. Until the laws came in, it was a simple cost analysis - what is more expensive, making things 100% safe or paying off the injuries/deaths caused?

That's why directors are liable in certain circumstances for not just corporate manslaughter, but any number of things if they act wrongly. Directors duties have in the last few years had a bit more legal clarity put on them. Sadly despite the fact that company directors do at least as much, if not more damage than "criminals", their connections often get them a much rosier deal than their criminal counterparts.



antmanb said:


> I'm not saying Apple can do no wrong. They do PLENTY wrong. But I judge them as a company, not as a person. Steve Jobs might be an annoying little twat, but when I buy their products I don't have to talk to him, so why would I care?


Well we have to agree to disagree because I don't think you can separate the people that run a company from the company itself. I'm a card-carrying-apple-product-supporting person, I think the alternative choices are run by even bigger twats, but i'm under no illusion that apple are poor little hard done by saints, which is mostly how you paint them.

Either way i'm sure apple don't care since we are both clearly buying their products 

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I'm not really going to answer the rest of your post separately, because you just seem to be pointing out that companies have people working for them, so their decisions are a result of people. This is true, but it does not make a company a person, it does not mean a company is bound by the same laws as people and it doesn't mean that you can arbitrarily apply human traits to a companies behaviour, then judge them by those traits as though they were a person.

If you must apply these traits to companies, then apply them to all aspects of all companies. Then, at least, you'll be being fair even if you're not being particularly accurate... BT have been advertising like mad lately - how vain are they?!?



antmanb said:


> I'm a card-carrying-apple-product-supporting person, I think the alternative choices are run by even bigger twats, but i'm under no illusion that apple are poor little hard done by saints, which is mostly how you paint them.


Hard done by?? They're raking in money hand over fist. They're in a fantastic position to keep doing it too, with such a rapid development cycle for new products, and an OS package that's so flexible it's in use on almost every product they make, from MP3 players through to enterprise level servers. I'm under no illusion at all - Having worked in CE product development for many years, I understand very well how much power they have in the industry and how good they are at what they do.

At no point have I claimed they're saints or underdogs. They're a very successful company. My complaints here are to do with complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in order to paint them as 'evil' (we're back to those human notions again) or somehow claim that they're doing stuff that a company _shouldn't_ do, based on some vague, unwritten set of corporate morals.


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> I'm not really going to answer the rest of your post separately, because you just seem to be pointing out that companies have people working for them, so their decisions are a result of people. This is true, but it does not make a company a person, it does not mean a company is bound by the same laws as people and it doesn't mean that you can arbitrarily apply human traits to a companies behaviour, then judge them by those traits as though they were a person.


Yes it does! And a company is a a person - a legal "person" (shit loads of case law makes this very clear). And I _can_ aribtrarily do whatever I want - I'm a free thinking human who if he wants to judge a company along the same lines as a human I can, and I don't _have_ to be balanced or even handed with any or all of my criticism. Even if I do apply human traits too all comapnies behaviour I still don't contradcit my argument as below.



Spandex said:


> If you must apply these traits to companies, then apply them to all aspects of all companies. Then, at least, you'll be being fair even if you're not being particularly accurate... BT have been advertising like mad lately - how vain are they?!?


I take it, therefore, that you have either never applied for a job or find job applications to be extremely "vain"?!?!

A company advertising for it's products is just the same as a human being trying to get a job - you get a document setting out how great you are (CV) plugging all of your strengths, why you would be a good person to hire, examples to show all of your positive points. It's not even handed or balanced, you don't mention your weaknesses or when you dropped a bollock or anything else like that. It's not vain it's simply trying to sell yourself. Sometimes you even hire an agent to plug you and your skills and fin you someone who wants to emply you.

More examples - you wouldn't go on a first date with someone and sit there talking about how crap you are, and areas of failure, you talk about positive things and things that will boost the other person's impression of you. Go to far, or slag others off in the process (and this applies to applying for jobs) and you come across as arrogant or worse (Nissan's adverts slagging off German cars as a for example).

You may disagree but I think you can completely draw those kinds parallels.



Spandex said:


> At no point have I claimed they're saints or underdogs. They're a very successful company. My complaints here are to do with complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in order to paint them as 'evil' (we're back to those human notions again) or somehow claim that they're doing stuff that a company _shouldn't_ do, based on some vague, unwritten set of corporate morals.


I don't think there has been any misrepresentation of facts, nothing fabricated, the stories are out there, and if people want to draw conclusions that any company is evil, then they can. I see no-one sprang to Nestle's defence when Dash brought them up, yet you do spring to apple's defence whenever someone raises them...why, does in not bother you that people are applying human traits to Nestle?

Ant


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

So your argument is "If I want to say these things, I can"? Yes. Yes you can. If you want to actually make a cohesive arguement though, perhaps you shouldn't.

A company is not a legal 'person'. That's just patently wrong. It's a legal entity which can be treated as a single body, but it is not governed by the same laws as a person so in the eyes of the law it's not one. Putting 'person' in inverted commas does not make it a catch-all for anything which can be considered a single entity.

As for you job application analogy, that's very apt. I absolutely hate that type of self promotion. I feel awkward with every word I write on those things and that's without even considering the exaggerations and embellishments most people put into applications and CVs. I don't imagine everyone else feels the same, but for me it's something I can't stand doing. I wish I could just be judged on my merits rather than on what I can write about them. I'm sure my CV would be much more successful if it was less honest.


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> So your argument is "If I want to say these things, I can"? Yes. Yes you can. If you want to actually make a cohesive arguement though, perhaps you shouldn't.


Did your glasses fall off before you finished reading? Because i clearly explained why my argument remains cohesive and uncontradicted, despite judging companies with human traits.



Spandex said:


> A company is not a legal 'person'. That's just patently wrong. It's a legal entity which can be treated as a single body, but it is not governed by the same laws as a person so in the eyes of the law it's not one. Putting 'person' in inverted commas does not make it a catch-all for anything which can be considered a single entity.


No you are patently wrong - feel free to go and read the Companies Act and the raft of cases that explain why it is a legal person. Under the law a person can include: an individual and a body corporate. Just because some laws apply to one and not the other (and sometimes both) it doesn't make either any less of a legal person.



Spandex said:


> As for you job application analogy, that's very apt. I absolutely hate that type of self promotion. I feel awkward with every word I write on those things and that's without even considering the exaggerations and embellishments most people put into applications and CVs. I don't imagine everyone else feels the same, but for me it's something I can't stand doing. I wish I could just be judged on my merits rather than on what I can write about them. I'm sure my CV would be much more successful if it was less honest.


So you hate CVs because they're self promotion?? Don't really know what to say - without a CV how would anyone know what you've done, where you've worked, what experience you've got? You feel awkward writing factual statement about your work experience? I really find that hard to believe.

Ant


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Spandex said:


> As for you job application analogy, that's very apt. I absolutely hate that type of self promotion. I feel awkward with every word I write on those things and that's without even considering the exaggerations and embellishments most people put into applications and CVs. I don't imagine everyone else feels the same, but for me it's something I can't stand doing. I wish I could just be judged on my merits rather than on what I can write about them. I'm sure my CV would be much more successful if it was less honest.


I agree with the sentiment but that doesn't mean it cannot be applied to companies.

Companies can be vain, Apple probably is, but really vanity is not something that bothers me as much as traits to do with how it treats other entities (consumers or competitors).


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

antmanb said:


> No you are patently wrong - feel free to go and read the Companies Act and the raft of cases that explain why it is a legal person. Under the law a person can include: an individual and a body corporate. Just because some laws apply to one and not the other (and sometimes both) it doesn't make either any less of a legal person.


Yes, I understand that a company is what is termed a 'legal person'... That's just a legal definition for non-human entities. It doesn't mean the company is bound by the same laws as an actual person (which is what we're talking about here).


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Apple are still cocks though, to be fair :wink: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> Apple are still cocks though, to be fair :wink: :lol: :lol:


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This thread is so boring now, but I still keep getting dragged back to see what trite bollocks is posted 

Charlie


----------



## antmanb (Jun 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> antmanb said:
> 
> 
> > No you are patently wrong - feel free to go and read the Companies Act and the raft of cases that explain why it is a legal person. Under the law a person can include: an individual and a body corporate. Just because some laws apply to one and not the other (and sometimes both) it doesn't make either any less of a legal person.
> ...


No it's not what we're talking about - we were talking about whether you can assign human characteristics to a company. Most feel you can, you feel you can't. You said the company isn't a person, I said it is. You then said that you can't apply human morals/ethics to a company, and most people except you thought they could. Now you seem to be saying that a company isn't bound by the same laws and individuals and I would partly agree, but only with reference to some criminal offences, for everything else they are bound by idenctical, or similar laws that make it workable for a company (and in some cases are subject to more stringent rules than individuals). I don't know what that has to do with people giving human characterisitcs to a company though.

Ant


----------



## GEM (Jun 21, 2007)

Charlie said:


> ScoobyTT said:
> 
> 
> > Apple are still cocks though, to be fair :wink: :lol: :lol:
> ...


 :lol: 
*BUT...not half as boring as the silly...'Game-last post wins' and '3 word story' threads.
John.*


----------



## triplefan (Sep 3, 2008)

Whereas "Today I......Drove 5 miles to the station" was a classic :roll:


----------



## GEM (Jun 21, 2007)

triplefan said:


> Whereas "Today I......Drove 5 miles to the station" was a classic :roll:


 [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif] *I miss those posts* [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif]
*It's not the same doing it in a Focus
John.*


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

antmanb said:


> No it's not what we're talking about - we were talking about whether you can assign human characteristics to a company. Most feel you can, you feel you can't. You said the company isn't a person, I said it is. You then said that you can't apply human morals/ethics to a company, and most people except you thought they could. Now you seem to be saying that a company isn't bound by the same laws and individuals and I would partly agree, but only with reference to some criminal offences, for everything else they are bound by idenctical, or similar laws that make it workable for a company (and in some cases are subject to more stringent rules than individuals). I don't know what that has to do with people giving human characterisitcs to a company though.


Hint: Jack shit. :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> antmanb said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not what we're talking about - we were talking about whether you can assign human characteristics to a company. Most feel you can, you feel you can't. You said the company isn't a person, I said it is. You then said that you can't apply human morals/ethics to a company, and most people except you thought they could. Now you seem to be saying that a company isn't bound by the same laws and individuals and I would partly agree, but only with reference to some criminal offences, for everything else they are bound by idenctical, or similar laws that make it workable for a company (and in some cases are subject to more stringent rules than individuals). I don't know what that has to do with people giving human characterisitcs to a company though.
> ...


Yeah, i wasn't totally sure why Antmanb brought up the legal thing either.


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

GEM said:


> triplefan said:
> 
> 
> > Whereas "Today I......Drove 5 miles to the station" was a classic :roll:
> ...


LOL he's got you there John 

Charlie


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

triplefan said:


> Whereas "Today I......Drove 5 miles to the station" was a classic :roll:


5 miles is better than nothing! Drove my mk1 today for the first time in a fortnight.


----------



## triplefan (Sep 3, 2008)

JNmercury00 said:


> triplefan said:
> 
> 
> > Whereas "Today I......Drove 5 miles to the station" was a classic :roll:
> ...


Pah, at least yours is on the drive, mines in the bodyshop for 3 weeks now while I argue with the insurance twats about whether my mods were declared :evil:


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

triplefan said:


> JNmercury00 said:
> 
> 
> > triplefan said:
> ...


Oh dear!

What are they quarellngnover?


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Perhaps they're quarrelling about Apple being a bunch o'power-crazy cocks too.

In fresh Apple patent news, this just in: a new patent has been filed - the ability to kill a device as soon as unauthorized usage is detected by any number of means. What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/20 ... ak_patent/

Remember, it's not your phone. I know you think you "bought" it, but you didn't. Apple are just lending it to you, and it's theirs. Not yours. Welcome to the pleasuredome. :mrgreen:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

:lol: Good old Apple.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)




----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

drjam said:


>


:lol: :lol:

How do you know if your friend has an iPhone??

He tells you. :lol:

(I've got an iphone by the way)


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

:lol: :lol: Quality Dilbert!


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

It's all gone a bit quiet on the news front, but thankfully the dearth has been spared by some more news worthy of contempt! 

Not content with going after anything starting with "i", and anything with a sense of humour that could never EVER be mistaken for a crApple product (http://www.reghardware.com/2010/07/22/ipood), Apple have now presented an 873 page filing against use of the word "pod". 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/apple_pod_row/

This from the company that took the iPad name regardless of anyone else's use/ownership of it. And iPhone too, didn't they? Hell they even went after "Podium". Perhaps a little pronounciation guide might help Skeletor's lawyers on that one. Apparently Star Wars Episode 1 is to be rewritten so that the racing takes part in Jet Sleds (TM). :roll:

How long before this company gets asked, oops, forced, to rebrand itself? 
http://www.thepodcompany.co.uk/ ...and they don't sell a single Apple product, which is a bonus, so please support them and use them for all your gift-buying needs :wink: :lol:

In other news, the European Commission has decided not to persue competition charges against Apple, because they very generously decided that it shouldn't matter where you bought your device if you have an issue with it under warranty. Mighty kind of you Apple. :roll: Though you're forced to buy software and content from their shop, whilst Microsoft were forced to give users a choice of browser.


----------

