The CEO, Sanjay Jha was on CNBC yesterday afternoon, and he basically tipped his hand: they're prepping the company for an acquisition to someone like Dell.
Moto hopes the Android sets sell well enough to bid up the asking price. It's sort of like how a major athlete tries to bump up his stats prior to becoming a free agent.
I was pretty sure we've come to a point where no one gives a shit about slide out keyboards anymore.
Holy shit, it's like a really tiny computer!
My God, it'll change everything!
QUEEF!
Implied or not, it's going to have one. We've gone through quite a spell with certain phones that trump its lack thereof, so I think we can wrap our minds around either.
@Kaiser-Machead: "I was pretty sure we've come to a point where no one gives a shit about slide out keyboards anymore."
I wouldn't buy a phone without one... So I guess we've just come to a point where irritating elitists assume that everyone shares their personal preferences...
I object to this entire article. To start with, I have seen nothing but positive reviews about the product itself. Next, if you are writing an article about the product today, just to whine about the fact that the product is better than what they showed you (as opposed to the norm of showing us features that we expect and rushing through features that should be available) then I would say that Moto has a brilliant marketing strategy. I will take a CEO that commands action over a CEO that is a great presenter any day of the week.
@HanselJalooloo: "if you are writing an article about the product today", well, they aren't. It's an article about how poorly the presentation was for the device.
"To start with, I have seen nothing but positive reviews about the product itself [...] just to whine about the fact that the product is better than what they showed you"
Notice at the end of the article: "Which is a shame, because the Cliq turned out to be a pretty swell little phone, actually!", and again the fact that it was an article about a keynote that was supposed to be for the phone.
"I would say that Moto has a brilliant marketing strategy. I will take a CEO that commands action over a CEO that is a great presenter any day of the week."
You would have a horrible company when nobody at the company even knows the name of the product you are releasing or what it actually does. Otherwise you would be spending millions of dollars on keynotes that confused the hell out of people and led many who were inimpressed by the apparent laziness and lack of organization lose interest in your products and your company.
"Wow, this product looked like shit before, but it's actually pretty good!" isn't the best way to sell a product. Those particular people would have just steered clear of it from the beginning.
Whenever I see it referred to as the "Cliq", I am swept back to high school.
Standing alone, near the stoner bench, looking at the jocks and the cheers thinking, "doouchebags...."
Camara and Sibley is the firm of "Kiwi Camara", who represented Jammie Thomas Rasset against the RIAA in her filesharing suit. Kiwi is apparently the youngest graduate ever of Harvard Law School, and seems big on bucking the establishment and taking on the big guys. Too bad he lost rather spectacularly against the RIAA this time, with the jury awarding a $1.92M penalty against his client, a decision I believe has already been appealed.
Kiwi is apparently also following up with a class action suit against the RIAA with class members consisting of anyone who paid them hush money since they started filing rampant suits against P2P users.
I wonder if he's personally involved in this case as well.
I was actually excited when I sent this in because the EULA strikes a serious nerve with me.
I for one have wanted this fight to focus around the EULA from the beginning as I think it is ridiculous that I can’t legally install OSX on any computer I choose because when it comes down to it, Apple makes PCs no matter how many "I’m a Mac" commercials they run.
Yes I "can" do it, but I technically nullify my license in doing so which is asinine.
@UnderLoK: I technically can't use a regular single license package of OS X to install on multiple systems, but did even more than the family pack "allows".
@Kaiser-Machead: I’m sure many people do violate it either on purpose or on accident, but being restricted to their own product line "or else" is something I can’t agree with as I would hate to see other companies pull the same stunt.
You have to admit...they've got guts. They want to go down swinging. Perhaps they'll take a few pieces of Apple with them.
Do you remember that scene in the new star trek movie where you had the captain of that federation starship crash his ship in the romulan vessel as a last act of defiance? I see psystar doing the same thing....in a legal manner not literal of course.
How do you pronounce psystar anyway? "pisstar"? "fistar"? "sci-star"? =/
@olternaut: "Perhaps they'll take a few pieces of Apple with them."
Yes, because maiming your golden goose is always a sound strategic goal of any company. Seriously, I just don't get PsyStar. They can't rationally battle it out with Apple, hurting the company which makes the OS software that is their entire raison d'être. Not directed at you, just frustrated by Psystar's continued existence.
@Geisrud: Though I don't believe that sealed copies of OS X are marked with the phrase "Not for Resale" (I believe only the reinstall discs are marked, but I could be wrong), there are certain rules that would apply to Psystar if they want to redistribute it for profit. If they're buying them regular from Apple and Amazon, I don't know how they even intend to turn any kind of profit.
"Apple's copyright on OS X doesn't give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy. Apple can't tell an applications developer that it can't make a piece of Mac-compatible software. They can't forbid Mac users from writing blogs critical of Apple. And they can't tell us not to write kernel extensions that turn the computers we buy into Mac-compatible hardware."
It's one thing to alter the product after you buy it, but it's another thing entirely to alter it then redistribute it in bulk for profit. Apple can do what it wants with its own discussions forum, but that doesn't stop people from creating their own blogs and forums criticizing their practices.
And what's this about kernel extensions written in-house? I was under the impression that Psystar lifted a lot of this code from the OSx86 development.
@Kaiser-Machead: Yeah, they covered it up with their own code most likely. In the end, they were stealing from OSx86 and they are at it again. Someone needs to just sue the shit out of them until they go completely under for good. Remember how bad the hardware builds were for the systems anyway? If people want some cheap shit, they can buy a low end machine from Dell or someone else.
@Kaiser-Machead: To be fair, they do have some major kext files that they made themself. I forget the name of one of them, but it fixes issues in power management at shutdown/standby. (It works on non-psystar systems, and it sure helped me.)
I don't have much of an issue with someone trying to distribute OS X-based machines, and even I'd be tempted to fiddle around with one, but with the questionable quality and nature of the company in general, I don't think I'll miss them if they disappear. If they were wise, they'd avoid any legal battle and simply sell OSx86 starter kits without actually loading a hacked version of OS X on them. If they're selling sealed copies of OS X, they're using their own altered version to preload the machines, and that's why they're in trouble.
One of Giz's own sage commenters pointed out that Psystar's actions are more of a legal experiment than a viable business model. They're trying to push the limits of license agreements and "stick it" to a major corporation, seemingly more than trying to simply dole out a quality product to the consumers.
@Kaiser-Machead: "It's one thing to alter the product after you buy it, but it's another thing entirely to alter it then redistribute it in bulk for profit."
@Gruv: And Apple does likewise, with the open source tech that they rewrote and built into OS X. The difference is that software technologies found on the open source community are open source, and both Apple and RedHat acknowledge the development behind their products. Psystar is taking a product that isn't open source, rewriting components and redistributing it without consent.
@cabjf: But once you've bought a bottle of Pepsi you can do what the hell you want with it. drink it, put mentos in it, recycle the bottle, turn the bottle into a rocket, etc.
It'd be like Pepsi saying that you can only drink the Pepsi, and only from the Pespi bottle , your not allowed to pour it into a cup to drink from. And your definitely not allowed to drink it from a Coca Cola bottle (though Coca Cola don't mind if you drink that from a Pepsi bottle)
@deanbmmv: But what if you bought Pepsi in bulk, use a cheap filler to increase volume and redistribute it for profit? The problem with this analogy is that it's only referring to individual user, and doesn't address a business that chooses to redistribute a product without prior consent.
@Kaiser-Machead: Does this mean if my local watering hole wants to sell Rum and Coke that they must first get consent from Coca Cola? if So this could be a great revenue stream for soft drink / alcohol producing companies.
@Kaiser-Machead: I suppose I'm mainly interested in the Pystar stuff because I want the EULA changing for the individual user. I'm one of those folks that could do with a bit of OSX, but unfourtanelty the only current legal way to do that is get a Mac n bootcamp Windows. But I'm not particularity keen on Mac hardware (I like custom building), It's not that great for what I need.
I had tried OSX86 but it's a nightmare. (well it's hard to do n buggy)
Your analogy isn't so fitting either :D What if my local pub bought Pepsi in bulk n mixed it with Jack Daniels n sold it for profit? (they'd be lousy for not making a JD n Coke with Pepsi for one) Analogies: if only there was a one size fits all :D
@Syrix: When you buy your beverages wholesale to serve in your establishment, you can mix them however you want, but what you can't do is repackage it as a retail product and sell it as your own without prior consent of the makers of said product's ingredients.
09/11/09
They were worried Giz was going to hit them again with TV-B-Gone. ;)
09/11/09
Moto hopes the Android sets sell well enough to bid up the asking price. It's sort of like how a major athlete tries to bump up his stats prior to becoming a free agent.
09/11/09
Holy shit, it's like a really tiny computer!
My God, it'll change everything!
QUEEF!
Implied or not, it's going to have one. We've gone through quite a spell with certain phones that trump its lack thereof, so I think we can wrap our minds around either.
09/12/09
I wouldn't buy a phone without one... So I guess we've just come to a point where irritating elitists assume that everyone shares their personal preferences...
09/12/09
Is there any particular importance in it to make a big mention? Most phones have it, and there's nothing new about this one, so really, big woop.
09/11/09
09/11/09
"To start with, I have seen nothing but positive reviews about the product itself [...] just to whine about the fact that the product is better than what they showed you"
Notice at the end of the article: "Which is a shame, because the Cliq turned out to be a pretty swell little phone, actually!", and again the fact that it was an article about a keynote that was supposed to be for the phone.
"I would say that Moto has a brilliant marketing strategy. I will take a CEO that commands action over a CEO that is a great presenter any day of the week."
You would have a horrible company when nobody at the company even knows the name of the product you are releasing or what it actually does. Otherwise you would be spending millions of dollars on keynotes that confused the hell out of people and led many who were inimpressed by the apparent laziness and lack of organization lose interest in your products and your company.
"Wow, this product looked like shit before, but it's actually pretty good!" isn't the best way to sell a product. Those particular people would have just steered clear of it from the beginning.
09/11/09
Standing alone, near the stoner bench, looking at the jocks and the cheers thinking, "doouchebags...."
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
07/29/09
DieGo to CourtKiwi is apparently also following up with a class action suit against the RIAA with class members consisting of anyone who paid them hush money since they started filing rampant suits against P2P users.
I wonder if he's personally involved in this case as well.
07/29/09
DieGo to CourtI for one have wanted this fight to focus around the EULA from the beginning as I think it is ridiculous that I can’t legally install OSX on any computer I choose because when it comes down to it, Apple makes PCs no matter how many "I’m a Mac" commercials they run.
Yes I "can" do it, but I technically nullify my license in doing so which is asinine.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
DieGo to Court07/29/09
07/29/09
DieGo to CourtDo you remember that scene in the new star trek movie where you had the captain of that federation starship crash his ship in the romulan vessel as a last act of defiance? I see psystar doing the same thing....in a legal manner not literal of course.
How do you pronounce psystar anyway? "pisstar"? "fistar"? "sci-star"? =/
07/29/09
07/29/09
Yes, because maiming your golden goose is always a sound strategic goal of any company. Seriously, I just don't get PsyStar. They can't rationally battle it out with Apple, hurting the company which makes the OS software that is their entire raison d'être. Not directed at you, just frustrated by Psystar's continued existence.
07/29/09
DieGo to Court07/29/09
DieGo to Court07/29/09
07/29/09
DieGo to CourtIt's one thing to alter the product after you buy it, but it's another thing entirely to alter it then redistribute it in bulk for profit. Apple can do what it wants with its own discussions forum, but that doesn't stop people from creating their own blogs and forums criticizing their practices.
And what's this about kernel extensions written in-house? I was under the impression that Psystar lifted a lot of this code from the OSx86 development.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
@imTheKing,
I don't have much of an issue with someone trying to distribute OS X-based machines, and even I'd be tempted to fiddle around with one, but with the questionable quality and nature of the company in general, I don't think I'll miss them if they disappear. If they were wise, they'd avoid any legal battle and simply sell OSx86 starter kits without actually loading a hacked version of OS X on them. If they're selling sealed copies of OS X, they're using their own altered version to preload the machines, and that's why they're in trouble.
One of Giz's own sage commenters pointed out that Psystar's actions are more of a legal experiment than a viable business model. They're trying to push the limits of license agreements and "stick it" to a major corporation, seemingly more than trying to simply dole out a quality product to the consumers.
07/29/09
RedHat does it with Linux.
07/29/09
07/29/09
DieGo to Court07/29/09
07/29/09
It'd be like Pepsi saying that you can only drink the Pepsi, and only from the Pespi bottle , your not allowed to pour it into a cup to drink from. And your definitely not allowed to drink it from a Coca Cola bottle (though Coca Cola don't mind if you drink that from a Pepsi bottle)
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
I had tried OSX86 but it's a nightmare. (well it's hard to do n buggy)
Your analogy isn't so fitting either :D What if my local pub bought Pepsi in bulk n mixed it with Jack Daniels n sold it for profit? (they'd be lousy for not making a JD n Coke with Pepsi for one) Analogies: if only there was a one size fits all :D
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/27/09
You can have tons of OPTIONS which comes with a pre selection of "best apps".
So if someone isn't satisfied with the calculator of choice, he/she may choose from the other 22.
Also, prof. Barry Schwartz.
http://xspblog.com/2008/12/15/barry-schwartz-the-paradox-of-choice-ted.../