LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksErm, clock got removed on the first icon from the right?Originally Posted by kopite
Erm, clock got removed on the first icon from the right?
My Blog => http://adriank.org
I came across this blog, lol ...
http://techdonk.blogspot.com/2011/09...aystation.html
I think you're just making this up as you go along. It's been specifically the appearance of TouchWiz (a Samsung product, not Google) that Apple have taken objection too, along with the physical appearance of various Samsung products and their associated accessories and packaging. Are you suggesting that Google should be held responsible for all of the manufacturers who make Android products? Why do you think Google should be responsible?Perhaps some of the patents used in the law suit are more angled towards the design and function of the OS but Apple know taking on Google directly could result in some serious damage splashed back at them. Thats what all of this is about, Apple attacking the companies which use google android because its safer then attacking google directly.
How can you abuse the system? You either have a case, or you don't.If people find ways to abuse a system which at its core has good intentions it doesn't make the abuser morally sound.
I suspect you're just seeing what you want to see. It's looking increasingly likely that Samsung have infringed on a number of Apple patents in the Galaxy Tab. How much evidence do you require to believe this? Why is it you seem to require more evidence than a court of law?My point is that they HAVENT REALLY COPIED IT, apple are just using the patents to make it seem like they have according to the law. The law isnt life's decider on reality, it cant take away your ability to use common sense and see with your own eyes the two things only bare a resemblance in the ways which are difficult to avoid. The whole thing is BOLLOCKS
Old touchscreens phones and tablets are nothing like the iPhone and iPad.Erm... HTC have been making touchscreen phones wayyyyyyyy before Apple did. It took apple 4 generations of their phone to even come close in capability to what HTC where doing with windows mobile 5-6 years ago!
Tablets have been made by companies too, albiet not running a 'mobile OS'.
I'm beginning to think you don't even understand what innovation is. Innovation does not just mean to create something that's completely new, it also means to take existing ideas and renew or change them to give new purpose or usefulnes. In that sense, Apple are very innovative. The iPod, iTunes, iPhone and iPad would all fit into that category of innovation.Yes apple made it stylish but they didnt do a whole lot of innovating, more integrating and advertising.
That completely contradicts your previous sentence as that is innovationApple didnt create a platform, they just improved and refined it.
Innovation is different to invention.
How do you know that any of these companies have violated Apple's patents? You don't, so why do you suppose Apple should be sueing them, and why do you suppose that that means they have other motives? You're basing your opinion on something that you don't even have the answer to.Yes the detail doesn't explain why Sony, Acer, Asus or even Blackberry have not been targeted. Apple are only chasing certain companies which suggests they have other motives.
Maybe they will.This photo scrolling patent will therefore be infringed by any manufacturer using that version of Android, and hence they should be sued for it. Ultimately, Google are providing this platform and Apple should take this up with them.
Yeah, they're better.
(for productivity and compatibility)
1. Touchwiz does bare some resemblance to iOS but the way it works is all based on android's existing functionality
2. The physical appearance of the tablet is not that similar (unless you warp the picture)
3. Who gives a damn abut packaging? Is similar packaging really relevant enough to block a product from segments of the European market?
I never said google should be responsible, i dont think anyone should be responsible because i think the case is complete bollocks. I don't think this has anything to genuinely do with stealing of IP, i think this is to do with taking out the competition by any means necessary.
Given that the new iOS contains a notification draw which pulls down from the top of the screen, if anyone has something to sue about in this vaguely relative game of 'my library of patents is better than yours' its Google.
How about a single piece of evidence which isnt seriously flawed or based on half assed patents? How about a court of law that requires the same?
Nothing like? They could accomplish much of the same things, infact they accomplished a lot more than the original iPhone. With the Sense add on to to winmo 6.5 there was a lot of the same slickness which you get from modern mobile OS's and even though android was released later than iphone it took the lead with its actual capability and apple took a long time to catch up. Im sorry but you will need to give more than... 'they where nothing like...'
Its a subjective point, there any many different definitions for innovation and personally i dont feel as though Apple are quite the innovators they put themself out as being. What they have technically achieved has not been groundbreaking it has just been well advertised and made more accessible to the public than that of the competition.
I deliberately trimmed the statement, 'how can you abuse the system...' as it has been done by many many companies before, including apple. Their first ever operating system was ripped from Xerox who never saw the royalties they deserved. On top of that perhaps people should try giving the Microsoft vs Apple court cases from the 90s a read, back when apple where told they couldn't patent such BS things. I would love to know why its any different now and apple are now allowed to patent a 'look and feel'.
Last edited by Biscuit; 20-10-2011 at 10:09 PM.
Right, so we agree that Apple has a case against Samsung over TouchWiz1. Touchwiz does bare some resemblance to iOS but the way it works is all based on android's existing functionality
I can't help you there because if you can't see the similarities now, you never will.2. The physical appearance of the tablet is not that similar (unless you warp the picture)
Yes. Samsung should use some originality and come up with their own ideas. This is what the whole lawsuit is about.3. Who gives a damn abut packaging? Is similar packaging really relevant enough to block a product from segments of the European market?
Isn't Android and the notification system open source, therefore bypassing any possible action from Google?Given that the new iOS contains a notification draw which pulls down from the top of the screen, if anyone has something to sue about in this vaguely relative game of 'my library of patents is better than yours' its Google.
What makes you think you are in any sort of authority to make a decision as to what counts as 'seriously flawed' or 'half assed' over the authority of a court of law who are fully trained to deal with such matters? You've got the evidence, you're just choosing to ignore it/dismiss it because you don't like the outcome (ref. my earlier post about hole digging and being too stubborn/proud to admit when you're wrong - that hole you're digging is getting deeper and deeper).How about a single piece of evidence which isnt seriously flawed or based on half assed patents? How about a court of law that requires the same?
Touchscreen devices were nothing like the iPhone prior to the iPhone. They were keyboard driven devices that just so happened to have a touchscreen. They weren't touchscreen only devices with a focus on touch driven UI. They had resisitive touchscreens and often required stylie to use them because the screens were relatively small. They didn't have a strong focus on internet access and connectivity like the iPhone. However, I think you do actually know this, but once again, the hole digging concept I alluded to above strikes again. You know it, I know it, Apple changed the concept of a touchscreen phone with one fell swoop when they launched the iPhone. There's absolutely no point in trying to deny it because that's simply what happened! It's in the past, gone, done, you might as well just accept it and move on. It isn't going to make you any less of a man to admit that Apple changed the face of the mobile phone world. It isn't going to make your Android phone stop working.Nothing like? They could accomplish much of the same things, infact they accomplished a lot more than the original iPhone. With the Sense add on to to winmo 6.5 there was a lot of the same slickness which you get from modern mobile OS's and even though android was released later than iphone it took the lead with its actual capability and apple took a long time to catch up. Im sorry but you will need to give more than... 'they where nothing like...'
If the iPod and iTunes weren't groundbreaking, why is iTunes now the largest music store in the world (and iPod, though now fading, the best selling MP3 player in the world?)Its a subjective point, there any many different definitions for innovation and personally i dont feel as though Apple are quite the innovators they put themself out as being. What they have technically achieved has not been groundbreaking it has just been well advertised and made more accessible to the public than that of the competition.
If the iPhone wasn't groundbreaking, why is every man and his dog now making a touchscreen slab phone with finger friendly UI, capactive screen, with a focus on internet access and connectivity (and apps)?
If the iPad wasn't groundbreaking, why is every man and his dog now making a tablet based device with mobile UI with a focus on finger friendly UI, internet access and connectivity?
There's only so far you can shove your head into the sand before you just start looking silly. To deny any of those things above simply highlights a personal inability to accept that Apple aren't as 'bad', 'anti-competitive' or 'lacking in innovation' as you seem to think. I know that you do actually know that all of the products above were groundbreaking. For whatever reason, you just can't bring yourself to admit it, and your digging an ever deeper hole in the process.
The keyboard on The xda`s was slide out so wasnt meant as the main way of interacting with the device. In fact there where numerous models that didnt even have a physical keyboard at all
The xda screen was 3.5 inch which is the same physical size as the iphone screen.
And I might be wrong but it came with a web browser didnt it?
Last edited by kopite; 20-10-2011 at 10:53 PM.
No i agree it bares a resemblance... I dont think its enough to sue over.
Yeah i suppose... but do you not see the point in how irrelevant these similarities?
Im yet to see some actual evidence which i dont look at and go... are you serious?
Once again.... go look at the microsoft vs apple cases and just take note of what happened.
Im not of this opinion just to be awkward or just to be argumentative, im off it because i have been following it with disbelief nearly the entire time. I had a winmo phone which had a resistive screen and a stylus but worked perfectly fine by touch, whether it was navigation or typing i didnt even use the stylus 99% of the time. Im aware apple changed things and im not denying it, im just not convinced they did it by technical innovation.
Once again, im saying i dont think what they TECHNICALLY ACHIEVED was groundbreaking, it was the accessibility and advertising which they used which is what has brought them success. Most of apples big achievements have been pretty much met with the opinion (my opinion anyway) of 'meh'. They changed the general concepts which where existing and made a massive deal of it, other people take up the platform which apple make a big deal of then get sued? As far as im concerned, Apple just make things which are generally geeky into cool desirable items.
You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion on the matter but you are borderline just being insulting now. Reel it back if you may.
Your point appears to be that Google should sue Apple because the notification centre in iOS looks the same as the notification bar in Android. My point is that Google have made their OS freely available to anyone, to chop and change it in whatever way they like, therefore they cannot sue Apple. Apple have not made iOS or any of their designs freely available, therefore nobody can copy them. If you do, you will be sued (and rightly so, since Apple didn't give you permission to play with it's toys). You'd actually have a point if a) Android wasn't open source and was protected by Google or b) Apple had made iOS open source but then started sueing people who used it. As it stands, you don't have a point.Yeah i suppose... but do you not see the point in how irrelevant these similarities?
You don't see the evidence that the court sees, therefore your opinion is not really relevent. Until you can make an informed decision based on the same evidence and legal basis that the court have, your opinion is meaningless, and I don't know why you think it would mean anything since you know you haven't seen all of the evidence nor do you appear to have any legal training on the matter. You might as well just throw a dice and base your opinion on that for all it's actually worth in reality. My opinion is very much 'let the people who know what they are talking about decide who is right and wrong'. You should stick to that rather than basing it on some pre-concieved notions.Im yet to see some actual evidence which i dont look at and go... are you serious?
I see the goal posts have changed from 'innovation' to 'technical innovation'. I'd agree, on 'technical innovation' specifically, Apple are less successful. But on 'innovation' as a whole, Apple are exceptionally successful.Im not of this opinion just to be awkward or just to be argumentative, im off it because i have been following it with disbelief nearly the entire time. I had a winmo phone which had a resistive screen and a stylus but worked perfectly fine by touch, whether it was navigation or typing i didnt even use the stylus 99% of the time. Im aware apple changed things and im not denying it, im just not convinced they did it by technical innovation.
Apple haven't really achieved anything that was amazingly technically innovative (other than a supply chain to die for). But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that Apple haven't achieved anything innovative. Which couldn't be further from the truth.Once again, im saying i dont think what they TECHNICALLY ACHIEVED was groundbreaking, it was the accessibility and advertising which they used which is what has brought them success. Most of apples big achievements have been pretty much met with the opinion (my opinion anyway) of 'meh'. They changed the general concepts which where existing and made a massive deal of it, other people take up the platform which apple make a big deal of then get sued? As far as im concerned, Apple just make things which are generally geeky into cool desirable items.
It seems, however, that your opinion is very much in the minority, as the world practically stops when Apple announce something. If these announcements were as 'meh' as you imply them to be, the world wouldn't even be listening to what Apple have to say nevermind clambering to copy them. If Apple's announcements are 'meh', I hate to think what your opinion is of the even more forgettable announcements made by Google, Samsung, Nokia and the like.
Apple make a big deal out of the platform they have created. There isn't anything about that that forces other companies or manufacturers to follow suit. However, they do follow suit because they know that what Apple do has a profound and lasting effect on the market, and with an inability to shape such things themselves, they have to follow suit to survive. It's the lack of this quality, which appears to be unique to Apple, that means these other companies are followers rather than leaders. You've even admitted this much yourself above. And it's the lack of this quality that is now landing some of them in hot water. Just look at Nokia and Microsoft as prime examples of how their failure to even keep up with Apple, nevermind their inability to create new markets, has led to a very sharp decline in their presence in the smartphone market. Just look at how Android was originally a Blackberry clone until it was quickly retooled to be more iOS like following the introduction and initial success of the iPhone. These were all reactions to what Apple had already done.
We are seeing exactly the same thing happen in the tablet market; tablets were done a particular way in the past, then Apple did something new with them, and suddenly everyone is following along the same lines. Apple's nearest mobile OS rival, Android, was caught so off guard by the iPad that Android device manufacturers actually had to shoehorn an OS designed for a phone onto a tablet device, and launch it 6 months after the iPad. It was a whole year after the launch of the iPad that there was even a sniff of a version of Android that was actually designed for tablets. Again, Apple led, and the rest have followed. Google and the Android manufacturers didn't have to follow Apple down the iPad route, they could have come up with something completely different. But that's the crux of the issue, they lack the ability to come up with something completely different and rely on following what someone else has done. If Google, Samsung, Motorola, whoever, were so innovative, why didn't they come up with the concept of a tablet running a mobile OS before Apple? They didn't because they hadn't thought of it, or were lacking in whatever qualities they needed to make it a reality.
I find it highly amusing when people accuse Apple of not being innovative, or stiffling innovation, yet the face of the modern smartphone and tablet market have been shaped entirely by Apple, and it's the rest of the bunch that have followed who lack innovation. Why wasn't it Nokia who shaped the modern smartphone? Why wasn't it Google who shaped the modern mobile OS? Why wasn't it Samsung who shaped the modern tablet? Apple came from having zero experience in either of these two markets and completely swept the rug from under the feet of those manufacturers who had had years of prior experience in each of these fields. Why were they resting on their laurels and actually doing very little to be innovative? Why are they still just copying what has already come and gone instead of developing their own new product categories?
Before you accuse Apple of lacking innovation, you should stop and think about things more broadly and thoroughly and you will quickly come to realise who are the ones that are truely lacking in innovation.
Mrochester i thought your post have been pretty constructive most of the way through this thread but now im going to have to call you up on some absolute bollocks.
That is laughable, resistive touchscreens? Who was the first to use capactive technology in their phones? Oh thats right, LG (or lucky gold star as they used to be called) in the end of 2006 they announced the prada phone and released it in jan 07, when did the iphone 1 get announced? Seems it was announced AFTER the prada was AVAILABLE, so they were not first and infact if you look at the prada im pretty sure you cant argue that everyone is copying LG! Its curved edges its glass screen its front facing buttons, hmm this seems to describe pretty much EVERY smartphone this is interesting!.Touchscreen devices were nothing like the iPhone prior to the iPhone. They were keyboard driven devices that just so happened to have a touchscreen. They weren't touchscreen only devices with a focus on touch driven UI. They had resisitive touchscreens and often required stylie to use them because the screens were relatively small. They didn't have a strong focus on internet access and connectivity like the iPhone
Id also like to add that LG OS was actually quite touch orientated, it worked fairly well!. Please lets stick to well known facts.
Now onto my question/statement, i believe the open source license says something like companies arent allowed to tamper with it and they certainly arent allowed to use it for commercial gain, welcome someone to correct me but im pretty sure i recall reading that awhile ago so basically Apple wouldnt be allowed to edit it and take it to their system or a straight copy...
Mrochester i thought your post have been pretty constructive most of the way through this thread but now im going to have to call you up on some absolute bollocks
That is laughable, resistive touchscreens? Who was the first to use capactive technology in their phones? Oh thats right, LG (or lucky gold star as they used to be called) in the end of 2006 they announced the prada phone and released it in jan 07, when did the iphone 1 get announced? Seems it was announced AFTER the prada was AVAILABLE, so they were not first and infact if you look at the prada im pretty sure you cant argue that everyone is copying LG! Its curved edges its glass screen its front facing buttons, hmm this seems to describe pretty much EVERY smartphone this is interesting!.
Id also like to add that LG OS was actually quite touch orientated, it worked fairly well!. Please lets stick to well known facts.
Now onto my question/statement, i believe the open source license says something like companies arent allowed to tamper with it and they certainly arent allowed to use it for commercial gain, welcome someone to correct me but im pretty sure i recall reading that awhile ago so basically Apple wouldnt be allowed to edit it and take it to their system or a straight copy...
The LG Prada was announced after the iPhone.
http://www.unwiredview.com/2007/01/1...ally-launches/
http://mobile-leader.blogspot.com/20...announced.html
http://www.unwiredview.com/2007/01/1...ally-launches/
http://gizmodo.com/lg-ke850/
http://tech2.in.com/news/mobile-phon...850-prada/3852
These are the 'well known facts' you apparently didn't know.
To step away from the actual participants for a moment, the analogy that I'm running through my mind is the car market. There's a huge variety available but most have 4 wheels and an engine.
To my perception Apple have managed to patent the idea of 4 wheels and a petrol engine, grudgingly allow a diseal engine but try and sue anyone who produces another car. In the mean time, the other manufacturers have patented steering wheels, gloveboxes, gear sticks, seats etc, and are fighting back with those.
All in all, it's a complete farce, and can only hurt consumers and ultimately the participants
(\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
(='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
(")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")
This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!
Ive given up debating most of the points in this thread since it's a lost cause..people will have a go at apple just because they are apple, and are blinded by that just as much as any fanboy who thinks they are a cult. If you read past all the rubbish that gets "printed" about these cases you'll see that they are always arguing specific points - to take the car analogy It's like Apple have produced and Patented the VW TFSI engine. Samsung can come and develop an engine with the exact same results as long as they build it differently or pay the licence fee. I.e it's not the concept of a car that they have patented, but how it's put together and the detail of individual parts.
However I have to backup mrochester here - the iPhone was the game changer in terms of touch screen phones. It was the first mass market, consumer mobile phone which was designed solely around using a finger. Not even a hint of a stylus. Yes the Prada was released at a similar time, and LG did indeed go ahead and try (unsuccessfully) to sue Apple for copying the Prada (at this point i'll just point out that this is a company other than apple, suing a competitor for alleged design patent infringement..proof it's not just apple that does this)
The Pada was not a mass market success though. In truth the phone sucked - the UI was terrible, and the hardware + marketing appealed largely to Women..sure the technology behind it was good, but they didn't capture mass market, it just wasn't a game changer.
It's true also that HTC made a damn good job of making WM 6.x more finger friendly with Manilla and then later sense (btw, android copied/stole it's entire notification system from Manilla..before Apple added the same concept to the iPhone). Manilla was great - meant that I could do some things on my HTC Touch without reaching for the stylus. It was still incredibly difficult though and well, rubbish compared to the iPhone UI. There is a reason that my next phone after the touch was a Touch Pro - that slide out keyboard was a necessity!
Like it or not, the iPhone was the game changer here..it was definitely the first consumer successful mass market touch screen mobile phone (there's a long title!). Also at the time it was the best available in hardware and software - that is of course much more debatable now (in fact since they didn't release a new iPhone this year, they are now way behind the competition).
Doing some more research I've found that the photo scrolling patent was directed at Samsung's customisation of the gallery application. Apparently, it's not a standard feature of Android 2.3. So I stand corrected.
As I've said before Apple have a right to go after Samsung because of these patents which have been proven in court. However, the courts have not proved any patent violation against HTC and Motorola simply because Apple has no grounding to their filings especially when they're going to use generic patents (like the one I mentioned before).
Another example is here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/30/a...r-six-patents/
Actual patent itself: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/abou...AJ&redir_esc=y
Now this has been used against HTC, Motorola and even Nokia. It's obvious that any phone using a touchscreen with multi-touch is in violation. So that includes phones from other manufacturers including the ones I mentioned. And ultimately this boils down to Google creating the Android OS which allowed these manufacturers to utilise this type of screen hardware.
You also mention innovation. It's hardly innovative for Apple to copy the notifications system in Android. I'm sure they could have come up with a different method of implementing it.
And here it is straight from the horse's mouth...the only motive for Apple
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
