That’s all…really…I mean everything else is speculation.
It’s the talk of the town right now: A jury has decided that Google didn’t infringe on Oracle’s Java patents.
Big win for open source, right?
Nope. Why? I’m glad you asked!
Here’s the thing: Can a layman jury really, I mean really, decide on this?
This is a highly technical matter, one which most engineers will have a tough time sifting through, and we expect a bunch of people, randomly picked off the street, to decide such an issue? Really?
I think Google lucked out BIG TIME here.
I like ZDNet’s Steven Shaw’s take on this issue very much. Please read it. It makes sense, unlike the decision handed down by this jury.
Google may have prevailed, but fundamentally it seems reasonable for the owner of Java to expect to profit when others profit from Java.
No big surprise there. Tim Cook and his south-korean counterpart met for two days of talks this week in San Francisco, but failed to reach an agreement.
The dispute is headed for a trial in late June.
It’s important to point out that Apple has yet to lose a single infringement claim brought forth by Samsung, so it will be interesting to see if this will remain the case.
It’s also worth pointing out that Tim Cook was recently quoted that he’d “rather settle than battle”, so it stands to reason that Samsung’s demands were just too lofty.
The daily and stubborn reality for everybody building businesses on the strength of Web advertising is that the value of digital ads decreases every quarter, a consequence of their simultaneous ineffectiveness and efficiency. The nature of people’s behavior on the Web and of how they interact with advertising, as well as the character of those ads themselves and their inability to command real attention, has meant a marked decline in advertising’s impact.
Read the whole thing – recommended reading.
Over at ZDNet, Zack Whittaker is trolling Apple for antivirus firm Kaspersky, nonetheless.
Yep, you read that right: Kaspersky, having been caught lying about Apple before, is bitching about being denied to write antivirus software for iOS.
Think about that: A company that makes it’s living writing software to protect your computing device calls iOS/OS X unsafe. I wonder why?
Also, just for shits and giggles: Kaspersky’s Flashback removal tool failed hard.
Read it if you must at the above link.
9to5mac posted yesterday, that Apple is in fact testing 4″ iPhones right now:
Right now we know of a few next-generation iPhone candidates in testing. These prototype phones are floating around Apple HQ in thick, locked shells in order to disguise the exterior design to “undisclosed” employees. We know of two next-generation iPhones in testing with a larger display: the iPhone 5,1 and iPhone 5,2. These phones are in the PreEVT stage of development and are codenamed N41AP (5,1) and N42AP (5,2).
Both of these phones sport a new, larger display that is 3.999 inches diagonally. Apple will not just increase the size of the display and leave the current resolution, but will actually be adding pixels to the display. The new iPhone display resolution will be 640 x 1136. That’s an extra 176 pixels longer of a display. The screen will be the same 1.9632 inches wide, but will grow to 3.484 inches tall. This new resolution is very close to a 16:9 screen ratio, so this means that 16:9 videos can play full screen at their native aspect ratio.
Daring Fireball’s John Gruber seems to agree, that this is going to happen – which makes it an almost certainty.
What I’ve heard from a couple of little birdies is only that Apple has been noodling with increasing the height of the display, keeping the width and pixel density exactly the same as on the iPhone 4 and 4S. I had not heard an exact pixel number for the new height. 1152 made some sense, but doing some math after reading Weintraub’s report, 1136 makes a lot of sense.
Mathematically this makes sense, but how about UX?
I really hope this isn’t true. 3:2 works really well for iOS devices right now. 16:9, which is the ratio Apple would go to if this turns out to be true, isn’t good for anything but HD video.
How many times do you watch full HD video on your phone? Seriously.
Also keep in mind that lots of content is being shown in 4:3 or other ratios that would still give you those nasty black bars.
I get why you would want more screen real estate on a smartphone. I recently tried a friend’s Galaxy Nexus with it’s 4,3″ screen and it was very nice having a larger screen, but the Nexus also has a wider screen and that makes all the difference. Just stretching the screen, the way it is mentioned in these articles, just doesn’t make sense to me.
I guess most apps wouldn’t be affected too much, but apps that can’t be “stretched” by default, like games, would look horrible. The same goes for books and magazines. I really can’t see Apple doing this to their developers. Maybe the iOS 6 beta, most likely to be introduced during WWDC on June, 11th, will give us some clues as to what Apple is planning.
In the meantime I suggest you read Jesus Diaz’ article at Gizmodo. I fully agree with him, and even though I know that Gruber is well-connected, I call bullshit on a 1136×640 iPhone.
In the latest installment of scary stuff from Mountain View:
Yeah, not scary at all.
I thought about this for a while, and I came to the conclusion that I don’t have much to say about it, so here goes:
– Facebook is the predominant social network of our time
– They don’t make nearly enough money, knowing what they know about us
– I enjoy using it, but this will stop as soon as they try to charge me
– I will never trust Facebook with my financial data, or really private stuff
– I fail to see the business model, long term
I was wrong about Siri, and the a la carte channels, for now, but this is what an Apple TV will look like sometime down the road.
Nonetheless, my main point stands: Apple doesn’t enter low margin markets.