Has anyone done the math as to how many dollars "88 percent of the value of all mobile phones, 37.6 percent of all tablet computers and 32.5 percent of all media players found to infringe on Apple's patents" would add up to? I figure it's a boat-ton but how big a boat?
If it wasn't for Samsung, WP7, and even Palm might have been doing better, both of which weren't iOS rip-offs. If it wasn't for Samesung, maybe even the Nexus line of phones would be doing decent, which while largely an iOS ripoff through Android, at least had differentiating hardware.
The worst thing that happened for PALM was HP buying it. It destroyed the company, and HP gained nothing for the purchase. Apple actually made a bid for PALM. The rumor was Apple would have continued to let it run. At the time that would have made sense because it would have let Apple offer products on networks competing with AT&T (thereby offering Android a competitor), which Apple was locked to at the time. It would have also allowed Apple to have more shelf space. WebOS also had some nice touches, like a better notification system. People say Apple stole Android's notification system, but Apple hired the notification designer from Web OS and both Apple and Android borrowed from it.
Samsung also gained heavily from Apple having to bite the bullet and tie itself to AT&T for five years. Samsung was free to gain a hold by copying Apple on Networks where Apple couldn't operate. That five year tie in was the best thing that happened for Android and Samsung.
Why shouldn't the judge provide workarounds? The judge isn't telling them how to break the law. Rather, the judge is explaining exactly how their product infringes Apple's IP and how to avoid doing so. Seems perfectly appropriate.
Yes, except it is long established that federal courts are not allowed to give advisory opinions.
Further, even if the Court could do what you suggest, it wouldn't be as easy to do as you suggest because one of the work arounds might possibly violate another parties patent. The Court only has the information concerning the at issue patent. The Court would be in a pickle if it suggested a work around that later was found to violate somebody else's patent..
The rumor was Apple would have continued to let it run.
Apple has closed the doors of many companies they've acquired in the past, although they have kept certain staff on. I still have no idea how HP managed to push through such a purchase without a viable business plan in place. They bought Web OS and fired the only people who understood it.
You can see, though, that they know their market. Narcissists with no taste, smart-ass nerds, plagiarists, people with no ethics, who in turn don't expect any from their "Providers" because they don't know what ethics are.
The worst thing that happened for PALM was HP buying it. It destroyed the company, and HP gained nothing for the purchase. Apple actually made a bid for PALM. The rumor was Apple would have continued to let it run. At the time that would have made sense because it would have let Apple offer products on networks competing with AT&T (thereby offering Android a competitor), which Apple was locked to at the time. It would have also allowed Apple to have more shelf space. WebOS also had some nice touches, like a better notification system. People say Apple stole Android's notification system, but Apple hired the notification designer from Web OS and both Apple and Android borrowed from it.
Samsung also gained heavily from Apple having to bite the bullet and tie itself to AT&T for five years. Samsung was free to gain a hold by copying Apple on Networks where Apple couldn't operate. That five year tie in was the best thing that happened for Android and Samsung.
I remember watching the HP keynote after they purchased Palm. I was elated at the possibilities, as I am certain many others were. Really a shame.
What can even be said of that? The video epitomizes everything that is wrong with Samsung.
And everything wrong with the Android demi-monde. This is what sr2012 leaves out of his epic confessional above. Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling youself to an advertising machine, thus loss of integrity, or evidence that you never had integrity. ("I don't mind if Google mines my data, look what I'm getting for free!")
Not to mention getting intimate with forms of plastic and ungodly extrusions that no one of taste would ever associate with. I mean, HTC makes as nice a phone as any Android maker, but what is that awful excrescence that surrounds the camera lens?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this stops Android's momentum and inevitable eclipsing of Apple on both smartphones (already) and tablets (within 2 years max).
The problem with your argument starts with the fact that by every other important metric (revenue, developer support, stickiness, internet usage) andriod is far behind iOS. Apple is also taking control of their processor destiny and if the current trend tells us anything they'll continue to widen the gap between the competition. Also Andriodians are betting on Apple standing still with innovation in ios and services. Sorry to burst your bubble - Apple will innovate vigorously - it's in their DNA. Finally look at how wonderfully Apple is established with its stores expanding around the globe - they are in so many markets and will continue to grow by opening into new ones.
Having the bottom position of the market - even if it is the majority - is not a position of power. Hi-end means apple, so even if ios devices end up with the kind of market that apple laptops are in, it still will be good enough to lead the industry and garner the take-it-to-the-bank support of developers and loyal users.
If it wasn't for Google, WP7, and even Palm might have been doing better, both of which weren't iOS rip-offs. ...
Fixed it for ya.
Samsung and all their phones would be in the same place as Palm and Microsoft if not for Android and Google. Android is the culprit that effectively killed off Palm (that and HP only waiting a nano-second to see if the products took off). If it wasn't for Google ripping off iOS and Java to create Android, iOS would still be the dominant OS, but the alternatives would be more different things like WebOS and WP7.
The alternatives are being killed off because they aren't similar enough to the market leaders for anyone to figure out or care about. The perfect example of this being Microsoft's "Metro" which is a perfectly useable OS, but confusing, different, and basically "not iOS," (or a copy of iOS). Instead of a healthy situation where there are several competing alternatives that all do things different ways but are all equally valid ways to do stuff, we just have iOS and an iOS imitation (Android).
Since people have shown quite clearly that they don't actually wan't anything different from iOS (at least in any large numbers), this is of course the winning strategy financially for Google. It's arguable that even if WebOS had survived that combined with WP7 it would still only amount to a small percentage of users, so again, this is financially, the best way to go. What's good for the players financially though, is not necessarily good for the users.
My point is however, that Samsung isn't at fault here. They simply followed the market, used a freely available iOS clone/alternative and marketed the hell out of it. They shamelessly copied iOS for certain, but they merely followed Googles lead in that area. They seemed, and still seem from all press accounts I have read, to believe they did nothing wrong in this copying. With the example set by Google, a world-leading software designer and vendor, it's hard to disagree with them.
The real fault here is and always has been with Google. They did a very wrong thing in ripping off iOS design, and these are the consequences. They legitimised copying iOS. They used all their power and influence, not to create a real alternative, but to basically just say "it's okay to copy this stuff." In their defence, they have that idealistic FOSS point of view on the world that everything should be free etc., but idealism doesn't excuse the stealing. It's good to argue that all software should be free and open source, but if someone doesn't want to play your game, stealing their stuff is still wrong.
When the history is written, it will be Google's fall from it's moral high-chair into the depths of corporate thievery that will be the real culprit in terms of nudging out any legally and morally superior, mobile OS alternatives.
Apple has closed the doors of many companies they've acquired in the past, although they have kept certain staff on. I still have no idea how HP managed to push through such a purchase without a viable business plan in place. They bought Web OS and fired the only people who understood it.
Yes, Apple has shut down quite a few companies, but Apple did indeed put a bid in on Palm, and although I take it with a grain of salt, supposedly people in the know thought Apple was going to keep it operating. It would have made sense considering PALM could sell phones on Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, while Apple could not. Apple would have also acquired the Web OS engineers who would have been a valuable addition to iOS (more so at the time). Many were former Apple employees.
Apple also has owned a few companies and let them run independently. For instance, Claris and File Maker.
Yes, the HP purchase would have made sense if HP followed through on it's plan. I thought it was intriguing that HP was going to make dual boot systems that could boot both into Windows and Web OS. Eventually when enough developers were on board, you could see HP dropping Windows. HP made a mistake in bringing out an expensive tablet to compete with the iPad first, and then abandoning the whole plan based on just one failure.
I remember watching the HP keynote after they purchased Palm. I was elated at the possibilities, as I am certain many others were. Really a shame.
Yes, the possibilities were very interesting. I thought making the desktops dual boot Windows and Web OS machines (as was part of the stated plan) would have been very cool. It should have focused on that first, which would have brought developers on board and then went for tablets. I also couldn't understand why it killed the smartphones. With HP's marketing, it could have had more success with the Smartphones.
The truth is that Samsung outspent every other company on the planet in 2012 in advertising and marketing.
To be fair, Samsung Electronics includes a LOT of products besides phones & tablets. I think comparing Apple to Dell or HP is more applicable since they sell so many of the same things. Even then it shows Apple doesn't spend any more than other companies.
As to the Samsung commercial, I find it funny that they are enabling support for running two Apps not only on the Note but also on the GS3. Android users complain about the iPhone having a small screen and they're going to take their screen and split it in HALF to run two Apps at the same time? Why would you want to look at two tiny Apps at the same time?
"I will gladly take/copy/steal your stuff (in the video, quarterly earnings report) and say it is mine".
Par for the course...
Indeed. Gazoobee is arguing above that this theft MO starts with Google, and gives license to Samsung to do the same. I wonder what others think of this. He has me on ignore, right up there with DaHarder, or I would take it up with him.
Comments
Has anyone done the math as to how many dollars "88 percent of the value of all mobile phones, 37.6 percent of all tablet computers and 32.5 percent of all media players found to infringe on Apple's patents" would add up to? I figure it's a boat-ton but how big a boat?
You don't care who wins or loses so how exactly does this affect you when "the smoke clears"? Tired of reading about it? Don't read the news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
If it wasn't for Samsung, WP7, and even Palm might have been doing better, both of which weren't iOS rip-offs. If it wasn't for Samesung, maybe even the Nexus line of phones would be doing decent, which while largely an iOS ripoff through Android, at least had differentiating hardware.
The worst thing that happened for PALM was HP buying it. It destroyed the company, and HP gained nothing for the purchase. Apple actually made a bid for PALM. The rumor was Apple would have continued to let it run. At the time that would have made sense because it would have let Apple offer products on networks competing with AT&T (thereby offering Android a competitor), which Apple was locked to at the time. It would have also allowed Apple to have more shelf space. WebOS also had some nice touches, like a better notification system. People say Apple stole Android's notification system, but Apple hired the notification designer from Web OS and both Apple and Android borrowed from it.
Samsung also gained heavily from Apple having to bite the bullet and tie itself to AT&T for five years. Samsung was free to gain a hold by copying Apple on Networks where Apple couldn't operate. That five year tie in was the best thing that happened for Android and Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why shouldn't the judge provide workarounds? The judge isn't telling them how to break the law. Rather, the judge is explaining exactly how their product infringes Apple's IP and how to avoid doing so. Seems perfectly appropriate.
Yes, except it is long established that federal courts are not allowed to give advisory opinions.
Further, even if the Court could do what you suggest, it wouldn't be as easy to do as you suggest because one of the work arounds might possibly violate another parties patent. The Court only has the information concerning the at issue patent. The Court would be in a pickle if it suggested a work around that later was found to violate somebody else's patent..
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
The rumor was Apple would have continued to let it run.
Apple has closed the doors of many companies they've acquired in the past, although they have kept certain staff on. I still have no idea how HP managed to push through such a purchase without a viable business plan in place. They bought Web OS and fired the only people who understood it.
Pathetic and truly horrifying. Disgusting.
You can see, though, that they know their market. Narcissists with no taste, smart-ass nerds, plagiarists, people with no ethics, who in turn don't expect any from their "Providers" because they don't know what ethics are.
Thanks for the link, by the way.
I remember watching the HP keynote after they purchased Palm. I was elated at the possibilities, as I am certain many others were. Really a shame.
What can even be said of that? The video epitomizes everything that is wrong with Samsung.
And everything wrong with the Android demi-monde. This is what sr2012 leaves out of his epic confessional above. Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling youself to an advertising machine, thus loss of integrity, or evidence that you never had integrity. ("I don't mind if Google mines my data, look what I'm getting for free!")
Not to mention getting intimate with forms of plastic and ungodly extrusions that no one of taste would ever associate with. I mean, HTC makes as nice a phone as any Android maker, but what is that awful excrescence that surrounds the camera lens?
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling yourself to an advertising machine…
B-b-b-b-but, APPLE is the marketing company!
Courtesy of CNN Money
The truth is that Samsung outspent every other company on the planet in 2012 in advertising and marketing.
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
At a glance it looks like Samsung spent more this year than Apple, Dell, and HP spent in the last four years combined.
…Samsung's galactic marketing budget…
*shudder* That's not how you use galactic…
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this stops Android's momentum and inevitable eclipsing of Apple on both smartphones (already) and tablets (within 2 years max).
The problem with your argument starts with the fact that by every other important metric (revenue, developer support, stickiness, internet usage) andriod is far behind iOS. Apple is also taking control of their processor destiny and if the current trend tells us anything they'll continue to widen the gap between the competition. Also Andriodians are betting on Apple standing still with innovation in ios and services. Sorry to burst your bubble - Apple will innovate vigorously - it's in their DNA. Finally look at how wonderfully Apple is established with its stores expanding around the globe - they are in so many markets and will continue to grow by opening into new ones.
Having the bottom position of the market - even if it is the majority - is not a position of power. Hi-end means apple, so even if ios devices end up with the kind of market that apple laptops are in, it still will be good enough to lead the industry and garner the take-it-to-the-bank support of developers and loyal users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
If it wasn't for Google, WP7, and even Palm might have been doing better, both of which weren't iOS rip-offs. ...
Fixed it for ya.
Samsung and all their phones would be in the same place as Palm and Microsoft if not for Android and Google. Android is the culprit that effectively killed off Palm (that and HP only waiting a nano-second to see if the products took off). If it wasn't for Google ripping off iOS and Java to create Android, iOS would still be the dominant OS, but the alternatives would be more different things like WebOS and WP7.
The alternatives are being killed off because they aren't similar enough to the market leaders for anyone to figure out or care about. The perfect example of this being Microsoft's "Metro" which is a perfectly useable OS, but confusing, different, and basically "not iOS," (or a copy of iOS). Instead of a healthy situation where there are several competing alternatives that all do things different ways but are all equally valid ways to do stuff, we just have iOS and an iOS imitation (Android).
Since people have shown quite clearly that they don't actually wan't anything different from iOS (at least in any large numbers), this is of course the winning strategy financially for Google. It's arguable that even if WebOS had survived that combined with WP7 it would still only amount to a small percentage of users, so again, this is financially, the best way to go. What's good for the players financially though, is not necessarily good for the users.
My point is however, that Samsung isn't at fault here. They simply followed the market, used a freely available iOS clone/alternative and marketed the hell out of it. They shamelessly copied iOS for certain, but they merely followed Googles lead in that area. They seemed, and still seem from all press accounts I have read, to believe they did nothing wrong in this copying. With the example set by Google, a world-leading software designer and vendor, it's hard to disagree with them.
The real fault here is and always has been with Google. They did a very wrong thing in ripping off iOS design, and these are the consequences. They legitimised copying iOS. They used all their power and influence, not to create a real alternative, but to basically just say "it's okay to copy this stuff." In their defence, they have that idealistic FOSS point of view on the world that everything should be free etc., but idealism doesn't excuse the stealing. It's good to argue that all software should be free and open source, but if someone doesn't want to play your game, stealing their stuff is still wrong.
When the history is written, it will be Google's fall from it's moral high-chair into the depths of corporate thievery that will be the real culprit in terms of nudging out any legally and morally superior, mobile OS alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Apple has closed the doors of many companies they've acquired in the past, although they have kept certain staff on. I still have no idea how HP managed to push through such a purchase without a viable business plan in place. They bought Web OS and fired the only people who understood it.
Yes, Apple has shut down quite a few companies, but Apple did indeed put a bid in on Palm, and although I take it with a grain of salt, supposedly people in the know thought Apple was going to keep it operating. It would have made sense considering PALM could sell phones on Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, while Apple could not. Apple would have also acquired the Web OS engineers who would have been a valuable addition to iOS (more so at the time). Many were former Apple employees.
Apple also has owned a few companies and let them run independently. For instance, Claris and File Maker.
Yes, the HP purchase would have made sense if HP followed through on it's plan. I thought it was intriguing that HP was going to make dual boot systems that could boot both into Windows and Web OS. Eventually when enough developers were on board, you could see HP dropping Windows. HP made a mistake in bringing out an expensive tablet to compete with the iPad first, and then abandoning the whole plan based on just one failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
I remember watching the HP keynote after they purchased Palm. I was elated at the possibilities, as I am certain many others were. Really a shame.
Yes, the possibilities were very interesting. I thought making the desktops dual boot Windows and Web OS machines (as was part of the stated plan) would have been very cool. It should have focused on that first, which would have brought developers on board and then went for tablets. I also couldn't understand why it killed the smartphones. With HP's marketing, it could have had more success with the Smartphones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Courtesy of CNN Money
The truth is that Samsung outspent every other company on the planet in 2012 in advertising and marketing.
To be fair, Samsung Electronics includes a LOT of products besides phones & tablets. I think comparing Apple to Dell or HP is more applicable since they sell so many of the same things. Even then it shows Apple doesn't spend any more than other companies.
As to the Samsung commercial, I find it funny that they are enabling support for running two Apps not only on the Note but also on the GS3. Android users complain about the iPhone having a small screen and they're going to take their screen and split it in HALF to run two Apps at the same time? Why would you want to look at two tiny Apps at the same time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
What can even be said of that? The video epitomizes everything that is wrong with Samsung.
"I will gladly take/copy/steal your stuff (in the video, quarterly earnings report) and say it is mine".
Par for the course...
Indeed. Gazoobee is arguing above that this theft MO starts with Google, and gives license to Samsung to do the same. I wonder what others think of this. He has me on ignore, right up there with DaHarder, or I would take it up with him.