Snit really takes Roy Schestowitz down a few pegs in this little
exchange. Well it's not really an exchange because Roy Schestowitz
ran away from the facts. Just like he always does. Roy Schestowitz
prefers to preach his FUD to the anointed ones in his cult. He
doesn't get challenged for facts from them so anything he says is
simply accepted, no matter how untrue.
Notice Snit uses Roy's own words to expose the slimy bastard, Roy
This is scathing!
Funny this claim of yours comes out as Apple gains a huge win for
open standards (Adobe dropping Flash mobile). Apple did more for
this than the whole of the open source world. Not a word of this
Now let us look at your FUD:
APPLE increasingly became a threat to freedom not because it is
¡§successful¡¨ but because it is aggressive. It¡¦s Apple that started
Roy, you already spoke of your ¡§envy¡¨ of Apple. One does not envy
aggression; one envies success. Let us not pretend otherwise.
Then you claim Apple started aggression by banning Android devices.
This is a lie ¡V Apple has no such power. The courts do. The courts
banned Android devices. And they did so because they agreed with
Apple that Android was the one who started the ¡§war¡¨. They broke the
law to copy Apple.
Now you note there are those who are pushing the war by going
against the law *again*.
Apple has made a real mess in Australia where it opted for
litigation rather than fair competition.
Apple opted for litigation as a response to unfair competition.
Remember, it has already been shown that Samsung was copying Apple
far more than just being inspired by them. This is not something
that anyone has been able to refute:
Add to that, you claim that Apple is not competing well. OK, so what
product is earning higher user satisfaction ratings? What product is
earning the company that makes it more money? The answer to both:
none. Apple is winning on *both* metrics ¡V better for consumers and
better for the company making it. So what makes you think Apple is
not competing well when they are winning in the two most important
Google¡¦s Schmidt says that Android ¡§started before the iPhone
effort¡¨ ¡X a point that we saw earlier and elsewhere before.
How is this even relevant? Early versions of Android were nothing
like modern ones¡K nor like iOS.
Apple ¡X like Microsoft ¡X pretends to be a victim by using words
like ¡§steal¡¨ and pointing to cases like this new one. But Apple is
not a victim, Apple started the war on Android not because it felt
unfairly treated by the patent system.
You keep saying this but never supporting it. Again, the data is
above: it is clear Samsung, at least, was copying Apple *massively*
(far more than just being inspired by a competing product). You
claim Apple started this was even though the data shows otherwise.
So why don¡¦t you at least *try* to show where the data that has been
presented to you is wrong? Why not try to support your claim?