It looks like it's not actually a design community, contrary to what the title here says. They say on their site: "Search by tag(s) through many tutorials, tools, and assets for developers and designers"
Then they have postings on things such as Vim and programming tutorials.
All told, covers a pretty broad base with some interesting stuff - ColorHexa[1] immediately stuck out to me.
While I would obviously prefer to see no patent lawsuits, Motorola's lawsuit here is very different from Apple's against Samsung.
Apple refuses to license their patents - Samsung et. al. went to Apple and said "won't you please allow us to pay you to use your technology?" to which Apple emphatically answered "NO!". Here, Apple is using Motorola's technology and Motorola said "Apple, will you please pay us if you're going to use our technology?" and Apple's reply was the same: "NO!"
Apple is essentially doing the same thing that they're accusing Samsung of, except that Samsung really wanted to pay Apple, whereas Apple emphatically does not want to pay Motorola.
That's what people said about Apple/Samsung until the trial reviled Apple did offer licensing terms which Samsung rejected. We have no way of knowing if Apple offered similar licensing terms to Motorola.
Actually, prior documents released from Motorola and Apple show that Motorola wanted 2.25% of Apple's revenue for its patents[1] - on a $500 device, that's $1.50. Apple rejected those terms. Compare that to Apple's demand of $40/device from Samsung - it's not favorable.
.. and that makes up a pretty hefty hit on the bottom line. A 2.25% drop in revenue could very well cause a >10% drop in profits, even with Apple's large margins.
I think this is an issue of FRAND vs. non-essential patents. Motorola has to license certain patents at reasonable costs. Apples design and non-essential patents have no price controls. They can ask for whatever they want. It's more similar to Microsoft's licensing deal where they get $10-$15 per handset for a handful of non-essential patents. If Apple has more of these non-essential patents that OEMs want to use $30-$40 might be the going market rate for them.
Pretty sure it was revealed recently that Apple approached Samsung and gave them the opportunity to license a bunch of stuff. That is pretty rare, Samsung refused and Apple sued.
In a sense, you're right. Apple offered to license it's tech to Samsung in 2010 for a whopping $40/device - personally, I don't think that a fee that exorbitant counts, but that's personal opinion. I thing Apple knew they were offering an untenable fee and that Samsung would have no choice but to refuse.
Apple doesn't need to support the bottom-feeders. If Samsung can't pay Apple, that means they're not making enough money on their phones.
Samsung and all Android phone makers are fighting a losing battle as long as they keep such low profit margins. It's the failure of the licensing of one common OS for all phones. Nothing distinguishes these phones enough to allow one company to raise above the rest.
Samsung and the other Android phone makers can't count on anyone's loyalty. The Android user is only interested in the freest phone, regardless who makes it. Today Samsung, tomorrow X (fill in the mark).
> Samsung and all Android phone makers are fighting a losing battle as long as they keep such low profit margins. It's the failure of the licensing of one common OS for all phones. Nothing distinguishes these phones enough to allow one company to raise above the rest.
Apple is fighting a losing battle trying to protect their exclusive, high-end slice of the smartphone world. They've already conceded the future (e.g. India, China and the rest of the developing world). Now they're just haggling over how long the present is going to last.
At the same time, patents were created as a mechanism to distort the free market in order to promote progress and innovation, not to be used as a weapon against it.
Apple's profit margins clearly demonstrate that these protections are not necessary for the kind of innovation that drives the mobile market these days.
Society doesn't need to support Apple's destructive war when it is working directly counter to the purpose of the patents used to wage it.
Perhaps it is time to force Apple to actually compete on free market terms.
You used to need to do different things for AJAX depending on browser version. My guess is that's what they're referring to. For example, older versions of Internet Explorer used "ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP")" instead of "XMLHttpRequest".
Just because I "can" do something doesn't mean I "want" to do something or that it's the best way to use my time. That's like saying that we don't need expressive function names in code because we can just refer to the documentation.
I'm trying to remember the name of the designer that tried to call out fab.com a few months ago for "stealing" his aesthetic. By aesthetic I mean he puts white Helvetica type on black.
If you read the report and not just the article headline, you'll see that Samsung's report wasn't "hey guys, we should make our phone exactly like the iPhone" but, rather, "hey guys, here's things the iPhone does better than us - we should fix that, while making sure we differentiate our product"
What makes you think I didn't read the report? In almost every page a direction for improvement is given to bring the S1 in line with the iPhone experience.
This isn't a 200 page report looking to make general improvements. It's a report looking to make improvements comparative and in line with the iPhone. Why else would they have a side by side comparison espousing the superior Apple UI/UX.
FYI for any phone fanboy's frothing at the mouth; I own neither an iPhone or a Samusung phone. I think both companies are guilty of some pretty piss poor business practices. The whole iPhone vs Android thing is reminiscent of the Sega vs Nintendo nonsense of the 90's.
I don't think I'd view book publishing as content production - a better analogy would be if they had writers on staff, writing the books, which they don't, as far as I'm aware.
I think this is the behavior most people are going to prefer. It seems like it's pretty general to use "watch" for what is now a "Star" (i.e. something you find interesting but don't want updates from) so this will probably please the most users.
I mean I totally agree. Being able to favorite something without getting updates is great. I just think that changing the default behavior (aka coming to the site one day and having nothing new in your feed) is a little bit strange.
Strange, for you. A lot of us are unfortunately leechers (and there are more of us than yours). We don't (sadly) participate in big- (or medium-) sized projects and mostly do our own stuff and thus don't really care about specific commits in Node.js, homebrew or rails. When there's a new version we're excited and will use them, but the internal and day to day operation and progress of those projects are of little interest to us.
I know they paid the highest, but how many of them were there? That's the key metric he's talking about. Was Linux 10% of Humble Bundle sales? 20%? What was it?
Eyeballing H.I.B.'s revenues by platform, they were more like 25%, which isn't bad at all.
Even though I prefer Windows (use & dev), I welcome cross-platform compatibility - more competition, more likely to be usable on future platforms, not locked out myself when I switch platforms, etc.
Then they have postings on things such as Vim and programming tutorials.
All told, covers a pretty broad base with some interesting stuff - ColorHexa[1] immediately stuck out to me.
[1]: http://www.colorhexa.com/