Please…stop talking up the unicorn iWatch already!

This is what the CEO of Swatch, the largest swiss watch maker, had to say yesterday:

…”consumers buy watches as a fashion item and prefer versatility…”

Seriously, stop thinking like a geek (the 0.01%), and more like a consumer. Nobody wants a watch that needs to be charged daily, that looks the same every day, and that interrupts all kinds of situations with alerts. It’s not happening.

Findings of fact, and matters of law in Apple v. Samsung @reckless

I can’t believe how much bullshit is being written after the first round of the trial and the verdict, and I really can’t believe that the people on the most recent Vergecast completely failed to mention this.

Some say “it doesn’t matter”, some say Samsung will win the appeal, some say even crazier stuff, but here’s what’s really happening, via, brace yourself, Android Police:

As for the whole appeals thing? Don’t let anyone tell you that “the verdict doesn’t matter.” They’re wrong. The verdict matters hugely. The jury decided that Samsung infringed and diluted, and those are findings of fact. An appeals court cannot overturn findings of fact unless “no reasonable jury” could have arrived at those conclusions. I’ll tell you right now: that’s not going to happen (it is exceedingly rare).
What Samsung can appeal are matters of law. These include findings on the validity of patents and protectability (like validity) of trade dress. Samsung will certainly appeal these issues, but the jury already decided that Apple’s patents were valid, and its trade dress protectable. Appellate judges are rarely keen to argue with a jury’s findings. And frankly, don’t get your hopes up here, either, especially on the patents. Apple’s D’677 patent has already survived the scrutiny of Judge Koh as having no “reasonable likelihood” of invalidity.
Samsung can also appeal some issues related to damages (such as how they’re calculated), but that’s getting into a fairly complex area of the law. As for excluded evidence, Samsung can appeal Judge Koh’s refusal to include testimony or evidence, but that is decided as a matter of abuse of judicial discretion – an extremely high bar to meet. Samsung would have to prove Judge Koh failed in her duties as a judge, and that no reasonable judge could have come to the decision she did. Much like invalidating a jury verdict, this is a long-shot at best.
Suffice to say, Samsung’s appeals docket will probably be pretty long. How much good will it do? Considering the parties haven’t settled by now (and Samsung won on zero counts), it’s unlikely Apple will be interested in compromising in exchange for Samsung foregoing an appeal. At this point, they’re in it to hurt Samsung, as they’ve made clear.

Android Police article Here’s the whole article. Good read.

Thoughts on iTV….

Apple will not release a TV set, because they are essentially a hardware manufacturer who provides content to make the hardware appealing to the masses. Apple makes about 6% of it’s money from the various stores – barely breaking even. Almost 94% come from hardware sales…re-occuring hardware sales. TVs are not bought every year, or even every other year, ergo there’s no money to be made. Sony recently said that they loose money on every TV they sell. I doubt any other maker of TVs fares any better.
Apple already has their Apple TV “hobby” on the market, which will be upgraded this year.
Upgrades will include, among others:
– 1080p
– Siri via an iPhone, iPod Touch,, iPad, and possibly a new remote.
– A la carte channels
The first two pretty much explain themselves, with th new remote control being the wildcard.
What I mean by “a la carte” channels: Imagine you could _build_ your own TV channel – with just the shows you want. That’s what I mean by that.
I’m thinking it will be three different models for the TV channel subscription:
1. 19,99.- for up to three shows / month, plus two movies.
2. 29,99.- for up to five shows / month, plus four movies.
3. 59,99.- unlimited shows and movies / month.
Something along those lines. What do you think? Talk back in the comments if you feel inclined.

Steve Jobs. 1955 – 2011.

Here’s to the Crazy One.

The misfit. The rebel. The troublemaker. The round peg in the square hole.

The One Who Saw Things Differently.

He wasn’t fond of rules. And he had no respect for the status quo.

You can quote him, disagree with him, glorify or vilify him. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore him. Because he changed things.

He pushed the human race forward. And while some may have seen him as the crazy one, we saw genius.

Because the man who was crazy enough to think he could change the world, was the one who did.