Steve Jobs was convinced that if he could tie his company's products together, he'd be successful in locking them into Apple's device line, according to a newly shared e-mail from the late Apple co-founder.
Jobs wrote in an e-mail to employees in October 2010 outlining his itinerary for his company's annual Top 100 meeting -- an event attended only by Apple's top 100 employees to discuss the company's future -- that his goal would be to find a way to connect his firm's products in such a way that customers would have no choice but to stay with Apple.
"Tie all of our products together, so we further lock customers into our ecosystem," Jobs wrote in a bullet list of items he wanted to discuss at Apple's 2011 Top 100 confab.
Jobs' e-mail was disclosed during opening arguments at the Apple-Samsung patent-infringement case in the US District Court in San Jose, Calif. Samsung obtained the e-mails during the Discovery phase of the trial, and promptly brought them before the jury to outline its belief that Apple's real issue is with Google and not Samsung -- a claim Apple has flatly denied.
That Jobs was eyeing ways in which he could "lock customers" into his firm's products is a double-edged sword. From an investor's perspective, keeping customers and forcing them to buy into Apple's products boosts revenue and profits. However, the practice of locking customers into products is a loaded term in the tech world that harkens back to IBM and Microsoft.
IBM was criticized for years over its practices with service agreements and warranties, stipulating that it would not support products that used non-IBM products. Microsoft has been the focus of antitrust debate for decades over Windows and Internet Explorer. Microsoft has also been criticized for its use of proprietary file formats, that some say, aim at keeping customers using its products and no others.
Apple is certainly no stranger to lock-in, either. The company has for years been criticized for its use of proprietary components and file formats, and Jobs' own desire to talk about lock-in adds more fuel to the fire.
Despite the criticism over alleged lock-in practices, they don't appear to be hurting the companies mentioned. All three firms -- Apple, IBM, and Microsoft -- are all posting huge revenue and profit figures and are showing no signs of those dropping significantly anytime soon.
CNET has contacted Apple for comment on the Steve Jobs e-mail. We will update this story when we have more information.
Apple shares are down 50 cents to $541.15 in early trading on Wednesday.
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Apple should receive about $2.191 billion in damages from Samsung for patent infringement, an expert for the iPhone maker argued Tuesday.
Apple earlier said it wanted about $2 billion, but the testimony Tuesday marked the first time the company disclosed the precise total and the factors that went into the calculation.
Christopher Vellturo, an economist and principal at consultancy Quantitative Economic Solutions, said he reached $2.191 billion figure by calculating reasonable royalties and lost sales and profits. He noted the figure comes from evaluating the scale of the infringement, the time span, the head-to-head rivalry between Apple and Samsung, and the belief that the patents were key for making Samsung devices easier to use and more attractive to buyers.
"It's a very large market, and Samsung is doing a lot of sales into that market," Vellturo said. "This was a significant period for Samsung to be infringing."
Samsung sold more than 37 million infringing devices, Vellturo said. The total amount of sales in dollars was kept confidential.
Almost two years after Apple and Samsung faced off in a messy patent dispute, the smartphone and tablet rivals have returned to the same San Jose, Calif., courtroom to argue once again over patents before federal Judge Lucy Koh. Apple is arguing that Samsung infringed on five of its patents for the iPhone, its biggest moneymaker, and that Apple is due $2 billion for that infringement. Samsung wants about $7 million from Apple for infringing two of its software patents.
While the companies are asking for damages, the case is about more than money. What's really at stake is the market for mobile devices. Apple now gets two-thirds of it sales from the iPhone and iPad, South Korea-based Samsung is the world's largest maker of smartphones, and both want to keep dominating the market. So far, Apple is ahead when it comes to litigation in the US. Samsung has been ordered to pay the company about $930 million in damages.
However, Samsung, in its cross examination, sought to poke holes in expert John Hauser's methodology. Its attorneys said features such as brand and operating system factor more prominently in consumers' purchase decisions.
Hauser, the Kirin professor of marketing at the MIT Sloan School of Management, is key to Apple's argument that it deserves about $2 billion in damages for Samsung's alleged infringement. The company argues that Samsung copied Apple's iPhone as it tried to figure out how to react and compete with the device. It realized it "simply did not have a product that could compete successfully against the iPhone," Apple attorneys said during opening arguments last week. Samsung, however, argues that many of the patented items are features Google had earlier created for Android.
Hauser surveyed hundreds of Samsung device users -- 507 for phones and 459 for tablets -- to measure the percent of consumers who would buy devices with certain features. He then used those results to determine how much people would pay for Apple's patented features.
"The features that were enabled by the patents at issue in this case have a measurable impact on consumer demand for Samsung devices," Hauser said during his testimony Tuesday.
Hauser surveyed users about Apple's patented features -- universal search, background syncing, quick links, automatic word correction, and slide-to-unlock -- as well as 21 other features such as screen size, camera, Wi-Fi, GPS, and voice-to-text. However, he didn't take into account brand, operating system, battery life, or LTE connectivity as reasons for buying a phone.
In the case, Apple and Samsung have accused each other of copying features used in their popular smartphones and tablets, and the jury will have to decide who actually infringed and how much money is due. This trial involves different patents and newer devices than the ones disputed at trial in August 2012 and in a damages retrial in November 2013. For instance, the new trial involves the iPhone 5, released in September 2012, and Samsung's Galaxy S3, which also debuted in 2012.
The latest trial kicked off last Monday with jury selection. Last Tuesday featured opening arguments and testimony by Phil Schiller, Apple's head of marketing. Other witnesses who have testified include Greg Christie, an Apple engineer who invented the slide-to-unlock iPhone feature; Thomas Deniau, a France-based Apple engineer who helped develop the company's quick link technology; and Justin Denison, chief strategy officer of Samsung Telecommunications America. Denison's testimony came via a deposition video.
Apple experts who took the stand included Andrew Cockburn, a professor of computer science and software engineering at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Todd Mowry, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University; and Alex Snoeren, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of California, San Diego.
Samsung, meanwhile, has accused Apple of infringing US patents Nos. 6,226,449 and 5,579,239. The '449 patent, which Samsung purchased from Hitachi, involves camera and folder organization functionality. The '239 patent, which Samsung also acquired, covers video transmission functionality and could have implications for Apple's use of FaceTime.There are seven patents at issue in the latest case -- five held by Apple and two by Samsung. Apple has accused Samsung of infringing US patents Nos. 5,946,647; 6,847,959; 7,761,414; 8,046,721; and 8,074,172. All relate to software features, such as "quick links" for '647, universal search for '959, background syncing for '414, slide-to-unlock for '721, and automatic word correction for '172. Overall, Apple argues that the patents enable ease of use and make a user interface more engaging.
The Samsung gadgets that Apple says infringe are the Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S II, Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy SII Skyrocket, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, and the Stratosphere. Samsung, meanwhile, says the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 4, iPad Mini, iPod Touch (fifth generation) and iPod Touch (fourth generation) all infringe.
The arguments by Apple and Samsung in the latest case are expected to last until April 29 or 30, at which time the jury will deliberate. Court will be in session three days each week -- Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays -- though the jury will deliberate every business day until it has reached a verdict.
Does this video have a fiery sky snake? You bet!Video screenshot by Michael Franco/CNETSure, drones can be used to do innocuous things like deliver pizzas or beer. But they can also be put to more sinister purposes like spying on our every move and shooting menacing laser shapes at us if they don't like where we're going.
At least, that's the dystopian vision of drones that's brought to life in the experimental short film "Dysco" by British animation director Simon Russell.
The nearly 3-minute-long video, which was just chosen as a staff pick by Vimeo, takes you into the near future where drones and cameras not only hang in the sky and from elaborate scaffolds attached to futuristic buildings, but get pretty groovy as they move in time to a heavy dubstep electronic soundtrack.
"Initially I aimed to make an abstract animation concerned only with synchronising shapes and sound,"Russell writes on his blog. "But the environments kept getting darker, influences from the real world crept in, especially the Snowdon leaks, the Arab Spring, and maybe just the fact of living in London, the most surveilled city in the world."
As the video opened, I had a sense that there was more packed into each frame than I was seeing, so I found myself hitting the pause button every few seconds. That helped me pick out details like the logo for "Freedom Fences" and the sign that reads, "CCTV For Your Protection." I also cranked up the volume, which let me pick out the robotic catch phrase, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Then, of course, there's the fiery sky snake.
But despite poring over the frames, I clearly missed even more gems that are packed into the video.
"I spent a long time detailing the world of 'Dysco,'" writes Russell. "Everything has a reason for being, for example the lampposts have solar panels and anti-climb spikes to stop interference with the cameras. The graffiti references various hacker groups and movements such as Lulsec and Anonymous. 'Freedom' or 'Resistance' is plastered on the walls in Turkish, Cantonese, and Korean. The drones and security apparatus are branded with parodies of major tech companies; FreeSec is based on the Google Chrome logo whilst Omni is a parody of Facebook."
Keep your eye out for those details and more as you check out the awesomeness of "Dysco" below. If you want to go even deeper into Russell's process, take a look at this clip that details the making of this world.
"I think there's something in my eye."NASAI always knew NASA was working on part-man, part-machine cybernauts to pilot missions to Mars and beyond. Now I have proof!
Oh, um, what's that? He's not a cybernaut? He's just a regular astronaut trying out an eyewash device in Houston? Drat!
Well, you have to admit that this photo of European Space Agency astronaut Alexander Gerst certainly does raise some eyebrows (most of all, his). It's designed to help with a pesky problem that most little kids never think about when they dream of rocketing into space -- getting a speck of dust in your eyes.
In the zero-gravity environment of the International Space Station, where Gerst will be heading on May 28 for a six-month mission, the ordinary annoyances of Earth can become big problems. According to the European Space Agency, which published this image, it's hard to get something uncomfortable out of your eye up there because you can't simply rinse it under running water, or even splash water on your face from a cupped hand.
For one, there's no running tap water on the ISS. And secondly, if there were, that stream of water would just float away like a silvery snake.
So engineers have come up with these goggles, worn here by Gerst at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, which rinse the eyes with an eyewash solution and then drain it away. It might look and sound pretty uncomfortable, but the ESA reports that Gerst assures us, "It does not feel weird, but on the contrary it is good to know that we have these items onboard."
Hmmm. That's exactly what I'd expect a cybernaut to say!
Saturn's moon Titan and its liquid lakes make for an appealing deep-space destination.NASA/Steven Hobbs
It's been nearly 45 years since humans first set foot on the moon. The futurists of that era would likely be quite disappointed to know that we still have yet to press much farther into our solar system.
Sure, we've got robots in different area codes all over Mars -- if Mars had area codes -- but it still doesn't feel quite the same as setting human eyes on alien territory. Of course, private and NASA efforts to land humans on the red planet are under way, but why stop there?
In the interests of long-term planning, I've compiled a gallery of the top 10 places in our solar system that are intriguing and -- at least theoretically -- hospitable enough for a manned visit.
Once we've surveyed all the available real estate, maybe we can start talking colonization. Click through the slideshow below for the details on the most interesting destinations in our solar system, and then start packing your great-grandchildren's bags for their trip to the Kuiper Belt.
No matter what science has to say, there are always going to be people out there with crazy theories about how everything works and how the Earth is a flat planet orbited by the sun. (We particularly like the theory that the universe is inside out.)
Usually our response is to marvel at the sheer strangeness and move on, but when "Star Trek" Captain Janeway -- as well as prominent thinkers such as Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Max Tegmark,Bernard Carr, Julian Barbour, and a whole bunch more -- appear in a documentary promotinggeocentrism (the idea that the Earth is the centre of the universe), something seems a little off.
"The Principle," it turns out, is the work of one Stellar Motion Pictures, a production company without a Web site that we could find, and headed up by one Robert Sungenis, Holocaust denier and owner of Web site Galileo Was Wrong.
And as it turns out, at least two of the people making appearances in the film say they were unaware of the film's content -- or their own involvement. Mulgrew, who narrated the film, released a statement on Facebook denying that she holds geocentric views, or that she knew what the documentary was about.
"I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism," Mulgrew wrote. "More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused."
Whether this means Mulgrew did not do her research about the content of the documentary -- a step proven vitally important by Chris Morris' excellent current affairs parody "Brass Eye"-- or was deliberately misled about the film is not clear from the statement, but she is not the only one to have stepped forward.
In a post on Slate titled "I Have No Idea How I Ended Up in That Stupid Geocentrism Documentary," Lawrence Krauss explained that his involvement, too, was involuntary.
Krauss points out that the best option when confronted with science-deniers such as Sungenis is to ignore them, but when one unethically hijacks the reputations of scientists who would normally not have anything to do with the subject in a way that could both damage those reputations and trick viewers into credulity, it's worth drawing attention to."I have no recollection of being interviewed for such a film, and of course had I known of its premise I would have refused," he said. "So, either the producers used clips of me that were in the public domain, or they bought them from other production companies that I may have given some rights to distribute my interviews to, or they may have interviewed me under false pretences, in which case I probably signed some release. I simply don't know."
"I recommend not wasting time watching it. If you haven't heard about it, as I expect most people haven't, then you are losing nothing by not knowing it," Krauss wrote. "If others bring up the film, the best thing we can do is tell them to not to waste their time or money either watching it or talking about it. Maybe then it will quickly disappear into the dustbin of history, where it belongs."
The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) announced on Thursday that it will support the revised ICC resolutions regarding the future governance structure. PHOTO: FILE
The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) announced in a statement on Thursday that after receiving assurances of international cricketing tours, including those by India, it will conditionally support the revised ICC resolutions regarding the future governance structure and financial model that was previously approved by all members except for the PCB.
This therefore ends PCB’s isolation within the international community and opens doors to international cricket. Bilateral cricket tours from 2015-23 will be conducted as well with all members of the ICC, including arch rivals India.
“We had completed the discussion, consultation and negotiation phase with regard to the revised resolutions. It was important for us to get assurances on bilateral cricket with all Boards, especially India, which we have now received,” PCB Chairman Najam Sethi announced.
“The detailed Future Tour Programs are now being finalised with all, especially India. The fact that the resolutions have been diluted considerably from when these were first presented, and are now unobjectionable encouraged us to support these,” he added.
Sethi is expected to announce further details of the ICC meetings at a press conference at Gaddafi Stadium on Friday.
Supporting Big3 equivalent to destruction of the sport
Former PCB chairman Zaka Ashraf said on Thursday that India has not accepted the Future Tour Programme for the last seven years, Express News reported.
He added that supporting the Big Three is equivalent of wanting the destruction of cricket as a sport.
The former chairperson said that all countries had already shown their preference for bilateral series.
