Electric Guitars

[steve_man]

---

Floyd Rosenbomb wrote:

---

steve_man wrote:
Not really sure what your point is. The very article you posted is talking about Apple's OWN report of 400 suppliers, and what they are doing about it. At least they seem to care.

---

My point was pretty straight forward actually.  Between Foxcon having to place suicide nets around their factory to keep workers from dieing when they leap off the building, to children being used to make the things, it simply is not a product I would choose to own.  To each their own.

---

I would imagine that if we looked into the manufacturing of most of the products we buy...we'd find the same issues are rampant in China.  Not excusing this, just saying...

[Floyd Rosenbomb]

---

steve_man wrote:

---

Floyd Rosenbomb wrote:

---

steve_man wrote:
Not really sure what your point is. The very article you posted is I would imagine that if we looked into the manufacturing of most of the products we buy...we'd find the same issues are rampant in China.  Not excusing this, just saying...

---

---

 Ok this quote thing does kind of suck.  It killed my reply and I'm not retypeing it! 

[jrockbridge]

---

Floyd Rosenbomb wrote:

If you care about how things are made, you might consider Apples child labor problem,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supply

---

The US went through a similar period in our labor history.  Hopefully, as China continues to grow as a nation, they will continue to reform and improve working conditions.      

If everyone stopped buying Apple products, those factory workers would become jobless.  Without jobs, they would sink lower into poverty.  If they sink lower into poverty, they'll face starvation.  So, I'm not convinced boycotting Apple products is the answer.

[Floyd Rosenbomb]

---

jrockbridge wrote:

---

Floyd Rosenbomb wrote:

If you care about how things are made, you might consider Apples child labor problem,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supply

---

The US went through a similar period in our labor history.  Hopefully, as China continues to grow as a nation, they will continue to reform and improve working conditions.      

If everyone stopped buying Apple products, those factory workers would become jobless.  Without jobs, they would sink lower into poverty.  If they sink lower into poverty, they'll face starvation.  So, I'm not convinced boycotting Apple products is the answer.

---

There are assumptions in your argument.  For one, that working in a city factory as a slave is better then living in the country as a poor peasant.   But at any rate, I'll choose not to own one.

[Ancient Mariner]

For those concerned about battery life, look at Motorola. My Razr i arrives tomorrow, and I expect to get more than the 4-5 days my HTC desire currently does. I'd considered an iPhone 4S, but don't want to use iTunes every time i want to transfer data around.

[Cloudguitar]

"These are the people who took the GUI from Xerox PARC, and then sued Microsoft for doing the same. They continue to do exactly the same stuff today."

Wrong.  Apple gave Xerox a bunch of pre IPO stock in return for being able to use ideas they gathered from PARC.  They had ideas of how the IP could be used in new and useful ways for home computers at a time when Xerox was making high-end systems that not many people wanted, despite some really innovative features.  Xerox got paid.

Pre-Apple, home computers used a command line interface.  Post-Apple, they all went to a GUI.  Microsoft saw what Apple did and then instead of either paying Apple or Xerox, simply stole the ideas.

Apple also invented or paid for a lot of technology that went into creating what now seems a ubiquitous standard for mobile smart devices...and then Adroid did the same as Microsoft.  Pre-Apple, you had to have a keyboard and/or a stylus.  Post Apple, it's all fingered touch screens using essential duplicates of Apple designed user interface.

That's not to say that Apple has never borrowed small ideas of others without proper credit - just that it's really not logical to compare them as doing "the same" as Microsoft of Google when neither player really came up with anything significantly new and just did a wholesale cloning after realizing that the technology they came up with wouldn't be able to compete with Apple's superior efforts.

[jrockbridge]

Innovation does not happen through original ideas.  Innovation happens by combining existing ideas in new ways.  For example, the original iPhone was created entirely from existing technology based upon an operating system that had been around for decades.

Also, lots of people seem to think that Apple invented the tablet computer.  Not true. In reality, the first computer to use a tablet as an input device rather than keyboard was created in 1956.  And, there are many technologies and inventions throughout history that contributed along the way.  

There were multiple companies that developed tablet computers in the 80's.  Pencept, Communications Intelligence Corporation, and Linus were the best known.

Apple started a tablet project in 1987 and eventually released the Newton in 1993.  Meanwhile, many other  companies demonstrated prototypes within those same years but those did not make it into production.  

Microsoft came up with the Microsoft Tablet PC in 2000.  It had it's own version of a Windows OS but it failed to gain popularity.  

It wasn't until the release of the iPad in 2010 that many decades of tablet development by multiple companies finally paid off.  But, people don't know all this tablet history.  So, most people think the original iPad was a completely original idea, when the reality is that the iPad was a very innovative product created using many decades of existing ideas.

  

[Cloudguitar]

"So, most people think the original iPad was a completely original idea, when the reality is that the iPad was a very innovative product created using many decades of existing ideas."

True.  As you stated, most "innovation" happens because someone figures out new ways to use old ideas.  That's what Apple has done over and over.  They looked at a problem and figured out a solution using various existing technologies bundeled in unique ways that solved problems.  That doesn't mean that these new ideas shouldn't be protected.  It still has required lots of time, effort and smarts to achieve.  If there wasn't an inherent value to the effort Apple made, Google and Microsoft wouldn't constantly be biting their ways of doing things.

People who become bitter because Apple doesn't want to invest their resources to fund the R&D of other companies are very short sighted, IMO

[jrockbridge]

Cloudguitar wrote:

 .....Apple gave Xerox a bunch of pre IPO stock in return for being able to use ideas they gathered from PARC.  They had ideas of how the IP could be used in new and useful ways for home computers at a time when Xerox was making high-end systems that not many people wanted, despite some really innovative features.  Xerox got paid....

---

Steve Jobs paid for a demo of the Xerox prototype GUI computer.  There was no agreement that Apple could use the technology on their computers.  In fact, the Xerox woman who was told to give Steve a demo of the prototype refused to do the demo unless the execs put it in writing that she was ordered to do the demo.  She knew the Xerox execs were giving away the farm and didn't want to get the blame.

When Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft claiming they stole the look and feel of the Lisa/Mac, Xerox filed a similar lawsuit against Apple regarding the Xerox Parc prototype.  Xerox figured if Apple won their case against MS, Xerox should be able to win against Apple based on the same principles.  But, Apple lost their case, so Xerox dropped their lawsuit.

Apples brilliance was bringing the GUI computer to the common consumer.  Xerox saw the computer as a business tool.  Steve visualized the personal computer as a household appliance.    

[Cloudguitar]

"Steve Jobs paid for a demo of the Xerox prototype GUI computer.  There was no agreement that Apple could use the technology on their computers."

Right.  Apple paid Xerox 1 million dollars worth of stock for just a "demo."  Gotcha.  Why would anyone pay such a grand sum for just a "demo?"  Oh yeah, it was a demo by the computer engineers who also explained how it all worked.  So, not just a "demo," but rather an instructional lesson on how to develop GUI's.  They never had to sign any kind of non-disclosure, non-compete or any other type of agreement in order to learn how Xerox had figured out the technical kinks to work it all out.

Besides, most of the stuff they were doing at PARC Apple was already working on.  They just hadn't yet figured out HOW to do it right. The mouse that Apple developed was nothing like the one at PARC, or the one that inspired PARC they they'd seen quite some time before designed by Doug Engelhart.

"In fact, the Xerox woman who was told to give Steve a demo of the prototype refused to do the demo unless the execs put it in writing that she was ordered to do the demo."

The person who was told to give them the demo was Larry Tesler, I believe.

" But, Apple lost their case, so Xerox dropped their lawsuit."

Nope.  It was thrown out.

[steve_man]

---

Ancient Mariner wrote:
For those concerned about battery life, look at Motorola. My Razr i arrives tomorrow, and I expect to get more than the 4-5 days my HTC desire currently does. I'd considered an iPhone 4S, but don't want to use iTunes every time i want to transfer data around.

---

Nope...they do not do the Razr on AT&T, and I refuse to ever go back to Verizon.

[jrockbridge]

---

Cloudguitar wrote:

"Steve Jobs paid for a demo of the Xerox prototype GUI computer.  There was no agreement that Apple could use the technology on their computers."

Right.  Apple paid Xerox 1 million dollars worth of stock for just a "demo."  Gotcha.  Why would anyone pay such a grand sum for just a "demo?"  Oh yeah, it was a demo by the computer engineers who also explained how it all worked.  So, not just a "demo," but rather an instructional lesson on how to develop GUI's.  They never had to sign any kind of non-disclosure, non-compete or any other type of agreement in order to learn how Xerox had figured out the technical kinks to work it all out.

Besides, most of the stuff they were doing at PARC Apple was already working on.  They just hadn't yet figured out HOW to do it right. The mouse that Apple developed was nothing like the one at PARC, or the one that inspired PARC they they'd seen quite some time before designed by Doug Engelhart.

"In fact, the Xerox woman who was told to give Steve a demo of the prototype refused to do the demo unless the execs put it in writing that she was ordered to do the demo."

The person who was told to give them the demo was Larry Tesler, I believe.

" But, Apple lost their case, so Xerox dropped their lawsuit."

Nope.  It was thrown out.

---

Ok.  The case was thrown out, not lost.  The point is that Apple had no case against MS...and Xerox had no case against Apple.

Regarding the Parc visits, Xerox was given the right to buy one million in pre-IPO stock from Apple.  In exchange, Xerox granted Jobs 3 days access to Parc.

Some more recent articles downplay the Parc demos as not all that significant.  I notice those stories seem to leave out the woman I mentioned.  And, three days is a pretty long period of time to go over information.  Also, it's interesting that Larry Tesler jumped ship from Xerox to Apple just a few short months after those demos took place.  

I could not recall the woman's name (Adele Goldberg) but I found her.  Here's some of her info from Wikipedia...  

"According to Goldberg, Steve Jobs demanded a demonstration of the Smalltalk System, which she refused to give him. Her superiors eventually ordered her to, at which point she complied, satisfied that the decision to "give away the kitchen sink" to Jobs and his team was then their responsibility.[3] Apple eventually used many of the ideas in the Alto and their implementations as the basis for their Macintosh desktop."   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_Goldberg_(computer_scientist)

[diceman1000]

Well, steering as how I have absolutely boo intention of my phone add an amp or processor and turf fact that I lover to tweak and customize... Oh, not to mention the plethora of free apps... I'll stick with my android... The iPhone is great of you want something that just works and, literally, never changes... But, if you like individuality Atty all, Android I'd where it's at...

[LeftyTom]

Apple...the new Microsoft. 

[jrockbridge]

---

diceman1000 wrote:
Well, steering as how I have absolutely boo intention of my phone add an amp or processor and turf fact that I lover to tweak and customize... Oh, not to mention the plethora of free apps... I'll stick with my android... The iPhone is great of you want something that just works and, literally, never changes... But, if you like individuality Atty all, Android I'd where it's at...

---

The iPhone hardware and iOS have improved quite a bit over the years.  The basic look and feel have remained the same.  By the way, there are lots of free apps on iPhone as well, they just aren't all free.

Droid is all over the map depending on the model.  The high end Droid phones are very powerful.  The low end Droid phones, not so much.  It's that lack of universal capabilities across the entire platform that is keeping Droid down.   

[diceman1000]

That's the thing though, even an entry level Android device can be made badass with the right level of customization...

And, for the record, Droid is a designated phone model that pertains to Motorola and HTC... Android is an OS, it drives me nuts when people refer to any phone running Android as a Droid...

[diceman1000]

Pooh, and I really don't think anything is keeping android down, IIRC, the GS2 and the GS3 were the to two devices of 2012...

[diceman1000]

That's supposed to say oh, not pooh dam not...

[w00dsy]

---

diceman1000 wrote:
Well, steering as how I have absolutely boo intention of my phone add an amp or processor and turf fact that I lover to tweak and customize... Oh, not to mention the plethora of free apps... I'll stick with my android... The iPhone is great of you want something that just works and, literally, never changes... But, if you like individuality Atty all, Android I'd where it's at...

---

i'm guessing the android spell checker may need work

[jrockbridge]

---

diceman1000 wrote:
That's the thing though, even an entry level Android device can be made badass with the right level of customization...

And, for the record, Droid is a designated phone model that pertains to Motorola and HTC... Android is an OS, it drives me nuts when people refer to any phone running Android as a Droid...

---

Ok.  What I really meant to say is that iOS is easy to develop for because there are a small number of different hardware configurations in production.  By contrast, Android covers a larger variety of different hardware configurations.  That's why Android is a developer's nightmare.

The reason Steve (OP) switched back to iPhone is because of the musician oriented apps.  For musicians who care about those type of phone apps, it's important to know that most of those apps are going to remain exclusive to iOS right now.  It's partly to do with what I exaplained in the paragraph above.

This is not meant as a slag of Android or devices that run that OS.  This is simply the current situation.  

Certainly, not every musician cares about those type of apps.  But, it's helpful to know.  From many of the comments I've read around the web, plenty of musicians assume these type of apps are going to be available on Android phones.  But. that's not the case.

Here's one specific example.  Zoom released a new stomp box a few months back, the MS100BT which is a multi-fx unit.  It has 100 fx included in one small pedal.  If you have an iOS device, you can buy and load extra fx via Blue Tooth.  So, for example, there's a model of the Klon Centaur pedal available for 99 cents..