All About grnionio
The feeling of the sweet, sweet victory isamazing. The trial, which took place inSan Jose, California, ended with a clear pro-Apple verdict. At least for now.
The jury decided that Samsungwillfullyinfringed Apples software patents and Apple iPhone design patents; and diluted Apples trade dress for the iPhone. Thus, Apple was awarded damages of nearly 1.05Billion dollars,with a B,for what Samsungs violations have caused. On the other hand, Samsung was awardedNOdamages for their claims that Apple infringed some of their patents. Awesome. Also,allof Apples patents were proofedvalid,apparently. Of course, the trial continues, as Samsung tries to avoid some major damages, especially that 1.05B dollar figure. The next hearings are coming, starting later next month. Well, i guess you know the rest.
Tim Cook, in a closed (and leaked) direct message to Apples employees, said:
Today was an important day for Apple and for innovators everywhere.
Many of you have been closely following the trial against Samsung in San Jose for the past few weeks. We chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work. For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money.Its about values.We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the jury who invested their time in listening to our story. We were thrilled to finally have the opportunity to tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsungs copying went far deeper than we knew.
The jury has now spoken. We applaud them for finding Samsungs behavior willful and forsending a loud and clear message that stealing isnt right.
I am very proud of the work that each of you do.
Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens.
And indeed, Tims right. Apple doesnt needs that 1.05B dollars, nor the whole thing is about the patents, which Apple repeatedly tried to license in a reasonable price to Samsung. Its about what Tim Cook said earlier this year at the D10 Conference to Walt Mossberg. Its about signing ones name on a painting that someone else put energy into finishing and about Applescore values, which Steve Jobs alsopassionatelydefended.
And indeed Applecreatedthis painting. No one can accuse Apple ofstealingthe idea or the design -or whatever- of the iPhone or the iPad. With that huge number of Applesprototypeconcepts which appeared in court this period of time, you can understand that Apple worked on theideaof these products way before their official release (obviously), and phones like Prada and any prior-iPhone Samsung mobiles or that amazingly stupid MS WinXP Tablet have nothing to do with Apple. Get over it.
And the Samboys and Fandroids are still keep crying around, complaining about the ruling, the patent law system, the jury, the judge, the weather and whatever other possible you can imagine. I wonder if they would complained about the same thing if Samsung won at least some of their claims. Its clearlyridiculous. Poor Sammy.
All of thatunfiltered contemptabout many many things, including Apple, and that anti-Applehatredi really cannot understand, are driving this industry into oblivion and not Apples tries to protect their creations. Thehidden desireof mostly every Android and Samsung user to have an iPhone and their try to overcome this with something similar, a copy, a Samsung. Apple is thevictimhere.
And if Samsung is so innovative and so creative -by getting inspired by nature- why not push itself tocreatesomething a thousand times better thantheir copies productsor iPhone? Why not create somethingcompletely different? Apple did it. I guess the Koreans can come up with something better, right? And i havent seen Apple in courts with Microsoft about WindowsPhone or Nokias Lumia designs. And i respect MS because they know how to play, they respect, theypay for the patentsthey use and they create something cool and different. The whole ecosystem they are creating with the WindowsPhone, Windows 8, Xbox, Skydrive, Office and the new Outlook, all of these are justamazing.
Samsung willfully brought consumers into this situation by willfully copying Apples design and software patents. They knew they were playing with fire, but they were way too selfish and avid to stop it. The laws have spoken, and Samsung has to face the penalty for their illegal actions.Apparently, i will keep following the trial closely until its end, and i believe that justice will prevail.
Free-to-play. A marketing model which becomes more and more popular, with ahuge varietyof Publishers and Studiossupporting it. Especially when major Studios, like Crytek, are announcing thatall of their future titleswill be based on the F2P model, we can understand what the future may hold. We can also understand that thequalityof the F2P model will besignificantly improved.
And so far, the free-to-play seems to work. We can take numerous examples of MMO titles which turned to the F2P model because they weren?tprofitableor popular enough, examples like Lord of The Rings Online. LOTRO met a success with this model, at least the success that kind of game can have, and it was no longer doomed.Trion Worlds, the creator of my very personal favorite, Rift, also uses F2P with it?s upcoming MMORTS, End of Nations.Facebookhas a ton of free-to-play games, some of them being mind-blowing successful, games like The Sims Social, or Farmville etc. Other popular F2P browser games, supported bymajor publisherslike The Settlers Online (Ubisoft) or Command and ConquerTiberium Alliances (EA). And of course, some very successful franchises got their ownF2P spin-offs, like Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield Play4Free and the Call of Duty Online, which launched recently in China.
Butwhy? Surely every game which you can play for free becomes popular, becauseconsumers love free. ?Free is always better?, they say. But what do the companies earn from all of that? Where?s themoney? Well, nothing?s really, really free. You see, in all of F2P titles, and of course in those i?ve mentioned, there is a catch. The Free-to-play model with its current formcan?t provide the game?s full experience for free.
In LOTRO you have to pay forbetteritems, better gear,newareas and story lines and you have agreatprecedenceif you pay. And that?s obviouslynot fairfor the people who don?t want or can?t buy the special Points. Trion?s End of Nations also provides a Founder?s Edition for 20 bucks, whichprovides a noteworthy head startfrom the non-buyers, plus of course its in-game Store. Facebook games, soaddicting, and maybe the biggest rip-off in the industry. The games actuallypushes youto buy the special ?Diamonds? to evolvefaster, getbetterstuff,prettierstuff, stuff that you canshow offto your ?neighbors?. The whole thing it?s based in theconsumer?s phycologyandit?s working.
You can spend two, three times the money in a free-to-play game from the money you could have spend for a 50$ game, and you getway more poor content. And that?s why F2P is theindustry?s best. Because, in amodern social environment, consumers want to consume and show-off, further ?socialize? through the game,sharetheir new items, theirachievements!
You simplycan?t enjoythe game?s whole experience just by playing it for free. Or, if you can, it will take months to get what others already have by buying it. Will that destroy the industry? I don?t know, but it definitely willchange it. Is F2P fair for everyone?No. But F2P is teaching us a very important lesson.What you can achieve with hard work, you can also buy.
Battlefield 3 - Modern Warfare 3. Two different philosophies, two differentaudiences, two different strategic approaches... One of those two sucks...
Battlefield 3 is out for a while and guess what. It is the most freaking awesome FPS videogame out there, no doubt. The visuals are just stunning, the huge vehicle variaty, the awesome maps for every kind of taste, the teamwork, the countless weapons and unlocks, great modes, the special element that makes Battlefield a Battlefield. It's score from IGN, PC GAMER, Gamespot etc, suffered 'cause of the Campaign, which is ok, but come'on. A Battlefield isn't about Single, it's all about Multi; and Multiplayer is the best out there.
Modern Warfare 3 is a looooong story. CoDs always had a nice, well-writen, well-executed Campaign, from it's early titles until, maybe (bombing a girl at a video just to create impressions is just sick) today. And Multiplayer. They first had a "nice" one on CoD 4. It brought something different, something fun, something that later created a Monster!MW3's Multiplayer is just the same with the previous ones, all and all over again. And i don't want to hear about new maps, modes, weapons, unlocks blah blah blah. Go check Project Reality Mod for BF2 and see what a Mod can do. So, lets call MW3: Modern Warfare 2 The Stupidity of IGN's Mod. About theaudiences. I'm all about the quality instead ofquantity. MW hasquantity in audiences, people that Activision see like walking wallets. Battlefield has quality, serious Clans and people who spend time create tactics, make teamwork stronger and work better. Idk. It's maybe like comparing iOS with Android. Yes, Android sells more 'cause of thequantity; but we all know iOS is the best out there...
MW3 WILL DOMINATE CAUSE OF THE LACK OF CRITICAL ABILITY CONSUMERS HAVE. IN WAY MORE SIMPLE WORDS, MW3 WILL DOMINATE CAUSE OF THE STUPID CONSUMERS...
I'm Team Battlefield, because i believe in money value and i really want to support the best out there.
My Recent Reviews
Battlefield 3 Gameplay Trailer 2
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Gameplay trailer
Battlefield 3 Gameplay Trailer