Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Aug 2012 10:28 UTC
Permalink for comment 532486
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-25
This case and its unfortunate verdict goes right to the heart of this very problem, and I do agree with Thom that the long-term results are likely to be quite harmful to the tech world and the consumers it 'claims' to serves.
+100
Although I do think it was revolutionary and innovative, just not as far as the underlying technology goes. It was revolutionary and innovative in its design tradeoffs:
1. Users will accept 5-15 hours of battery life on a phone, even though many devices of the day easily doubled that.
2. Users will accept a non-replaceable battery if it can survive long enough.
3. Focus on consumers, not business. Get to the business market through the bottom, not the top.
etc. etc. Most geeks don't think this stuff matters much. I do. I think that is actually what makes Apple special - they don't make design tradeoffs lightly. They think about them very hard and when they decide to make them, they commit to them. Hard.
But none of this changes your overall point. I think you are right on with that.
Edited 2012-08-26 21:23 UTC