MayorBloomberg

I’ve got that one too. It’s pretty great.

The problem with your argument and the arguments of others is the use of the word “consumer.” It presumes that there are only two sides to this issue: the sellers of content and the buyers. What makes this case complex and somewhat ironic is that the “consumers” change depending on the point of view. When discussing Amazon vs the publishers, Amazon is actually the consumer, occupying a virtual monopsony position. The relationship between publishers and you and I are secondary, as publishers don’t actually sell anything to us. The problem with the current e-book situation is that there weren’t enough buyers on the market; Apple represents another major buyer. It’s actually the flipside of a monopoly, and again, the reason why this case is so tricky.

while Apple has created an eBook market, publishers have just shifted.

False. Amazon is still far and away the leader in the e-book space, for a variety of reasons.

However, because Amazon capitulated Apple essentially lost out here since Kindle remains the #1 platform for eBooks and iBookstore is still short on titles and selling much fewer copies than Amazon’s Kindle store.

It’s unlikely that Apple’s moves were done with the thought that Amazon would not capitulate; in fact, it’s likely that Apple expected Amazon would have no choice but to go along with the agency model. If Amazon had not capitulated, publishers would have likely caved and gone back to the wholesale model, as Amazon remains (to their chagrin) a/the major outlet of sales.

I always find it amusing that people think a $200 tablet won’t actually look like a $200 tablet.

So this uses a lot of the secret sauce that’s inside Tegra 3 to allow you to develop a tablet at a much lower cost, by using a lot of innovation that we’ve developed to reduce the power that’s used by the display and use lower cost components within the tablet.

They’re going to help developers create cheaper tablets by stuffing them with cheaper parts. Brilliant.

Twitter sharing is not patentable, Google did not invent wireless syncing, etc, etc.

They would lose all Google services and have no Google Play access, Turn by Turn navigation and countless other services.

None of these are services they couldn’t replicate on their own or pay for through 3rd parties (in the case of maps). They would lose Google Play, but they could try to do what Amazon did and open up their own app store. Given their dominance over other Android OEMs, they could get developers to agree to put their Android apps in their Samsung store pretty easily. Maps is literally the only tricky aspect to forking Android.

That’s pretty small compared to the experience on my iPad. It’s all relative.

I’m going to assume you’re being sarcastic here.

You get what you pay for, after all.

No, but a mass litigation from Android OEMs should do the trick

A mass litigation of what? Again, you seem to be under the impression that business is conducted like a street fight. Suits that are brought to court out of simple spite are tossed out without effort. There has to be some legal argument.

honestly, whats wrong with building on a pre-existing idea or implementing it in a different way?

There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how innovation works. The various lawsuits from and against Apple (and yes, remember, Apple is being sued as much, if not more, than it is suing others) are trying to address the question of whether various technological implementations are merely imitating protected solutions, or creating new solutions. The reason HTC lost this particular court battle is because the court found that HTC was not, in fact, building on a pre-existing idea, but simply regurgitating it.

Apple sucks at naming things

Which tech company do you feel does a better job?

Or maybe it was never part of the plan in the first place? What happened to that tactile feedback technology that was supposed to be in the latest iPad?

Who are they going to “back up?” You seem to be under the impression they’re going to get in a fist-fight in front of the pub.

If you could prove that, you could invalidate Apple’s patent (assuming Apple didn’t buy the patent from another company). If HTC could prove the existence of this functionality in smartphones before Apple did it, they would have won their case.

I’m hopeful it will be updated in the future, but is it really that hard to use a different icon specific to the platform?

The effort will match the reward.

From the looks of it, iOS Maps doesn’t look like it’ll have Street View, bike/hike trails, or live traffic updates. Not to mention turn-by-turn navigation, which is an Android exclusive.

From the looks of it? From the looks of what? We’re talking about a rumor that doesn’t carry any verifiable evidence. You can’t say a hypothetical product will lack a feature until you’ve actually, you know, seen it. The only thing that feels like less than a guess is that Apple would like to move away from Google Maps at some point. When that will be and what that will look like is 100% speculative.

It’s also less likely that one who really needs to install this on multiple machines is doing this kind of work on OS X and Windows.

That’s not what that quote means. The quote, which is from Picasso, is about the way great artists transform existing ideas into something new. “Copying” is simply imitation, “stealing” is making the idea yours through transformation.

Sony Mobile? From one failing company to another? I’m sure this will go well.

They should have just hired the team that came up with the Microsoft Kin.