This is the reason Apple doesn't sit idle. While others are copying what Apple did yesterday, Apple will have moved on to something new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
I'll just point out legal reverse engineering isn't about stealing patents, it's about figuring out how something works and then figuring a non-infringing (similar or dissimalar) way to do the same thing.
Not really! Human vision simply is optimized for a wider aspect ratios.
Only under very narrow circumstances. Our peripheral vision works on the horizontal plane. But our field of focus is rather narrow. Peripheral field of view is for scanning large areas.
This is why an anamorphic movie projected onto a 40-50 foot movie screen is effective in immersing the audience into the story.
16x9 video on a 10" screen inches away from your face does nothing to increase visual information.
Quote:
OK if you believe that I'm not going to argue about it.
I'll just point out legal reverse engineering isn't about stealing patents, it's about figuring out how something works and then figuring a non-infringing (similar or dissimalar) way to do the same thing.
That may be legal, but it's morally gray. It's clear that without the "hints" that the original engineering gives you, you may have never figured out the alternate path to the same end. It's like stealing the map instead of the treasure.
That may be legal, but it's morally gray. It's clear that without the "hints" that the original engineering gives you, you may have never figured out the alternate path to the same end. It's like stealing the map instead of the treasure.
My sense of history is that corporate ethics - even between mature corporations - often tend to shade toward the grey.
I used to cite the old Jobsian visit to Xerox Parc Labs to see mice and graphical UI's as evidence of this, but I read recently that got settled, not to Xerox's huge profit, but on the up and up. Still, Apple (and MS) have added "features" to Macs (and PCs) that were once sold as add-ons by "partner" ISV's. Other ambiguous at best cases can be cited, many of which are still in various stages of litigation. Apple is the most-sued corporation around at the moment, and tho' many of the suits are somewhat to wholly specious and not all are are about IP or patents, some may be decided against them.
Finally, there is that saying: "All's fair in love, war.... ...and business."
Your examples are more akin to seeing something someone else has creating, then going and creating your own version of it and having more success. Their is nothing unethical about that.
Its totally different from reverse engineering or outright stealing someone else IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
My sense of history is that corporate ethics - even between mature corporations - often tend to shade toward the grey.
I used to cite the old Jobsian visit to Xerox Parc Labs to see mice and graphical UI's as evidence of this, but I read recently that got settled, not to Xerox's huge profit, but on the up and up. Still, Apple (and MS) have added "features" to Macs (and PCs) that were once sold as add-ons by "partner" ISV's. Other ambiguous at best cases can be cited, many of which are still in various stages of litigation. Apple is the most-sued corporation around at the moment, and tho' many of the suits are somewhat to wholly specious and not all are are about IP or patents, some may be decided against them.
Why would Bada execute any better than Objective C on it, as objective C is also compiled down to native ( unlike Android, in general). The HW and software integration depends more on the software team.
Samsung dont really have an OS team. Apple have chip designers, a compiler team, a kernel team, a lower level API team ( writing plenty of API in C, as well as Objective C), an energy management team and so on.
Samsung are throwing this stuff together. If you cant imagine Samsun writing an OS to compete with a MacBook , you cant imagine them writing one to compete with a tablet.
Its much easier (and cheaper) to build out a software team than a hardware team.
Software team only requires the staff and associated personal computers with perhaps a database server and associated software development tools.
Hardware team on the other hand require heavy infrastructure, chip design software, prototyping facilities, and multibillion fab plants.
If you were Samsung (already a hardware company with chip facilities around the world), its only a small investment to start a software team.
Samsung have even said that they will shift their priorities over to software in the coming months.
That’s an absurd conclusion. What proof do you have that Apple’s page on batteries showcasing their adaptive charging or their 1000 cycles instead of 300 are false.
Seeing as their is a plethora of crap software and a relatively small amount of good useful software. I think you underestimate the challenge of putting together a good software team.
The Asian nations are not at all known for good software development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Its much easier (and cheaper) to build out a software team than a hardware team.
Software team only requires the staff and associated personal computers with perhaps a database server and associated software development tools.
What I mean is that if one looks a little deeper there are a number of interesting things happening with Samsungs microprocessor devision that could be tied with Apple. Some things of note:
Samsung is ready with their 32/28nm process. That means a low power variant of the A4 could be ready real soon now.
Yeah, I've been out on a limb saying the A5 will be 32nm process. They have that new 32nm fab capacity that they've said is ready for production...and yet they're using the Tegra 2 stuff fabbed by someone else for their own gear. Given they've more than just sampled 32nm Cortex A9 parts you line the dots up and figure that the next iPad and iPhone is going to have a process advantage over the Android tablet competitors...
Yeah, but it still seems like a major risk for Apple to be putting such a critical element of its success in the hands of someone who trying their darnedest to compete with them. It's not like Apple doesn't have the volume to justify, or couldn't afford to set up its own manufacture.
This might have made sense a few years ago when the iPhone was just getting started. But now that Apple is a dominant player I hope they will take steps to protect themselves from mischief.
Samsung Semi and Samsung Mobile are two different groups and P&L centers. Whether Samsung Mobile choose Tegra 2 or had that choice forced upon them because Semi was already tasked to fulfill Apple orders is an interesting question.
Apple wants to stay fabless. I sure as hell would. Given that I'd say Samsung is as good a partner as anyone else if not better for Apple's purposes.
Pure bull dust - sorry. The Orion SoC (Hummingbird successor) will blow away anything Samsung or Apple currently make, performance wise. The peak power consumption will be higher, but due to multiple efficiency improvements, the average power consumption will actually be lower - reportedly 30% lower!:
Mmmm...there's no reason to believe that any tech in Orion isn't going to be in the A5 given that the A4 and Hummingbird are close. Note that the A4 shipped in product (iPhone 4) before Hummingbird did (Captivate). Both rely on tech from Intrinsity that Apple now owns.
A9 in general is supposedly 30% better off than A8. That should be mostly true from any vendor.
And if Orion is so awesome why are the next Galaxy Tabs based on Tegra 2 being fabbed by TSMC?
I'm thinking the Orions are already superseded by Samsung's 32nm Saratoga A9s and that's what will be in the iPad 2/iPhone 5 and the 45nm capacity currently is being eaten up by A4 and Hummingbird production. At some point (like maybe after Austin comes online at 32nm) Samsung phones and tablets will go Saratoga and skip the Orion.
45nm A9s are a stopgap and as long as Samsung Semi is running at capacity then buying Tegra 2s is better than investing in more 45nm fab capability.
Its much easier (and cheaper) to build out a software team than a hardware team.
Software has a gazillion more moving parts and is the riskier of the two.
Quote:
Software team only requires the staff and associated personal computers with perhaps a database server and associated software development tools.
Hardware team on the other hand require heavy infrastructure, chip design software, prototyping facilities, and multibillion fab plants.
If you were Samsung (already a hardware company with chip facilities around the world), its only a small investment to start a software team.
Samsung have even said that they will shift their priorities over to software in the coming months.
It's easier to build an aircraft carrier (hardware) than it is to run it (knowledge/process). There's a lot of institutional knowledge that is key to success. Samsung will have to learn a lot of those the same way that Google, Apple, MS did. The kernel is relatively easy. An API/SDK that doesn't suck is harder.
Sony is a hardware company focus. Apple far more a software company focus.
Which has been more successful in building systems that work well and is easier to develop for?
Comments
I'll just point out legal reverse engineering isn't about stealing patents, it's about figuring out how something works and then figuring a non-infringing (similar or dissimalar) way to do the same thing.
Not really! Human vision simply is optimized for a wider aspect ratios.
Only under very narrow circumstances. Our peripheral vision works on the horizontal plane. But our field of focus is rather narrow. Peripheral field of view is for scanning large areas.
This is why an anamorphic movie projected onto a 40-50 foot movie screen is effective in immersing the audience into the story.
16x9 video on a 10" screen inches away from your face does nothing to increase visual information.
OK if you believe that I'm not going to argue about it.
Its not what I believe, it is the truth.
I'll just point out legal reverse engineering isn't about stealing patents, it's about figuring out how something works and then figuring a non-infringing (similar or dissimalar) way to do the same thing.
That may be legal, but it's morally gray. It's clear that without the "hints" that the original engineering gives you, you may have never figured out the alternate path to the same end. It's like stealing the map instead of the treasure.
That may be legal, but it's morally gray. It's clear that without the "hints" that the original engineering gives you, you may have never figured out the alternate path to the same end. It's like stealing the map instead of the treasure.
My sense of history is that corporate ethics - even between mature corporations - often tend to shade toward the grey.
I used to cite the old Jobsian visit to Xerox Parc Labs to see mice and graphical UI's as evidence of this, but I read recently that got settled, not to Xerox's huge profit, but on the up and up. Still, Apple (and MS) have added "features" to Macs (and PCs) that were once sold as add-ons by "partner" ISV's. Other ambiguous at best cases can be cited, many of which are still in various stages of litigation. Apple is the most-sued corporation around at the moment, and tho' many of the suits are somewhat to wholly specious and not all are are about IP or patents, some may be decided against them.
Finally, there is that saying: "All's fair in love, war.... ...and business."
Its totally different from reverse engineering or outright stealing someone else IP.
My sense of history is that corporate ethics - even between mature corporations - often tend to shade toward the grey.
I used to cite the old Jobsian visit to Xerox Parc Labs to see mice and graphical UI's as evidence of this, but I read recently that got settled, not to Xerox's huge profit, but on the up and up. Still, Apple (and MS) have added "features" to Macs (and PCs) that were once sold as add-ons by "partner" ISV's. Other ambiguous at best cases can be cited, many of which are still in various stages of litigation. Apple is the most-sued corporation around at the moment, and tho' many of the suits are somewhat to wholly specious and not all are are about IP or patents, some may be decided against them.
yellow hill. answer this.
Why would Bada execute any better than Objective C on it, as objective C is also compiled down to native ( unlike Android, in general). The HW and software integration depends more on the software team.
Samsung dont really have an OS team. Apple have chip designers, a compiler team, a kernel team, a lower level API team ( writing plenty of API in C, as well as Objective C), an energy management team and so on.
Samsung are throwing this stuff together. If you cant imagine Samsun writing an OS to compete with a MacBook , you cant imagine them writing one to compete with a tablet.
Its much easier (and cheaper) to build out a software team than a hardware team.
Software team only requires the staff and associated personal computers with perhaps a database server and associated software development tools.
Hardware team on the other hand require heavy infrastructure, chip design software, prototyping facilities, and multibillion fab plants.
If you were Samsung (already a hardware company with chip facilities around the world), its only a small investment to start a software team.
Samsung have even said that they will shift their priorities over to software in the coming months.
That’s an absurd conclusion. What proof do you have that Apple’s page on batteries showcasing their adaptive charging or their 1000 cycles instead of 300 are false.If you really believe that you should file a lawsuit for false advertising.
What proof do you have that Apple's claims are true? I'm talking third party, verifiable, non-biased proof.
For the record, Samsung has a battery making subsidiary called Samsung SDI. They know a thing or two about batteries more so than Apple.
http://www.samsungsdi.com/intro/c_2_1.jsp
The Asian nations are not at all known for good software development.
Its much easier (and cheaper) to build out a software team than a hardware team.
Software team only requires the staff and associated personal computers with perhaps a database server and associated software development tools.
What I mean is that if one looks a little deeper there are a number of interesting things happening with Samsungs microprocessor devision that could be tied with Apple. Some things of note:
Samsung is ready with their 32/28nm process. That means a low power variant of the A4 could be ready real soon now.
Yeah, I've been out on a limb saying the A5 will be 32nm process. They have that new 32nm fab capacity that they've said is ready for production...and yet they're using the Tegra 2 stuff fabbed by someone else for their own gear. Given they've more than just sampled 32nm Cortex A9 parts you line the dots up and figure that the next iPad and iPhone is going to have a process advantage over the Android tablet competitors...
Yeah, but it still seems like a major risk for Apple to be putting such a critical element of its success in the hands of someone who trying their darnedest to compete with them. It's not like Apple doesn't have the volume to justify, or couldn't afford to set up its own manufacture.
This might have made sense a few years ago when the iPhone was just getting started. But now that Apple is a dominant player I hope they will take steps to protect themselves from mischief.
Samsung Semi and Samsung Mobile are two different groups and P&L centers. Whether Samsung Mobile choose Tegra 2 or had that choice forced upon them because Semi was already tasked to fulfill Apple orders is an interesting question.
Apple wants to stay fabless. I sure as hell would. Given that I'd say Samsung is as good a partner as anyone else if not better for Apple's purposes.
Pure bull dust - sorry. The Orion SoC (Hummingbird successor) will blow away anything Samsung or Apple currently make, performance wise. The peak power consumption will be higher, but due to multiple efficiency improvements, the average power consumption will actually be lower - reportedly 30% lower!:
Mmmm...there's no reason to believe that any tech in Orion isn't going to be in the A5 given that the A4 and Hummingbird are close. Note that the A4 shipped in product (iPhone 4) before Hummingbird did (Captivate). Both rely on tech from Intrinsity that Apple now owns.
A9 in general is supposedly 30% better off than A8. That should be mostly true from any vendor.
And if Orion is so awesome why are the next Galaxy Tabs based on Tegra 2 being fabbed by TSMC?
I'm thinking the Orions are already superseded by Samsung's 32nm Saratoga A9s and that's what will be in the iPad 2/iPhone 5 and the 45nm capacity currently is being eaten up by A4 and Hummingbird production. At some point (like maybe after Austin comes online at 32nm) Samsung phones and tablets will go Saratoga and skip the Orion.
45nm A9s are a stopgap and as long as Samsung Semi is running at capacity then buying Tegra 2s is better than investing in more 45nm fab capability.
Its much easier (and cheaper) to build out a software team than a hardware team.
Software has a gazillion more moving parts and is the riskier of the two.
Software team only requires the staff and associated personal computers with perhaps a database server and associated software development tools.
Hardware team on the other hand require heavy infrastructure, chip design software, prototyping facilities, and multibillion fab plants.
If you were Samsung (already a hardware company with chip facilities around the world), its only a small investment to start a software team.
Samsung have even said that they will shift their priorities over to software in the coming months.
It's easier to build an aircraft carrier (hardware) than it is to run it (knowledge/process). There's a lot of institutional knowledge that is key to success. Samsung will have to learn a lot of those the same way that Google, Apple, MS did. The kernel is relatively easy. An API/SDK that doesn't suck is harder.
Sony is a hardware company focus. Apple far more a software company focus.
Which has been more successful in building systems that work well and is easier to develop for?