The Tim Cook memo: line by line - <AUTHOR> http://www.jacquesmattheij.com/tim-cook-memo-line-by-line/ <comment><USER4> I think this is an excellent occasion to relink PG's essay on Apple's behavior from 2009:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html>

Maybe Apple thinks they can afford to play bull in the china chop of developer opinion right now but I'm sure I'm not the only developer that felt a little sick to his stomach firing up Xcode today. I plan to put iOS and Apple in my rear view mirror.

<comment><USER4> I should also add that this is just the last straw for me. I've been feeling increasingly uncomfortable about Apple's policies since they (temporarily) banned all languages but Obj-C from their platform.

I've just had enough of their controlling, paternalistic attitude. It was one thing when they were the scrappy underdog but the idea that I need the OK of the richest company in the world to install software on my (mobile) computer just suddenly seems equally laughable and creepy to me.

<comment><USER5> Is your argument that because Apple is now successful, that their walled garden approach is now flawed?

I don't follow the line of reasoning there.

<comment><USER4> No it was just easy enough to dismiss it as a harmless eccentricity of a niche player. Now that they're in the driver's seat in many ways it takes on much more sinister overtones. If Apple succeeds in driving Android out of the market they will be the sole arbiter of what's allowed on the devices that mediate most users' interactions with the net.

I have no problem with curated app stores or app DRM, by the way. I just think that there has to be a way to side load apps that don't meet the censor's approval for whatever reason.

<comment><USER6> This is par for the course for Apple:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow Jacques, I usually love your posts and your comments here are valuable - but I think you are so off the mark with this post.

For starters, the reality is that Apple's revenue streams are quite diversified and their product portfolio is very strong. From iMac, to iTunes to iPods/iPhones/iPads.

So the notion that Apple would launch into litigation "just for the money" seems misguided, at the least - if only for the fact that if they lost the suit, there could be significant ramifications for their sales (e.g. an injunction against selling any of the products in the suit for X period of time, etc.). With sales and revenues growing as much as they are, a wrongly filed lawsuit can be even more risky than rewarding.

For a company as wealthy (and innovative) as Apple, there are more considerations than just protecting market share and trying to extract patent rent from competitors as a revenue stream.

There are many other companies that come out with many features in their products that Apple doesn't sue. See Windows, Safari vs Chrome, iPod vs Zune, Adobe Premiere vs Final Cut Pro, most "ultrabooks" vs Macbook Air, etc.

The issue here is that Samsung, HTC, et al. essentially have done what many companies in China have done. They acted like a hardware manufacturing partner - then using the inside knowledge they gained of the intimate architecture of the products, they reverse engineered them and competed directly.

That's like you hiring a web developer to build your startup - and both of you build it to traction, and once you take all the risk and prove the market, (s)he leaves and builds a direct competitor using his insider knowledge.

It's the most insiduous kind of 'IP stealing' that you can get.

If you had that done to you, and your ex-developer (in fact, he is still managing your codebase) is making a ton of money off of your ideas and IP in your market, I am sure you would be pissed too.

The money is just sprinkling on top.

Also, I think it is hard to argue that Apple doesn't pour their hearts into what they do. That's why they are the most valuable company on the planet and will continue to be for years to come. It's because of the rate at which they innovate.

Not the rate at which they copy.

So cut them some slack, and walk a mile in their shoes.

<comment><USER8> Really well said- for all of Jacques great posts, this opinion piece isn't well supported and doesn't go very deep considering its length.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is absurd and frustrating. Apple is not responsible for the broken patent system.

Apple is a public company. If Apple decided to hold itself to a set of standards more stringent than its competitors, it would be hampering itself and acting against the interests of its shareholders. Complain about, and work to fix, the system. Don't expect Apple to fix it by ceding the rights it currently has to its competitors. Especially when, as a company, Apple genuinely seems to believe that the blatant copying of iOS in Android is unethical.

Also, you know Samsung has filed similar suits around the world, and in no way is opting out of the patent system, right? Buying a Samsung as a fuck-you to patent law is a joke. They aren't working to fix the problem. They're just losing.

<comment><USER10> Just because you can, doesn't mean that you have to. Look at Google. That's a nice company, which keeps the patent trolling down.

<comment><USER11> Oh, so now that Google has bought Motorola, they've stopped Motorola suing Apple?

<comment><USER12> I would not be surprised if suing Apple was a pre-condition of sale for Motorola.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> But it wasn't (all) about the money. It was personal.

[http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs- biograph...](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs-biography-im- going-to-destroy-android/)

 _"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs said. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."_

With that in mind, the email reads far more genuine than the blog post implies.

<comment><USER14> It's interesting to consider what it might take for an actual war to occur.

Samsung makes up a non-trivial share of the entire South Korean economy, one fifth of the country's exports and employing roughly one of every thirty people - if overnight they were barred from selling products internationally, at what point does the state intervene?

<comment><USER15> Imagine an apple battle tank. Would it whale on a samsung tank? Or Drone? Or would Samsung need to down an apple drone then reverse engineer it before they had equality in the war?

<comment><USER16> The fact that Samsung _does_ actually manufacture killer robots makes your posting a little sad. (I know that it's not the entertainment division, but I still don't understand why no one cares about that part of Samsung.)

[http://dvice.com/archives/2006/11/samsung-creates- machinegun...](http://dvice.com/archives/2006/11/samsung-creates- machinegunning.php)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Phew. That's a little over-wrought.

Surely Apple has a responsibility to defend its patents and innovations?

We ("rabid Apple fan[s]") need a strong and successful Android to ensure some balance in this next generation of computing. We need a successful Android to keep Apple on their toes.

Google has figured out how to innovate with Android. Ice-cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean feature a unique and notable user interface.

Samsung, on the other hand, designed 'TouchWhiz' to imitate parts of the iOS look-and-feel in order to mislead customers.

<comment><USER18> "Pinch to zoom" is an innovation?

Motorola recently sued Apple, and one of the patents covers siri's audible voice prompt, so Apple will have to innovate around that. Also, media playback resume among several devices is Google's innovation. Apple will have to innovate around that. And that's just the beginning. None of them are FRAND, which means higher penalties and bans.

I agree, companies have a responsibility to defend their innovations.

<comment><USER19> Pinch to zoom was unheard of on any device (mobile or not) at the time of iPhone's launch. Not surprising considering no one had multi-touch screens either.

<comment><USER20> Multi touch and Pinch to zoom was demonstrated by Jefferson Han¹ on a TED conference before the release of the iPhone.

¹: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Han>

<comment><USER21> Although the Han ted talk is from 2006, before the iPhone but after the patent (2005).

The oldest multitouch device I know is the MERL Diamond Touch table (2001) which clearly predates everything Apple did. I am unsure whether or not somebody had implemented Pinch&Zoom on it before 2005.

In 2007 I worked on a Multitouch Table project as a student (<http://digitable.imag.fr/>). We built our own FTIR table and implemented a basic interface. We used Pinch&Zoom; I implemented it myself and I can assure you I had never seen an iPhone before. It is so obvious that when you include it in an interface you do not have to explain it to the users, they will try it naturally. If anybody using a multitouch interface tries that within 10 minutes, how can it be patented?

I wonder when Microsoft started to use it internally, too. They already had a working prototype for Surface in 2007: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEiFhD- DIlA>

<comment><USER22> Patents cover inventions of methods and processes to accomplish something-- implementations, not the idea or the feature.

Thus pinch-to-zoom as Jeff Han demonstrated it, using cameras to take pictures of your hands is not the same thing as apple doing it using software to turn noisy amorphous blobs into finger points on a capacitive touch screen.

Other people can implement pinch-to-zoom because pinch-to-zoom cannot be patented.

Both Apple and Jeff Han could have patents on their very different implementations of this same feature.

Unfortunately people really seem to believe that patents cover features, and I think this is due to the deliberate spin put on the discussions by anti-patent people.

If you disagree, try reading the pinch-to-zoom patent itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Almost every single founder would go crazy if someone copied their interface or device design in the same way. Yes the same people that are now claiming that Apple is a threat to innovation.

The jury's decision is the best thing that could've happened to the industry in the long term.

I hope we don't really need to discuss the fact that Smsg's devices and Android at least started as clones.

<comment><USER24> Exactly. I find it amazing that people suddenly start applying a different set of rules once it's about Apple.

If I was a startup founder who designed and developed the iPhone, and then saw the blatant rip-off by Samsung, I would go nuts with rage. And HN would likely rage with me. But hey, it's Apple, so no bullying, and anyone is allowed to copy whatever they do, right?

Also, I view this whole trial as "a way" for Apple to get at Samsung. Patents were a tool here, not the end goal. We all know the patent system is broken and obsolete, but since it exists, it is a tool that Apple could use. Note that no one seems to dispute that Samsung copied Apple designs, people just complain about the use of patents. I think that is a very one-sided view. Samsung blatantly copied (and continues to do so) Apple designs and they deserve to be punished — that Apple used patents is something I'd consider secondary.

<comment><USER23> It's a question of intent not of rounded corners. Smsg and Android had the clear intent to copy Apple, so there should be no discussion about their guilt.

I totally agree on your view on patents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I can't help but feel as if all of the claims made regarding "real innovation" in this post grossly undervalue the strides Apple has made in UI/UX and overall product design in favor of elevating more immediately self-evident technical advances.

The strength of Apple's innovation has always been in delivering complete, cohesive products. In that regard, user interface details and interactions which seem trivial technically are hardly trivial in terms of user experience.

As a competitive entity, there's no reason for Apple not to leverage every technique at its disposal to ensure its competitive viability - and one of these techniques is using patent litigation to prevent competitors from carbon-copying its innovations.

Moral and ethical arguments should be made with regard to the integrity of the patent system itself, not a single corporation's lawful use of that system. Decrying Apple's behavior either speaks to hopeless naiveté regarding the nature of competition, or self-congratulatory moral posturing.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think Steve said it best himself:

[http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfc...](http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfcf694a957fc9c5a8a24297e94ad.jpg)

Companies have an obligation to their shareholders and their staff to protect themselves. A lot of big companies have come out against the current Patent Laws, but at the same time are fighting tooth and nail to protect themselves because that is the current legal environment that they are operating in right now.

PS. Jacques, the "freemium" and "consulting" links on your personal website are dead links

<comment><USER27> If that's real, that's really just an example of the asinine (and petty) side of Steve Jobs I choose to forget now that he's dead.

Imagine Gabe Newell's version of that email.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like the way the patent system works, then criticise the system, but don't criticise a company for making use of it. The 800lb gorilla in the room is patent reform, not Apple. They certainly don't need the money. Given the discovery that went into this case, claims like "Apple didn't even invent it" seem rather far-fetched.

<comment><USER29> > If you don't like the way the patent system works, then criticise the > system, but don't criticise a company for making use of it

So when and how exactly are we supposed to complain? In a vacuum? When nothing bad is happening, just start writing letters about how awful the patent system is and hope somebody listens? Do you honestly think that would ever work? It's a ludicrous proposition.

If you want change, you have to illustrate why that change is needed. You do that by highlighting demonstrably problematic cases, and by showing that the parties involved are behaving in a fashion that is contrary to the public interest, yet legal, and thus changes to the laws are needed. That is how it works. If anybody thinks the patent system needs reform then this is _exactly_ when they should put their effort into complaining, and they should _absolutely_ be criticizing Apple for their actions. It is not just appropriate - it's the _only_ way change will get achieved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart.

"These are not patents on innovation, they're patents on simple ideas and features that you didn't even think of first but you were the first to patent."

Then the magical aspect of patent law called "prior art" would come into play and it wouldn't be patentable. Yet it is - and yet despite all of Samsungs insistences and millions (no doubt) spent on prior art research - nothing has been shown prior to the date of filing that anything existed. It's no different than Amazon's One-click.

It would be interesting - if you invented something, you spent ten-of- thousands on patents, you spent huge amounts of capital in developing a product - you launch it to much positive press and then someone simply copies everything you have done. You're a small business - what do you do now ? According to your article you sit back and say "oh thats totally ok because thats innovation and I'm happy that everyone has copied me and destroyed my advantage".

The problems with the patent industry are patents abused by companies who have absolutely no interest in developing them but rather trolling them to simply extract money from other companies. Hence the reason the law should be reformed to attach patentable rights to have a enforceable requirement to actually 'use' the patent - thus destroying the majority of trolls. If you dont actively use it as it is meant to be - you have nothing. The requirements and the search of prior art should be greater and longer - to ensure patents are truly innovative and this should not be the role of the courts (due to expense, time and so on within the legal system)

The entire basis of patents was essentially trying to protect the little guy, with an idea against the onslaught of bigger companies just copying them outright and giving them no chance. You state "gone are the days of Steve Wozniak" and indeed "gone would be the days of apple" long ago - because he just wanted everyone to have everything and thats not how you run any business.

I agree that patent law needs reform - but I totally disagree that your somewhat misconstrued article that we should simply destroy patents all together. It should destroy them if they are not being actively used - but a company trying to protect its innovations in not something that I'm against. If you had a startup and a patentable innovation - it would be ridiculous to assume that you would be willing to forgo millions/billions in revenue for some abstract concept of "a greater good". America is a capitalist society and therefore you are fighting that as a concept - not the patent industry. I know my post will get down-voted but it's a reality of business and running a business - you either file for protection or you don't and get copied.

<comment><USER31> Just because something makes you money doesn't mean it's inherently good or useful, and it doesn't mean it should be protected by law. Every time a company's competitors catch up to it, and every time technology makes a company's business model obsolete, they turn to the law to try to wipe the competition/technology out of existence. And, quite frankly, it's bullshit.

You're right, the entire basis of patents _was_ to protect the little guys. But nowadays the exact opposite is happening. Over the last 200 years, the big guys have wielded their influence to change the system to their benefit. And now they abuse patents to crush anything that threatens their leadership position, whether that's a little guy trying to innovate or another big guy trying to play catch up.

Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? Innovation certainly isn't any better off.

<comment><USER32> _Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? Innovation certainly isn't any better off._

You have no way of knowing whether this is true. Patents could come with a host of disadvantages and drags on innovation and _still_ be a net positive for innovation. There's just no way to know without a control group.

As long as we're throwing out opinions, I find it very hard to believe that the patent system, broken though it is, is anything other than a HUGE net positive for innovation. I'm talking about the patent system across all industries, but I suspect the same would be true for the tech industry specifically. Companies across many industries regularly spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to develop products that are primarily protected by patents. If we did away with patents, many of those investments would no longer be made, and the rest would be as shrouded in secrecy as possible. And secrecy is a patent that potentially never expires.

<comment><USER33> _I find it very hard to believe that the patent system, broken though it is, is anything other than a HUGE net positive for innovation. I'm talking about the patent system across all industries, but I suspect the same would be true for the tech industry specifically._

The Economist (hardly a bastion of the free software movement) quoted a 2008 study showing:

 _A study in 2008 found that American public companies' total profits from patents (excluding pharmaceuticals) in 1999 were about $4 billion—but that the associated litigation costs were $14 billion._ [1]

Clearly the litigation costs have grown significantly since 1999. It is unclear to me if the profits have kept pace, but even if they have that still would mean patents cost over 3-times the financial benefit they bring.

[1] <http://www.economist.com/node/21526370>

<comment><USER34> That seems intuitively wrong. $4 billion across all public companies? Apple makes more than 10 times that on its patented inventions yearly...

<comment><USER35> But how much of that revenue would they miss out on without patents, taking crosslicensing out of the picture? I suspect very little. People buy iphones for the whole product's look and feel, not for any specific feature.

It's a myth that software must be protected through patents. Copyright and trade dress law is sufficient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It´s very clear that it´s been a personal mission by Steve Jobs who felt it´s wrong.

I´m personally quite conflicted in this case: Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new.

On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed.

Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it.

For me the morale right or wrong is the following:

make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re- combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value.

copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others.

Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.

<comment><USER37> While lots of MacOS was taken from Xerox's work it wasn't't copied, it was licensed.

<comment><USER36> Right. They managed to get a licence from Xerox to the astonishment of many of the guys working in Xerox PARC.

What´s your take on the morals of this?

<comment><USER38> Uh in one case they've gotten permission and are paying to use it and in the other they're not? The morality is clear.

<comment><USER36> Sorry, my fault... What´s your take on the morals of the Samsung/Apple trial and your feelings regarding protection by software patents?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> How about simply having shorter tech patents? I feel having a patent length of 5 years would absolve these problems quickly. The tech industry moves too fast for 14 or 20 year patents...

<comment><USER40> And how about compulsory licensing after, say, 2 years, at reasonable terms, subject to arbitration and penalties for excessive demands.

The patent system needs to be fixed globally. Current international trade agreements are going in the wrong direction, driven by the USA negotiators who are ultimately driven by Disney, MPAA and so on.

The rest of te world would dearly like to see US citizens get involved - <USER2> TPP is a good place to start.

<comment><USER12> I have an idea of creating an Intellectual Property tax (similar to property taxes) based on an assessed value of the licence. You would pay yearly to maintain a patent. Or, you could enter it into the public domain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The thing you have to ask is: would apple have invented the iPhone if the patent system as it stands didn't exist? Also assuming that copyright protection, and protection against counterfeit goods was still in place.

I think the answer to that is, yes. Samsung and other companies did copy Apple just about as far as they could without actually creating a counterfeit.

Yet, that didn't stop Apple from making _billions_ of dollars. To me that is proof that in this case the patent system did nothing to foster innovation.

Take the example of pinch to zoom. If Apple knew they couldn't patent the process would they have implemented it? Of course they would have, it's a better interface (and the fact nearly every other smartphone copied it, yet they still created it proves my point).

Furthermore the purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation by rewarding inventors for not hoarding innovation with trade secrets. Could something like pinch to zoom even realistically be protected by trade secrets.

The implementation is so simple that once someone has seen it, nearly anyone could replicate it.

Patents no longer serve they purpose of disseminating knowledge. Companies aren't digging through the patent office in search of implementation details, the way it was intended to be used.

</comment><comment><USER42> I wish I could back in time and convince Steve Jobs not to do the iPhone and (Butterfly Effect style) return to present day and see what phones were like.

I'm guessing we'd be viewing the web scrolling up and down on a Blackberry's nipple :D

<comment><USER43> Unlikely that there's a difference. It wasn't Apple (or Steve Jobs Himself[tm]) that invented the capacitive touch screen and made it available in large quantities (ie. mainstream compatible).

There were prototypes at many (probably all) mobile vendors exploring the capabilities unlocked by that technology. Apple "merely" was boldest - <USER3> then they hadn't to consider how a new HCI impacts the brand, since they had no old mobile HCI that mattered.

Things might lag half a year or so due to this, but someone, somewhere would have kicked off the "touch revolution" in about the same time without Apple. Maybe even RIM or Nokia.

Funnily, Android/Google was in a similar position as Apple, in about the same time (new market to enter, knowing the old style mobile HCI and touch, having prototypes for both) - and they seemed to prefer the old style for now.

In a world without iPhone they probably would have waited for one of the big guys to introduce touch, and then followed quickly. Google wasn't as confident about pushing an unproven HCI onto users as Apple was.

<comment><USER44> Capacitive screens were already used by one terminal, I think an LG phone. But the iPhone put something different in the market: multitouch and gestures. Some things like slide to unlock or pinch to zoom seem trivial now but they weren't really product of the normal evolution of phone interfaces. Locking the screen was done with a hardware button because it was deemed safer, zoom was double tapping in the part of the image you wanted to magnify.

Had the iPhone not been introduced I doubt small little details like these would have changed at all, and there are tons of these small subtleties in the current smartphone OSs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm surprised how Apple-biased the people here is. They're clearly abusing the patent system by patenting ridiculous things. How come things like slide to unlock are considered innovation? that's been used to open laptops before Apple patented it.

</comment><comment><USER46> "Even the most rabid Apple fan can see through this and realize this is just about money. If it wouldn't be about money and control then there wouldn't be so many efforts to get injunctions and damages." - Seriously ??? Dude, A billion dollars is nothing for Apple. They probably earn more than that in a month.

If I'm not wrong, these were Steve's words to Eric Schmidt - 'I don't want your money, I don't want 5 billion $, I just don't want you to do Android, period'. So the lawsuit is definitely not about money.

</comment><comment><USER47> While many of the OP's claims seem genuinely true, it saddens me to see how mad he becomes halfway through, after rightfully assessing facts, like the obvious flaws behind some the Apple patents.

But what started as a well presented and valid argument essentially became an unresortfull, self righteous Apple-Bashing that culmulates in "But as proud as you [Tim Cook] are, as disgusted I am. [...] Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens. Your values have won, mine have lost, [...]"

</comment><comment><USER48> How can we make these threads not be like comp.sys.mac.advocacy?

<comment><USER49> Wait for ten years. If that doesn't work, twenty. In that much time, _something_ is bound to change.

(This may sound impractical, but it's the approach I'm taking. And, hey, it already worked for discussions involving Microsoft.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> There's a nice video series about why the primitive moral idea "stealing is wrong" wreaks havoc in the world of ideas:

<http://www.everythingisaremix.info/>

</comment><comment><USER51> Okay this guy wrote paragraph(s) retorting each individual line in a memo. The author is reading way too much into this. They wrote their opinion, this clearly wasn't a fact finding mission.

I'd probably give this a "C-" for poor format, unbalanced opinionated writing, and it's length (too long).

In the future, it's fine to pick a side, but make a case and defend it with research. Don't ask a series of questions in response to a memo. Questions are unconvincing at best.

"Should your kids be home before 10PM?" vs "Your kids should be home before 10PM"

Hopefully this helps the author improve their writing. I don't even have a Nokia phone, I have no phone. Maybe we'd be friends.

</comment><comment><USER52> This is total abuse of patents and copyrights! Of course, the obvious way to do things should never be patent-able in the first place!! Someone definitely needs to re-look @ how patenting works... I think the rules have obviously become archaic... and not useful anymore. Another example of this is the Indian Judiciary... completely meaningless laws and rules all over the place. A law book to govern a nation should ideally not be over 150 Pages, but now we have one which is like 5,000 pages and its completely meaningless!! Dawh!!!

</comment><comment><USER53> Software patents don't make sense, but copying something bit by bit also makes no sense. It is one thing use good ideas as inspiration and another thing to just copy something recklessly.

</comment><comment><USER54> The idea behind patents is a _sound_ one; it provides incentive to innovate by guaranteeing profits for a certain period of time. Those who don't care about profits can freely give away patents or not bother getting one!

The details are probably up for a fair debate -- 20 years of loyalty that can be trivially extended by trivial process changes (e.g. Pharma companies) is undesirable.

For the argument that someone else can come up with an idea, that is an interesting point. If you can see how something works, it is not that difficult to reverse engineer it. But, in the true spirit of innovation, the innovators should be thinking about _outdoing_ what they see. Merely copying someone else is not innovation. And, that is the case with so many software features: both genuine and trivial ones are considered equal.

If there's a way to hide the secret sauce, people would easily do that (and that was historically done for so many things like the spices etc). The only way to achieving that in modern day is to (i) manufacture each important component by self and (ii) create a product that can't be taken apart. Imagine an Iphone that can't be un-assembled without destroying it. In this context, patents would speed up innovation (see the development of alternative compression algorithms) by allowing to examine the details of current implementation and improve upon it.

Samsung (and others) have been making un-wieldly phones for decades. I wonder why they decided to make "rectangular phones with rounded corners" after runaway success of iPhone.

And, this comes from someone who hasn't owned an iPhone :-)

</comment><comment><USER55> It actually all becomes really clear as soon as you realize that what Apple wanted to patent all along, was _innovation itself_.

Apparently that claim did not get accepted[1] so now they're trying to stop competition from using _iNnovation_ by means of patent-lawsuits for everything else.

[1] Prior art, they said. Even though it's absolutely indisputable that Apple came up with the iWheel first, and everybody else copied its rounded corners.

</comment><comment><USER56> My take on it is encapsulated by this:

"For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money."

It is clear that it can't be about the money because Apple makes 10x the money Samsung does, its all about crushing your enemies using every available tool in your arsenal, no matter what. When Microsoft did that by bundling their own browser into their dominant OS they were convicted of illegally using their market domination to crush competition. I don't think that fate will befall Apple but the ramifications of this on Apple will be far and wide and for the most part uncontrollable.

I expect that everyone reading this today will, in 5 to 10 years be able to look back at today and see all the manifestations of what happened because of it and then see what Apple has wrought. I have no idea if it will be the best or stupidest thing they ever did, but it will define them as a company. I'm strangely reminded of the Tesla / Edison rant for some reason.

</comment><comment><USER57> I don't think this is about money. Apple has enough money. This is about destroying the competition - in particular, Android. I believe Steve Jobs wasn't shy about it, either: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984>

</comment><comment><USER58> I think it's bullshit that Apple did this for money.

<comment><USER59> You think Apple cares about a measly $1b?

Think about it, the company itself is worth 600+ billion dollars.

They did this more out of principal and to defend their products than anything else.

<comment><USER60> Why would the company be worth $600b? I haven't seen them do anything that I can't buy from another company cheaper, or in some cases, years before Apple "invented" it (ex: the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market).

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but what is it that Apple can actually sell me that no one else can?

<comment><USER19> To answer your question: a sturdy, forged aluminum computer with a powerful unix-like OS with the most polished interfaces around and the greatest collection of software of all systems? With a 200dpi+ display? With wireless, seamless, video/audio streaming to other devices? Bluetooth 4? The best multitouch trackpad? The only decent power cord on earth?

<comment><USER60> None of those are particularly interesting to me... not at double the product cost. Maybe I'm just in the minority and don't get it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> The problem with prior art is that, with the Patent Office doing such a crap job -- thanks in part to the Congress that funds it -- you and your attorney have to document and present it yourself, at $300/hour.

Add first-to-file to this mess, and, well, at least there will no longer be _any_ point in spending that $300/hour.

</comment><comment><USER62> Uggh, it's getting pretty tricky to work through the moral ambiguity of all this.

Probably because it's 3am and I'm tired, but wouldn't it be nice for a change, to let someone else convince us that _"Apple == good"_ and _"Samsung == Bad"_ , or vice versa? But no, reality has to go and be all grey and complex. :p

</comment><comment><USER63> Does anyone else see the irony in that he himself is a domain squatter? The shit he hates, he is himself.

</comment><comment><USER64> Your argument is really off base. Like most, it seems that you're biased on this issue. There are clearly a couple of things most people have an issue with in this case and all are no reason to be mad at Apple.

1\. Design - It has been stated over and over by people that Apple shouldn't be able to patent hardware and software design; which is why these same people believe they lost their trial against Microsoft in the 90s. I believe Apple lost that trial because they waited to late and by that time; which was years in, people had a hard time believing the novelty of a computer UI was something to copy but rather a standard to implement. This is why Apple since Jobs return in 97, has made it their mission to put design first and foremost. They have built the company since 97 on design because it's the one thing, that truly distinguishes a product upon appearance. This is why that went after Samsung early, as they didn't want to give people time to infuse the two.

No, Apple did not win the right to have a rectangle. Clearly Palm, Blackberry and a couple other smartphone makers from earlier in the 2000s have been doing this but Apple did win because Samsung blatantly copied the look and feel of their rectangle.

2\. Innovation - If anything, this verdict will spur innovation in the smartphone space. I personally can't wait to start seeing different UIs and hardware models. After the iPhone in 2007, everything has pretty much looked the same. It has really become boring. I applauded Microsoft for what they did with Windows Phone/Mobile from a UI perspective. It shows the possibilities when you think outside the box and try to innovate and now their Windows OS is going in the same direction. We don't know the possibilities with hardware because no one has taken the risk to introduce some truly different or revolutionary, since 2007.

Look what FrogDesign has done with the UI of Android, that no other OEM has even attempted to do. <http://www.frogdesign.com/work/sharp-aquos.html>

3\. Patents - The Patent System is clearly broken and needs change; which is why there is a bill on the Senate floor right now for that. I personally don't agree with software patents but I'm in huge favor of design and utility patents. Those are the patents that don't stifle innovation and force companies to be creative and innovative when building their products. Companies should definitely have to license patents that infringe on these two, as these are the areas where the most and hardest work is done because these are the areas that are most transparent to the consumer.

For all the talk and comments, I've seen and read from people, I've not heard of any more pressure to Congress on this issue. I've not heard one politician say "I'm pushing this issue because my constituents have been urging me to do something about it". We did something about SOPA and PIPA but have done nothing about patent reform. So, I fail to really hear anyone out on this stance if they're not actively trying to pursue a change. I've not seen one sign up or online petition on HN, Reddit or any of the other internet darling pushing this issue.

I think people need to stop taking such an interest in this, as Apple is only doing whats best for them, within the law that we all follow and are not trying to change. We all do whats best for us. An even though we're not companies, I think that's a greater reason for them to do so, as they adhere to shareholders; which are people. So if you have a problem, have it with the Shareholders Dilemma.

</comment><comment><USER65> Was a line-by-line analysis _really_ necessary?

<comment><USER49> Line-by-line flames are seldom necessary, but are often fine examples of their literary genre.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> This is the ultimate in hypocrisy

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU>

</comment><comment><USER67> "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs; Triumph of the Nerds.

</comment><comment><USER68> If an idea can be described in one sentence, it shouldn't be patentable.

</comment><comment><USER69> Ridiculous fandroid carping by Jaques. Samsung copied Apple feature for feature, the only difference they added was inferior workmanship. If all Samsung wanted to do was copy Apple then they should have licensed Apple's patents.

<comment><USER50> A "fandroid" who uses a Nokia dumb phone. Yeah right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> while I personally dislike Apple, I think the poster would have kept me more interested if he took a more neutral stance.

overt hostile rebuttals made this a "TLDR" for me

</comment><comment><USER71> All this blog post is one person's misunderstanding of patent and copyright law. Jacques would have been better served trying to understand what trade dress means and why Apple's UI patents were about the implementation and not the idea.

After all the idea of "how to let the user know they have reached the top of the scroll view" can be implemented many ways. Apples is one way. LG, Samsung and HTC all have different ways.

<comment><USER72> "All this blog post is one person's misunderstanding of patent and copyright law": If you refer to the current patent laws in the USA, then you're probably right. But I think that laws that grant the possibility to give anybody a 20 years monopoly on something like "double tap to zoom" (or "1-click purchase") are completely against the original spirit of patent laws, very stupid, and, most importantly, pose a severe risk of slowing down innovation almost to a halt.

I just hope that this madness will not come to the EU too (eg the 1-click patent was never granted here).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's time to put an end to the lie that Apple has patented ideas or the "right" to use features. This is simply not true, and not how patents work, and the anti-patent crowd really should be embarrassed at perpetuating this ideologically motivated, but obviously factually false claim.

Jeff Han demonstrated a touch interface using cameras a few months before the iPhone was demonstrated. Both sets of work can be patented because the idea of using a "touch interface" cannot be patented, by anybody.

Similarly, "pinch to zoom" or "one click purchase" or "pull to refresh" cannot -- and HAVE NOT-- been patented.

You can only patent inventions. Inventions can be particular implementations of features. And this is what Apple has patented. Jeff Han's touch implementation uses cameras and Apple's uses capacitive touch screen and a lot of VERY sophisticated software. They are both distinct and non-obvious and both of them could be patented.

I know this is an ideological position for those who are spreading (or repeating) the misinformation. It is much easier to pretend like these patents are trivial monopolies on ideas, than to admit that Apple put half a decade of work into them.

But you should question your ideology when it requires you to lie in order to make points.

<comment><USER41> >Apple's uses capacitive touch screen and a lot of VERY sophisticated software.

Here is a summary of the claims.

      A multitouch display detects at least two contacts.

      Those contacts perform a first gesture.

      That gesture adjusts an image in some way

      The first set of contacts is broken.

      A second set of contacts is detected.

      The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time.

      The gesture continues to adjust the image in the same way.

That is the obvious way to implement pinch to zoom on a touch screen. You don't have to copy their "very sophisticated" software to violate that patent. If you implement a feature that copies the above claims, you are in violation.

Apple _effectively_ has a monopoly on the _feature_ pinch to zoom on touch screens. The patent is sufficiently broad that there is no way to do it on a touch screen that avoids the patent.

 _That_ is the problem with the patent system. Many patents are so broad that they don't cover a specific implementation.

If that were the case the infamous Amazon one click patent would cover a specific implementation of one click--say a particular way to store the user information, and you could implement a similar feature using a different method. However, you can't therefore Amazon _effectively_ has a monopoly on a _feature_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> So its fine for Samsung to copy Apple? But when Samwer Bros copy - there is a huge uproar.

You guys should know how it feels when your products are copied.

<comment><USER22> I find this contradiction quite curious. I think it is because their position is ideological, not logical.

Samwer is evil. Copying another startups look is evil. Google is good (remember their slogan: "Do no evil." how could they be evil?) Apple is bad- and has been forever. The RIAA and MPAA are evil.

So, sometimes copying is good when google does it, but its bad when the samwers do it, and of course they will trumpet any "Example" of apple doing it no matter how disingenuous or dishonest they have to be.

This is more about their personal feelings towards their brands than any kind of logical consistency.

<comment><USER74> Well, it is partially also that there are many people with different opinions. You seem to assume that most people here hold all the views expressed by the entire community.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> This is a consumer. Do the opinions of consumers matter?

All that matters to Apple is sales. Do they care what consumers say about them on the web? Silence the nonbelievers!

Consumers do not need to understand patent law to make purchase decisions. But most consumers know what lawsuits are, especially ones that make a mockery of the justice system.

It's possible many consumers really don't care if they're buying Apple or Samsung. If they did care, if they only wanted Apple products, then Apple wouldn't need to sue other manufacturers, would they?

</comment><comment><USER76> Lets see how you all feel after Apple is done suing every android and smartphone manufacturer.

This is just the beginning. The first shot fired... The real war is yet to come.

</comment><comment><USER77> Apple sucks.</comment>


Tuning Linux IPv4 route cache (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/2011-ipv4-route-cache-linux.html

<comment><USER2> This post says the route cache was removed. This leads me to the question: What replaced it?

Surely if it was simply removed, network performance would drop, which leads me to think caching must have been added somewhere else as it was removed here? Can anyone clarify?

<comment><USER3> The dst/route cache has effectively been replaced by the TCP metrics cache. Values like MSS, SRTT, and cwnd are still useful to preserve across streams between peers. See ip-tcp_metrics(8) for a decent summary.

David Miller has a summary of the route cache removal in [http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/columbia2012.pdf](http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/columbia2012.pdf). The cache exhaustion argument was .. odd. As I recall the cache entry was created on handshake and was keyed off of src ip, dst IP, dst port. Given that the attacker can (effectively) only vary the src ip thats a _lot_ of addresses to control. The other argument was that not hitting a cache was "only" 10% slower in microbenchmarks.

Personally Im dubious of the route cache removal, though I havent tested. The 10% hit rate, as I recall, was from Google front end servers which Id expect to have a high cardinality of peers along with a simplistic route table. For servers with multiple interfaces, variable route properties, multiple tables, etc and a high packet rate a fast cache should be quite valuable.

<comment><USER4> For the 10% hit, I agree with you. For one large French site (but with a national audience only), the efficiency of the route cache was more than 95%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wasn't the route cache removed a while back?

<comment><USER6> This post is 2 years old.

<comment> vezzy-fnord From the footnotes:

         1. The content of this article should be valid
         for Linux 2.6.38, 2.6.39, 3.0 and 3.1. There are some
         clues for Linux 2.6.35, 2.6.36 and 2.6.37 as well
         as for Linux 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. Starting from
         Linux 3.6, the whole route cache has been removed.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I'm starting a new iOS Development Course [kickstarter], please pledge - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/214306041/learn-to-develop-ios-applications-for-the-iphone-i?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=reddit&utm_campaign=reddit&utm_term=reddit&utm_content=reddit

<comment><USER2> Great idea Mark! My support .. I have numerous entrepreneur friends who are always struggling to find good iOS developers. hopefully your course will create more of this rare breed :) Good luck! ps: where do you plan to host this course?

<comment><AUTHOR> The course will be hosted and run along site iOS-Blog [http://ios- blog.co.uk](http://ios-blog.co.uk). Please share this kickstarter with your friends and through social media if you do not mind. I could do with all the help and exposure I can get. Minimum pledge is also just £1 so please consider backing this project :) :)

<comment><USER2> Great. What will be the format of this course? We run an online course discovery platform called [http://mysliderule.com](http://mysliderule.com) and what we have seen from users' browsing behavior is that learners typically prefer courses with video lectures, and codecademy/udacity style interactive in-browser exercises if possible. Also consider hosting your course on marketplaces like Udemy and Skillshare too .. they have a very vibrant community and can be an easy source of user-acquisition for you

<comment><AUTHOR> Cheers for the advice there. :) The course will be in video format with downloadable content and code examples as well as (for premium user) the option to download the videos and the tutorials in PDF. Do you think that SlideRule would consider backing this project?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


YC: It's a mistake to use marketing-speak. Marketing denoise applied - <AUTHOR> http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/9307/WMTBkG.png

<comment><USER2> I'd suggest the "To improve how people navigate on earth" to still be a poor description. It doesn't use the jargon, but it also doesn't tell anybody about what the thing is/does/how people will use it. It completely lacks emotion and connection to a consumer.

"A map on your phone so you can get directions no matter where you are"

"A better location system so you can find the place you're looking for without having to look at or read directions"

I'd suggest "to improve" is not a goal, your description needs to be more concrete, yet flexible enough that you aren't limiting other peoples imaginative use of your product.

<comment><AUTHOR> Valuable suggestions... Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Y Combinator. How to apply successfully guideline. It's a mistake to use marketing-speak to make your idea sound more exciting.

<comment><AUTHOR> It mostly to attract attention to my late application to be honest</comment></comment>


Good books to read if you want to create a web startup - <AUTHOR> http://ericbrooke.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/good-books-to-read-if-you-want-to-create-a-web-startup/

<comment><USER2> I think Ash Maurya's book "Running Lean" should be on this list and probably near the top.</comment>


Minimal Raspberry Pi VPU firmware - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/christinaa/rpi-open-firmware/blob/master/README.md <comment><USER2> I wrote the BootROM and 2nd stage loader used in VC3 and VC4 - way back in ~2005. And the interrupt controller, VPU sync block and various other things used in this open FW.

This is pretty awesome to see how much context the community has reverse engineered from the design - I remember making the first BCM2835 based project (the Roku 2) and spending _A LOT_ of time getting the ARM to startup reliably and boot into Linux as fast as possible. I've spotted 2 concepts in the open FW so far that misunderstood the implementation of the HW but are still working which is fun!

One advantage of the having the GPU start first (maybe the only advantage :) is that it can play a video for a splash screen instead of a static image. If you've ever used a Roku 2/3 or newer, this is a feature I hacked together for a demo to hide boot-up latency - now its a standard part of RokuOS (and is quite hard to replicate on traditional ARM/MIPS SoC's).

<comment><USER3> I'm guessing you had privileged access to the datasheets for those chips and you're not legally allowed to tell them what they misunderstood? I imagine I would feel super weird seeing something being done wrong but not being allowed to tell someone. I mean I understand why, but it'd be frustrating.

<comment><USER2> Well, I wrote the RTL as well as implemented the SW so I guess I do have propriety information on the topic...

In theory, all the code and sequences for the BootROM, 2nd stage, ARM loader and peripheral control functions is available by disassembling the binaries (and extracting some code from the ROM with a mempcy) - it just requires reverse engineering / re-implementing inside and this is part of the fun / why this project is so great.

I might suggest they poke at the linux port and u-boot of the BCM2835 from Roku however :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If this matured, maybe there would be some interest in porting OpenBSD to RPi with this? Theo didn't like the firmware blob, right?..

<comment><USER5> An openbsd port is already underway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What can one do with it? Is it like a bootloader? Sorry really not enough know-how.

<comment> david-given The Raspberry Pi is really a VideoCore IV processor with an ARM bolted on the side. At power on, a boot ROM loads an embedded OS image into the VC4 processor. That then sets up the hardware, powers up the ARM, and loads the OS image into _that_. The VC4 then continues running in the background servicing RPCs from the ARM.

What this is is a replacement VC4 operating system image which just fires up the ARM with an embedded image, sets it running, and then halts (assuming I'm understanding the docs correctly); so it can't (yet) actually load an OS into the ARM from disk or respond to RPCs etc.

In practical terms, this is the biggest, most difficult step forward towards running an almost completely open system on the RPi. (It could also be used as the core of a proper operating system running on the VC4 itself, which could be rather interesting.)

<comment><USER7> > The Raspberry Pi is really a VideoCore IV processor with an ARM bolted on > the side.

I knew that the bootloader worked that way but didn't think of it being that way until reading your comment. Interesting to think of the hierarchy that way.

Naively this makes me think that the ARM ISA could use something like UEFI (or BIOS) to unify the devices' bootstrapping logic around some common metaphor.

<comment> david-given Well, the ARM is _literally_ powered down until the VC4 turns it on.

(I've heard that the only reason the ARM is there at all is that Broadcom had a royalty-free license and there was some spare silicon, so they thought, hey, why not, it might be useful...)

Traditionally ARMs have never used any kind of common boot process because they come out of the embedded world where every system is bespoke --- the focus is always on individual products, rather than building a platform.

There have been various efforts to fix this but AFAIAA they've never come to much. I think the current one is DeviceTree, but I don't believe there's much vendor support.

<comment><USER8> > Traditionally ARMs have never used any kind of common boot process because > they come out of the embedded world where every system is bespoke --- the > focus is always on individual products, rather than building a platform.

This is something I did not know. In the mobile world the boot happens in the UEFI mould right? So when someone licenses from ARM they get to design their own boot sequence?

<comment><USER9> Well, it's two different use cases. PCs are platforms, and they have common components and optional peripherals. Embedded systems are completely custom designs that rarely have common components. Everything is driven by BOM cost, and if you don't need something, you don't add it.

Booting such a system is highly dependent upon the board configuration and the peripherals that are needed. Furthermore, vendors have different boot-up requirements. Some boot loaders perform proprietary system checks before loading the RTOS. Some boot loaders need to be able to upgrade firmware from an image on-chip, in flash, or fed into it over SPI or a UART. Some boot loaders are little more than a jump table decoder that just jumps to the currently active firmware image on the chip. Creating a universal boot loader with enough flexibility for each of these situations is harder than just implementing a boot loader for a particular electronics product or product family.

<comment> david-given There's a bit of a trend to embed a tiny ROM in the processor itself that's got just enough intelligence to bootstrap an image off various peripherals.

The Broadcom parts work like this for the VC4; the boot ROM can talk to an SD card, parse a FAT filesystem, and load and run the second-stage loader (bootcode.bin). But Allwinner chips do this too, and they're even smart enough to try several different media types (including SATA, IIRC!). Ditto Tegra parts.

I imagine that if you're a major customer you get to choose the contents of the boot ROM.

From a hacker perspective, it's brilliant, because the devices are completely unbrickable. It doesn't matter how broken they get, you can't change the ROM, which means that you always have ability to get something working. But, of course, they all have entirely different APIs. The VC4 just dumps an image into memory, sets a couple of registers, and jumps to it, and I imagine the others all do the same thing.

<comment><USER10> The only upside of this is unbrickability. Having the boot ROM inside the CPU means you are stuck forever with whatever bugs there are in it. Been there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a vague hope that one day the dual-core VPU on the Pi will be usable for time-critical real-time i/o in much the same way as the PRUs on the BBB are used.

</comment><comment><USER12> Nice. There's an Inferno port to the Raspberry Pi that could be made even smaller by using this (I suppose): [http://lynxline.com/projects/labs- portintg-inferno-os-to-ras...](http://lynxline.com/projects/labs-portintg- inferno-os-to-raspberry-pi/)

</comment><comment><USER13> NuttX would be interesting on a raspberry pi. Much lighter weight then Linux but still implements POSIX like interfaces. The POSIX stuff always felt to clunky for a microcontroller, but rPi might be just right.

While a port has been discussed, I don't think a port has been completed.

<comment><USER14> I wonder what sort of practical benefit there is for the "lighter weight" of NuttX? I imagine the main attraction is realtimedness, but I think that is sort of orthogonal to light-weightness. And even then it has rtlinux to compete with.</comment></comment>


Nexus 7 - Mini Review - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7176/nexus-7-2013-mini-review

<comment><USER2> This is a tremendous upgrade, and this review adds some clarity that offsets many of the "meh" complaints made when the device was first announced.

It's really an underclocked Snapdragon 600 (Krait 300 cores). Screen quality is excellent. Cameras are decent. Storage issue is fixed (via fsTrim). DDR3 1600 RAM. Display is excellent (the brightness/contrast numbers are outstanding). 5Ghz 802.11n.

This is a _huge_ upgrade.

<comment><USER3> I got one early from BB and I agree. The screen in itself is a great upgrade. The 2GB RAM upgrade also helps a lot. Google actually listened to and fixed most of the original Nexus 7's troubling things - most meaningful upgrade in recent times! (For a bonus the trim/storage issue on old Nexus 7 is also fixed with 4.3.)

Not so happy with the Android upgrades though - it has been buggy since 4.2 and has steadily added considerable bloat. And the user profiles feature has crashed on me twice already. Nothing actively problematic but still hoping that it gets a lot better with 4.3.1.</comment></comment>


How Did Israel Become the "Start-Up Nation"? - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/how-did-israel-become-start-up-nation/ <comment><USER3> This is somewhat misleading on several points:

\- They're working with some other definition of startup than we're accustomed to. CrunchBase, for example, has 581 listings within 20 miles of London, and 35 within 20 miles of Tel Aviv.

\- The Israeli tech startup world seems to kind of be in the shitter right now relative to its heyday in the first web boom. There's a shift of VC out of Israel and into China at this point.

\- The whole blah, blah military -- there are lots of countries with compulsory conscription that don't have a lot of startups.

I think the only thing I really agree with is the general sentiment: national culture greatly affects people's inclination towards opportunism. No culture of opportunism, not many startups.

<comment><USER4> >They're working with some other definition of startup than we're accustomed to.

Or CrunchBase isn't a definitive listing. Isn't it feasible that an English- language site will have less complete information from countries where the main language isn't English?

<comment><USER3> It's probable, in fact, but even so, Tel Aviv is also way behind Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Munich, Barcelona, ...

Note that most Israeli tech businesses _have_ to be international players. The Israeli market itself is tiny.

<comment><USER5> \- CrunchBase is a very poor source for this data: established companies like Scitex/Scailex (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scailex_Corporation>) or Saifun (<http://www.aboutus.org/SaiFun.com>) don't appear at all, Zoran's entry (<http://www.crunchbase.com/company/zoran>) doesn't list a location, Zend Technologies is listed as a Cupertino company when it was founded and still does its R&D in a suburb of Tel Aviv.

\- Tel Aviv is just one town, whereas the topic is Israel as a whole. Many of Israel's major players are in Haifa (where Israel's equivalent of MIT is located) or Jerusalem or other places - Israel is a tiny nation, the commute from Haifa to Tel Aviv can be quicker than taking the subway from Brooklyn to uptown Manhattan.

By the way, do you have a source on the Israel-China VC shift? I think Sarah Lacy wrote something to that effect, but it seems strange since the two places have almost opposite characteristics. I can see China competing with India or Israel with Estonia, but not with each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One partial explanation which intrigues me, from the "what you can't say" files:

Historically (e.g. medieval times) the priesthood drew many of most intelligent/academic segment the population, as a compelling alternative to manual labor.

Beginning in the 4th century, Christian priesthood adopted celibacy, which later was made mandatory by the Roman Catholic Church, which sought to prevent inheritance from draining its coffers. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibate#Christianity>

Meanwhile, Jewish Rabbis have been encouraged to marry and bring up children throughout this history.

Over centuries, you get a selective drift which results in a different distribution of intelligence among the populations. This explains in part the statistical incidence of academic achievement in the jewish population: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Achievements>

Note that I'm speaking here of statistical measures. There are plenty of dumb jews, just as non-jews. But thousands of years of policy from the Catholic church has led to a population shift which has excluded many of the historically most academic in nature from procreating over 25 - <USER2> generations.

An explanation I first came across in Nozick's <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia>

<comment><USER7> As much as I like the "Ashkenazi Jews are a genetically smarter population" hypothesis, it's not sufficient to explain what's going on. It's probably necessary that some level of intelligence exists within a population for startups to happen, but it's probably a vanishingly small part of the equation.

<comment><USER8> Not only does it not explain why there are so many Israeli startups, but it's a false hypothesis altogether. Aside from the fact that IQ is more a representation of adaptation to modernity than intelligence, there are many environmental factors that come into play.

There would probably be more startups in the Arab population if they weren't so discriminated against in the country.

<comment><USER9> That is possible. On the other hand, you don't really see too many start ups in nations where the Arab population makes up the majority either, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, etc.

<comment><USER8> (Oh, I should let you know that Iranians are NOT Arab, contrary to popular belief. They're Persians.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Considering theres only about 13 million Jewish people in the world, they are disproportionately successful. Top of the Forbes 400, correct me if I'm wrong -

1 William Gates III, Athiest/Agnostic

2 Warren Buffett, Athiest/Agnostic

3 Lawrence Ellison, Jewish

4 Christy Walton & family, Inheritance

5 Jim C. Walton, Inheritance

6 Alice Walton, Inheritance

7 S. Robson Walton, Inheritance

8 Michael Bloomberg, Jewish

9 Charles Koch, ?

9 David Koch, ?

11 Sergey Brin, Jewish

11 Larry Page, ?

13 Michael Dell, Jewish

14 Steven Ballmer, Jewish

15 George Soros, Athiest, but Jewish by blood

16 Donald Bren, ?

17 Paul Allen, Athiest/Agnostic

17 Abigail Johnson, Inheritance

19 Forrest Edward Mars, Inheritance

19 Jacqueline Mars

19 John Mars, Inheritance

22 Carl Icahn, Jewish

23 Ronald Perelman, Jewish

24 George B. Kaiser, Jewish

25 Philip Knight, Athiest/Agnostic

26 Sheldon Adelson, Jewish

26 Anne Cox Chambers, Inheritance

28 Jeffrey Bezos, Jewish

29 James Simons, Jewish

30 Dan Duncan, ?

30 Edward C. Johnson III, Inheritance

32 Jack Crawford Taylor, ?

33 James Goodnight, ?

33 John Paulson, ?

35 John Kluge, ?

36 Steven Cohen, ?

37 Philip Anschutz, Evangelical Christian

37 Rupert Murdoch, Christian

39 Harold Hamm, Christian

40 Pierre Omidyar, ?

40 Eric Schmidt, ?

42 Eli Broad, Jewish

43 Steve Jobs, Buddhist?

44 Len Blavatnik, ?

44 David Geffen, Jewish

<comment><USER11> Why do some people have their religion listed (or atheist/agnostic) but others have inheritance?

<comment><USER10> They aren't "successful", just won an ovarian lottery. Skews the data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having recently been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel."

<http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf>

I can imagine that has some trick-down effects on the "financing of ideas"-side of the equation. Smart people are one thing, smart people with a lot of resources, another.

<comment><USER4> The vast majority of that has been military aid, at least 76% of which has been required to be spent in the US, IIRC.

<comment><USER12> Agreed, it looks like the breakdown for '49-07 is $53B military $30B economic. I have no idea how that was committed etc., but it shouldn't be discounted the unique position Israel has been on the US Aid side, and what affect that could have on spurring economic (and start-up) growth for a nation of 7MM people. That shouldn't take away anything from the qualitative characteristics mentioned in the article, just another data point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I should write sometime about the rationalist virtue of chutzpah, since I just now realized that this has been a major driving factor in my life.

<comment><USER14> "From the age of zero we [Israelis] are educated to challenge the obvious, ask questions, debate everything"

Why do you think they don't question their religion?

<comment><USER4> Most Jewish* Israelis live secular lives. Not sure where you get the idea that they don't question religion.

*1.5 million Israelis are Arab Muslims.

<comment><USER14> Well, the nation certainly doesn't act secularly since they treat people differently based on their religion (the law of return, as an obvious example).

And you're flat out wrong that most Jewish Israeli's live 'secular lives.' It's a common misconception - but the most comprehensive survey done on the matter that I could find (<http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/relinisr- consensus.htm>) says otherwise. About 20% of Jews in Israel identify themselves as secular - but most of those aren't secular for all intents and purposes (they attend temple, perform rituals, believe in God, etc).

Over half the Jews in Israel believe that the Jewish people were 'chosen' among other people by God. A substantial minority (more than are actually secular) believe that non-practicing Jews are a threat to the Jewish people!

So, that is where I get the idea that they don't question religion.

<comment><USER15> Again it's a question of definitions. Israelis define "religious" differently. About 20-30% of Israelis are what Americans would consider "religious", about a 1/3 of that is "ultra-religious".

The 20% that consider themselves "secular", REALY mean secular. As in, hard- core-athiest. They eat pork, and it's not a statement, it's just meat. You'd love them.

To clarify what lies between let me explain. In a recent survey some 75% of Israelis claimed to keep some form of kosher. For the majority of that sample space "kosher" meant lobster but no pork. Both equally unkosher, but there is a stigma attached to pork. All the same, these same lobster-jews would be very offended if you called them non-religious, they are in their OWN WAY. In American definition they are "non-practicing", but not in their own.

The "subsantial-minority" is a weasel word. But is largely limited to what would be termed "ultra-religious", and they are entitled to their opinion, thats a democracy for you. Last I checked, there was a substantial-minority in the US that considered seculars dangerous, their called the religious right.

Either way, this has NOTHING to do with startups.

Israelis, like anyone else, are complex people. Up close, Israelis are hard working, an incredible combination of the empathic and the aggressive. Some are good some are bad, most are a bit of both.

And speaking as a religious person, everyone questions their faith, and even more their "religion". I don't know anyone who is that simple. Don't turn people into caricature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As long as there is government and cultural support any country can be a 'start up nation'. Israel fits that description.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd like to see more "chutzpah" examples outside of the usual US+Europe+Israel arena.</comment>


Amazon is reportedly planting fake packages to catch thieves - <AUTHOR> https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/amazon-is-reportedly-planting-fake-packages-to-catch-thieves <comment><USER2> Damn, working there must be depressing

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't mind this tactic. In fact, I think it's a good idea; it only hurts those that are dishonest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A previous submission from a different source: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18035485](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18035485) .

</comment><comment><USER5> Amazon seems like a pretty bad place these days....</comment>


Startup offers Vegan real dairy Ice crean - <AUTHOR> https://www.livekindly.com/vegan-real-dairy-ice-cream-made-from-cows-milk/ <comment><USER2> Now available in eurasia now that we have always been at war with east asia!</comment>


City of Munich Considers Switching Back From Linux to Windows (In German) - <AUTHOR> http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchner-stadtverwaltung-von-microsoft-zu-linux-und-zurueck-1.2090611 <comment><AUTHOR> Very brief summary of the article:

\- Second Mayor Josef Schmid (CSU, conservative): "Every department I talk to reports user complaints. Our employees are suffering. The original decision to switch to Linux was politically motivated. We feel that Linux is not cheaper for us, because it requires a lot of software development. We're missing a program to handle email, calendar, and contacts in one place. The city will get an opinion from an independent panel of experts."

\- First Mayor Dieter Reiter (SPD, social democrat): "Linux software sometimes trails behind Windows software."

\- Sabine Nallinger (Green Party): "Data exchange with government agencies outside of Munich does not work well."

<comment><USER3> Who cares if they can't do x, y, and z in the same program? That's just an arbitrary, unimportant feature they happen to be used to. Personally, I like having separate apps for separate tasks.

It sounds like they're just making up variations of "we don't like doing things except the exact way we learned it".

<comment><USER4> Your preferences aren't relevant. These people are not working in IT (for the most part). They would prefer

\- something they know

\- something that works with the world

And while we can talk about the benefits of the Linux environment/free software and being independent all day, that is absolutely irrelevant for the administrative workers in they day to day jobs. Derision isn't helping here, they're just wanting an easy way to do their job - and arguably Outlook/Exchange is one of the weaker spots if you're thinking of OSS replacements (vs. LibreOffice for Office stuff, for example, which is different but comparable. A comparable mail solution is missing in my opinion).

<comment><USER3> >Your preferences aren't relevant.

Thank you, I'm aware. The point is that neither are the preferences of whichever random government person they're quoting. There is no issue with Linux here; the issue is that the people complaining about Linux are too inflexible to deal with a slight change in process.

<comment><USER4> Actually _those_ are relevant. You are judging from the side (just like me). Those people have to work with whatever their environment provides.

Belittling their issues is not very helpful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While that newspaper has a decent reputation, that article is low on information and contains a lot of crap. One statement states that it took ages to provide a business mobile, because "first an external mail server needed to be provided". That's not Linux related, that's random whining from a non- technical guy..

(The following argument, complaining about a missing alternative to Outlook might have some merit, alternatives exist but aren't quite there yet imo)

</comment><comment><USER5> Old news. The city council defends the LiMux system against the mayors: [http://www.heise.de/open/meldung/Linux-in-Muenchen- Stadtrat-...](http://www.heise.de/open/meldung/Linux-in-Muenchen-Stadtrat- verteidigt-LiMux-gegen-Buergermeister-2262506.html) (mid-july)

</comment><comment><USER6> Holy cow, Linux gained so much and Windows lost so much since they switched (in 2004). That would be so wrong to go for Windows (in 2014).

Disclaimer: I am from Germany

</comment><comment><USER7> I can understand this to a degree.

I switched about 6 months ago from a windows machine to a Mac and dumped my (broken) Lumia for a second hand iPhone 4S. I went from exchange to dovecot IMAP for email with no calendar or contact implementation all hosted by me on a Linux box on Linode. I used Mail, iCalendar and address book.

About 2 weeks after setting that up I got pissed off with it as managing contacts and calendars was messy to say the least so I did some research and for a CalDAV and CardDAV server together. This never worked properly and was a bastard to integrate and manage.

So I said screw all this shit, moved it all to Google Apps laboriously and bought a Moto G phone. Now someone sends me an ICS file, I can't add it to my calendar as nothing opens ICS files on the device, I keep losing contacts and everything wants my contact list. Not only that, every attachment I was sent means I had to upload the thing to Google docs and convert it before I could open it in sheets/docs.

So here I sit this evening with my broken Lumia 820 and a Torx T4 replacing the screen and a fresh Office 365 account.

That was the last thing that _works properly_ for me. I imagine they'v gone through the same hell.

Whilst I understand that not all workflows are like that and this is an anecdote, I appreciate what compatibity does for people and why ecosystems are persistent.

</comment><comment><USER8> There is an infrastructure beyond the usual technical sort, an infrastructure of skills, habits, and assumptions. Windows matches this infrastructure extremely well, because this infrastructure was almost entirely built on Windows over the past 30 years.

People have grown accustomed to Windows, the Windows version of Office, and domain-specific custom apps that only run on Windows.

Even Mac users struggle to integrate into this infrastructure, and that difficulty, plus the higher cost of Macs, is why you rarely hear a city or government agency declaring it is going all Mac.

For (desktop) Linux, the situation is even worse. Unlike Mac, Linux isn't usually pre-installed, so you never seem to get things working right. Unlike Mac, there is no version--not even an old version--of MS-Office.

The flip side of Linux's freedom to build anything you need is that you almost _have_ to build everything you need, beyond the browser.

Three years ago I was struggling to deal with my kids' (Silicon Valley) school system, because teachers would always send me important information in the form of MS-Word docs, and I no longer owned a copy of Office. By last year, almost all of them had switched to Google docs, and the problem is almost gone.

What I expect to happen over the next decade is that the skill/habit/assumption infrastructure will turn away from desktop Windows toward cloud services usable through any browser from any platform (desktop, phone, tablet, wall screen, wearable....) Munich might need some new Windows machines during the transition, but they should probably also work on a transition to online services at the same time, after which desktop Linux will be more practical than it has been in the past.

<comment><USER9> Shifting such important and secretive things like documents to the cloud - <USER2> even an cloud of which you have no control over - will not (and probably not ever) be possible within a government institution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It would be interesting to understand what the complainss from users actually are. The only actual problem they talk about is data exchange with the "outside world" \- which can be big enough, but is no fault of Linux.

<comment><USER11> Its probably the most pertinent point. In truth they can only be talking about OpenOffice/LibreOffice file format compatibility with MS Office.

Any other EDI systems would operate at the top of the software stack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "We're missing a program to handle email, calendar, and contacts in one place." \---I, for one, have also been looking for a nice solution here after trying some options.

<comment><USER13> What about Thunderbird+Lightning? I use that even when I have to use Windows.

<comment><USER4> Not even close (I'd wish, I used to be a zealot and STILL run Linux, working for a Microsoft based shop).

That's only talking client and even there it falls short.

Ignoring that users are happy with one thing for everything mail/contacts/calendar/tasks: What's the editor like in TB (I know, playing devil's advocate)? Auto correction? Can you easily embed weird content and expect it to work on the other side (drag stuff from Excel..)? It sucks, but that's what happens day in and day out.

And you ignore the server side. AD is really not that bad. Better than most 'virtual users on postfix' setups, if you go beyond a family or tiny team. Now you need the other server features. Calendar (w/ sharing, rights management -> AD?). Decent sync and push (IMAP IDLE is the closest you might get, I guess) for mobile clients. Delegation (i.e. 'You can write in my name') and out of office replies that don't require Joe User to write sieve scripts.

I run my own setup and I am NO fan of Outlook/Exchange, but trying to replace what they do with a random selection of OSS tools will probably fail (and hence they couldn't do it in Munich).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Autotranslation: [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fmuenchen%2Fmuenchner- stadtverwaltung-von-microsoft-zu-linux-und-zurueck-1.2090611)

</comment><comment><USER15> Looks like the problem is primarily lack of Outlook and Office. There's nothing the Linux community can do about that. There's just not enough money around to throw at the problem. FOSS may be a global optimum, but the Microsoft ecosystem is a local one which you can't hill-climb away from.

</comment><comment><USER16> Related HN Story, 3 months ago "How Munich switched 15,000 PCs from Windows to Linux": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7720219](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7720219)

</comment><comment><USER17> Hacker News is an English-language site. This is not to disparage content in other languages; it's just what HN is. Posts not in English typically get demoted.

<comment><USER14> I always had this doubt. What to do with interesting original content that is not in English and don't have an official translation? Submit the original (not English) site? Submit an autotranslation?

The advantage of the first option is it preserves the original site name, and prevents dupes. The advantage of the second option is that most of the user here can read English and perhaps other language, but the common denominator is English.

<comment><USER17> I'm afraid we don't have a good answer to that. Autotranslation isn't good enough yet, though it's obviously better than it was.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Translation:

MS offered Munich Windows completely free, or even offered to pay for the transition.

MS probably also offered the decision makers free travel around the world, free laptops and other gear, and some under the table money for being "convinced". This was done in my University so I could only imagine what will be with a big city like this.

The decision makers argument that given that Windows is "free"(first dose s free until you are hooked) and Linux takes development money (to German developers)then it is a better decision to just switch.

It is quite significant that there is so many Linux mini distros in government, instead of uniting and solving the general problems Linux have on a State or even multi State.

E.g Solving the program to handle mail,calendar and contacts is common for Spain, French, German and UK gobertment. Why can't they work together to solve it?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not sure why this post begins with the header "Translation:". It is not a translation of the article.

<comment><USER19> If your comment is not a whoosh, gp is not using " _translation_ " as " _language X to language Y_ " but in the sense of " _said vs unsaid_ ". This usage of "translation" is a rhetorical device often to express satire or cynicism.

Example: _" The department will thoroughly investigate the police officers' fatal shooting of the unarmed teenager to ensure justice is upheld."_

TRANSLATION: _" The police officers will get paid leave, possibly a vacation to Hawaii to escape the media spotlight, and then get a promotion in rank."_

That said, whether gp's "translation" adds any insight is questionable.

<comment><USER20> But it is quite confusing to use that idiom when the original article is in a language most HNers don't speak.

An actual translation from German to English is what's expected, and would have been a lot more useful.

<comment><USER21> And indeed, I suspect that many of the comment's upvoters did so on the assumption it was a non-editorialized German -> English translation of the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Windows is a more user friendly operating system than Linux. Obviously they should have stuck with Windows all along.

<comment><USER23> > Windows is a more user friendly operating system than Linux.

As a Linux advocate, I hate admitting that this is correct. One reason is that the Linux desktop experience is too fragmented and has too many competing players. Windows avoids this by being one company with one goal.

> Obviously they should have stuck with Windows all along.

This may be true in hindsight, but it wasn't obvious at the planning stage. In principle, Linux is a less expensive way to run a large enterprise. But only in principle, it seems.

Linux will succeed as a desktop environment only when (and if) its various factions agree on a single model and a single goal.

<comment> chestnut-tree _" Linux will succeed as a desktop environment only when (and if) its various factions agree on a single model and a single goal."_

Many Linux users probably don't want to see a single model. They like the choice of being able to choose from different distributions and their own desktop model.

Ubuntu is probably the closest to being a consistent desktop environment and look how much grief they get from some Linux users over their UX choices. The open source model works for software, but it can't work for UX or design (at least I'm not convinced it can) because you can't design by commitee - any yet everyone wants a say in the UX.

Would it have been better for Munich to have specified open document or data formats rather than the choice of software? This is what the UK government has recently done [1]. The choice of software is up to the individual departments as long as the software can read or create the open formats etc. At least this gives you the choice of switching to dfferent software without being tied to a single vendor's closed-sorce document format.

[1] [http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open- enterprise/2014/07/hug...](http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open- enterprise/2014/07/huge-win-for-odf-lets-not-mess-it-up/index.htm)

<comment><USER23> > Many Linux users probably don't want to see a single model. They like the > choice of being able to choose from different distributions and their own > desktop model.

Yes, true, but it would be nice to see more consensus for a single default desktop for new users. I guess that's Gnome as things stand, but Gnome has some serious usability issues and would seem very strange to someone coming over from Windows. On that topic, Windows 8 seems strange from someone coming over from Windows too. :)

> Ubuntu is probably the closest to being a consistent desktop environment ...

Well, sort of, by their advocacy of Gnome, but I was thinking of KDE versus Gnome and a handful of other desktop environment choices.

> Would it have been better for Munich to have specified open document or data > formats rather than the choice of software?

That might have been a smarter course to take. It leaves the implementation up to individual departments and makes the Linux versus Windows issue less important than the end result, which is portable documents.

Naturally, once the open document format issue heated up, Microsoft tried to create their own "open" document, but one that was actually proprietary, in a time-tested Microsoft strategy.</comment></comment></comment></comment>