or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple granted another key multitouch patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple granted another key multitouch patent

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
Apple won a core multitouch patent regarding oscillating signals that was alluded to when Steve Jobs first announced the original iPhone in 2007, and adds to the company's already formidable legal arsenal.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office published on Tuesday that the Cupertino, Calif. company now owns a crucial patent that describes how touch events are recognized by a touchscreen device, and was one of the "200+ Patents for new inventions" Jobs lauded when the iPhone first debuted, reports Apple patent blog Patently Apple.

The newly granted patent focuses on the oscillator signal and circuit of a touchscreen-equipped device, an integral invention directly related to how users interact with their multitouch products.

Apple states in the filing:
"In general, multi-touch panels may be able to detect multiple touches (touch events or contact points) that occur at or about the same time, and identify and track their locations."
Previous to the iPhone's introduction in 2007, most touch-capable devices relied on single-touch input like resistive touchscreens. The legacy technology "senses" a touch when two electrically resistive sheets separated by a small gap are connected by the push of a finger or stylus, which in turn creates a voltage division that is detected by a device controller that records the change along the x and y axes.

Resistive displays are limited in that they can only recognize single inputs no matter how many objects are touching the screen.

One way to record multiple touches at a time is to generate an oscillating signal circuit that can power and clock inputs over a substrate as in a capacitive touchscreen display, however it is difficult to create a precise circuit-based oscillator.

Apple wins oscillator signal and circuit multitouch patent | Source: Patently Apple

Apple's patent provides a solution to capacitive touchscreen problem by using calibration logic circuitry which compares the signal oscillation against a reference signal and tunes the clock frequency accordingly. The invention provides for an accurate capacitive display that can not only sense multiple touches, but also detect hover or near touches which are also recognized as "touch events."

Flowchart illustrating calibration logic tuning an oscillator | Source: Patently Apple

The patent wording states that the invention could apply to computing devices such as desktops, laptops, tablets or handhelds, including digital music and video players and mobile telephones. Also mentioned are public computing systems like kiosks and ATMs.

The news follows a Dec. 19 U.S. International Trade Commission decision which resulted in an import ban on HTC Android handsets that infringe on Apple's Data Detectors patent. The injunction will take take effect on April 19, 2012, however HTC CEO Peter Chou said the Taiwanese company is already testing workarounds to bypass the ITC ruling.
post #2 of 46
The patent system is maddeningly slow and inefficient. But at the end of the day, if somebody is systematically ripping off patented technology, they will eventually pay a price -- so long as the patent owner has the financial resources and patience to stick it out until the end of the process. Apple meets those criteria and so does Oracle.

Google and pals will pay for their crimes.
post #3 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


Google and pals will pay for their crimes.

I sure hope so.
post #4 of 46
Google created Android to kill innovation in the mobile world. Unfortunately for Google this isn't working as good as they hoped. Microsoft is collecting royalties on Android rendering Android non-free for hardware vendors. Also companies like Baidu and Amazon are using Android to compete against Google and cutting Google off of any profits that they might make. Android might stifle innovation as Google intended but it will also compete against itself, leaving Google with an expensive endeavor that can never be truly monetized and if we are lucky Google will slowly distance itself away from it.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #5 of 46
Brace for hater butthurt
post #6 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stupid Geek View Post

Brace for hatter butthurt

Is that mad hatter butthurt?
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #7 of 46
Oh man, this is a big one, maybe even the biggest so far.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #8 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Is that mad hatter butthurt?

Nah, he/she just doesn't know how to spell or use a spell-checker. The mad hatter is still busy making his hats.
post #9 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

The patent system is maddeningly slow and inefficient. But at the end of the day, if somebody is systematically ripping off patented technology, they will eventually pay a price -- so long as the patent owner has the financial resources and patience to stick it out until the end of the process. Apple meets those criteria and so does Oracle.

Google and pals will pay for their crimes.

I truly hope so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Google created Android to kill innovation in the mobile world. Unfortunately for Google this isn't working as good as they hoped. Microsoft is collecting royalties on Android rendering Android non-free for hardware vendors. Also companies like Baidu and Amazon are using Android to compete against Google and cutting Google off of any profits that they might make. Android might stifle innovation as Google intended but it will also compete against itself, leaving Google with an expensive endeavor that can never be truly monetized and if we are lucky Google will slowly distance itself away from it.


Again, hopefully you are correct.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #10 of 46
Quote:
The patent wording states that the invention could apply to computing devices such as desktops, laptops, tablets or handhelds, including digital music and video players and mobile telephones. Also mentioned are public computing systems like kiosks and ATMs.


Is Apple going to ban all competing computing devices such as desktops, laptops, tablets or handhelds, including digital music and video players and mobile telephones and public computing systems like kiosks and ATMs?

They have to protect their IP. It is only fair.
post #11 of 46
Sorry for using an Android smartphone, bro.
post #12 of 46
Hopefully this will be one of the main patents that will take down the new evil empire (google) and it's collaborators.
post #13 of 46
We all benefit from aggressive, innovative and legal competition.

But from all evidence I've seen so far Google committed some pretty blatant patent theft with Android.

Those not Google-biased suspected it when we saw the first Android phones that came to the market after the iPhone announcement. It was pretty obvious that Android was a "me too" OS. I for one was unimpressed, and didn't buy into Google's "Open" spin. But this string of Apple patent approvals, that I suspect will continue continue and intensify over the next few months/years, may reveal in very legal terms that Android is more than just a copy-cat OS, it's actually stolen IP.

Arguing that Apple copied the LG Prada phone is besides the point and not relevant to this legal situation (FYI the Prada phone was not multi-touch, and had almost zero similarity to iPhone OS, so no patents were violated).

Android's days may be numbered if they don't make some very drastic changes to their OS. I suggest they copy Apple in an entirely different way by actually innovating. I'd love to see Google create a game changing device like the original iPhone. But all we've gotten is a flakey, bug-ridden, fragmented, malware-infested copy.
post #14 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The invention provides for an accurate capacitive display that can not only sense multiple touches, but also detect hover or near touches which are also recognized as "touch events."


It would be cool if you could actually access the hover event.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #15 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

The patent system is maddeningly slow and inefficient. But at the end of the day, if somebody is systematically ripping off patented technology, they will eventually pay a price -- so long as the patent owner has the financial resources and patience to stick it out until the end of the process. Apple meets those criteria and so does Oracle.

Google and pals will pay for their crimes.

If there is anyone that could make Google pay and has the temperament to do it would be Apple. However, my experience as a patent attorney for the last decade would suggest it isn't going to happen. Big companies like Apple never throw down the gauntlet with a powerful patent if the competitor is a large well-established company with their own war chest of IP. Chances are Apple needs or has to respect Google in certain aspects of its business (e.g., maybe in mapping, searching, or mobile advertisements, just to name a few). Apple will undoubtedly seek competent legal advice and they aren't going to do something stupid just because it would make us all feel good.

But we can all hope it happens. It will be interesting to see how important this patent is. Is it critical to a usable multi-touch response? If so, and if there isn't a design around, and if Apple has the cajones to enforce the patent, this could be really interesting.
post #16 of 46
Now this is a real patent. Developing a hardware and software solution to the multi-touch problem is real innovation. I'm sorry, I love AAPL and all but the patents these guys have been fighting over (vague or look/feel or "...on a mobile" type patents) just seem so... I don't know... petty.

Whether this is going to hurt GOOG et al. shall be seen. Don't know what tech is in the current androids so I can't say but this isn't the only way to do multi-touch (see: jeff han or MS Surface or DiamondTouch). Not saying those are better/worse than AAPL, just saying there are many different ways to sort an array (or skin a cat, if you're more comfortable with that analogy).

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Nook reader, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 FireTV

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Nook reader, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 FireTV

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply
post #17 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Google created Android to kill innovation in the mobile world. Unfortunately for Google this isn't working as good as they hoped. Microsoft is collecting royalties on Android rendering Android non-free for hardware vendors. Also companies like Baidu and Amazon are using Android to compete against Google and cutting Google off of any profits that they might make. Android might stifle innovation as Google intended but it will also compete against itself, leaving Google with an expensive endeavor that can never be truly monetized and if we are lucky Google will slowly distance itself away from it.

Except Google doesn't need to monetize Android. I doubt even Baidu and Amazon creating alternative versions really worries them nor Microsoft charging royalties. As long as a single company doesn't dominate the market (like Apple did with mp3 players or Microsoft with PCs) Google is probably very happy.

Google makes money on all mobile platforms (I think I read somewhere they actually make more money on iOS than Android). The more people with smartphones, the more people seeing Google ads and the more money Google makes.
post #18 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

If there is anyone that could make Google pay and has the temperament to do it would be Apple. However, my experience as a patent attorney for the last decade would suggest it isn't going to happen. Big companies like Apple never throw down the gauntlet with a powerful patent if the competitor is a large well-established company with their own war chest of IP. Chances are Apple needs or has to respect Google in certain aspects of its business (e.g., maybe in mapping, searching, or mobile advertisements, just to name a few). Apple will undoubtedly seek competent legal advice and they aren't going to do something stupid just because it would make us all feel good.

But we can all hope it happens. It will be interesting to see how important this patent is. Is it critical to a usable multi-touch response? If so, and if there isn't a design around, and if Apple has the cajones to enforce the patent, this could be really interesting.

I have a suspicion mapping won't be a problem for long and maybe search won't be far behind. After all iOS is killing Google everyday since apps bypass the web entirely and iOS is so dominant in actual use (I am ignoring sales figures of Google toys here rather looking at stats of real users on the internet actually buying stuff). Steve didn't get shafted by Gates to ever let it happen again and even though he's left us, I have to think there is a strategy he crafted in play. When he presented the iPhone his comments regarding patents didn't sound like wasted air time to me.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #19 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Except Google doesn't need to monetize Android. I doubt even Baidu and Amazon creating alternative versions really worries them nor Microsoft charging royalties. As long as a single company doesn't dominate the market (like Apple did with mp3 players or Microsoft with PCs) Google is probably very happy.

Google makes money on all mobile platforms (I think I read somewhere they actually make more money on iOS than Android). The more people with smartphones, the more people seeing Google ads and the more money Google makes.

Google makes zip when you bypass the web and use the internet via an app and that is the future.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #20 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeniThings View Post

We all benefit from aggressive, innovative and legal competition.

But from all evidence I've seen so far Google committed some pretty blatant patent theft with Android.

Those not Google-biased suspected it when we saw the first Android phones that came to the market after the iPhone announcement. It was pretty obvious that Android was a "me too" OS. I for one was unimpressed, and didn't buy into Google's "Open" spin. But this string of Apple patent approvals, that I suspect will continue continue and intensify over the next few months/years, may reveal in very legal terms that Android is more than just a copy-cat OS, it's actually stolen IP.

Arguing that Apple copied the LG Prada phone is besides the point and not relevant to this legal situation (FYI the Prada phone was not multi-touch, and had almost zero similarity to iPhone OS, so no patents were violated).

Android's days may be numbered if they don't make some very drastic changes to their OS. I suggest they copy Apple in an entirely different way by actually innovating. I'd love to see Google create a game changing device like the original iPhone. But all we've gotten is a flakey, bug-ridden, fragmented, malware-infested copy.

My understanding is they bolted a touch UI in top of what was going to be their RIM knock off in a hell of a hurry once Schmidt brought home the inside info from Apple. This why it sucks so badly. The apps out there would be dead or badly needing rewrites if Google ever re wrote from the ground up and therein lies their almost Microsoft like dilemma.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #21 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Except Google doesn't need to monetize Android. I doubt even Baidu and Amazon creating alternative versions really worries them nor Microsoft charging royalties. As long as a single company doesn't dominate the market (like Apple did with mp3 players or Microsoft with PCs) Google is probably very happy.

Google makes money on all mobile platforms (I think I read somewhere they actually make more money on iOS than Android). The more people with smartphones, the more people seeing Google ads and the more money Google makes.

Is that why they have all those ad-supported apps on the Android Market?

Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google.

Let's assume Google doesn't care about dominating and only cares about people using its search engine. Explain why Google brags about activation numbers? If they make more money out of iOS (or even equal amount) why are they aggressively pushing Android and giving it away for free such that no one can develop a business case in creating a competing OS (Amazon and Baidu found a way around that). Android is to Google what Bing or XBox are to Microsoft. Remember how Microsoft got its Windows and Office monopoly? There is a longterm plan and Google wants to control everything, what better way to sell you ads than controlling the OS you use to access the web on a device that has all your personal info linked to Google services. Why no company is actively developing a desktop OS to compete with Microsoft except for Apple (Linux and others have less than 3%)? Microsoft thru back-room deals with OEMs made it cost prohibitive, and this is Google's game with Android.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #22 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Is that why they have all those ad-supported apps on the Android Market?

Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google.

Let's assume Google doesn't care about dominating and only cares about people using its search engine. Explain why Google brags about activation numbers? If they make more money out of iOS (or even equal amount) why are they aggressively pushing Android and giving it away for free such that no one can develop a business case in creating a competing OS (Amazon and Baidu found a way around that). Android is to Google what Bing or XBox are to Microsoft. Remember how Microsoft got its Windows and Office monopoly? There is a longterm plan and Google wants to control everything, what better way to sell you ads than controlling the OS you use to access the web on a device that has all your personal info linked to Google services. Why no company is actively developing a desktop OS to compete with Microsoft except for Apple (Linux and others have less than 3%)? Microsoft thru back-room deals with OEMs made it cost prohibitive, and this is Google's game with Android.

Agreed. Android is important to Google because it will be the source of personal information and search terms and serves as a platform for serving up Google ads.
post #23 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Oh man, this is a big one, maybe even the biggest so far.

This remains to be seen. Let's hope the Fingerworks crew were far enough ahead of the curve that they've got a good footing in multi-touch. Cypress, Atmel, Synaptics and others have been working in this area since before the iPhone. We won't know the value of Apple's patent until they bring it to bear against potential infringers.
post #24 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I have a suspicion mapping won't be a problem for long and maybe search won't be far behind. After all iOS is killing Google everyday since apps bypass the web entirely and iOS is so dominant in actual use (I am ignoring sales figures of Google toys here rather looking at stats of real users on the internet actually buying stuff). Steve didn't get shafted by Gates to ever let it happen again and even though he's left us, I have to think there is a strategy he crafted in play. When he presented the iPhone his comments regarding patents didn't sound like wasted air time to me.

ummmm you are making my point. Apple is treading into Google territory and it is somewhat probable that Apple will run into patent issues with some of Google's technology. Just because Apple improves on Google doesn't mean Apple won't be infringing any Google patents. I'm not saying Apple is stealing Google technology. I'm just pointing out that whenever you start trying to overtake a competitor like Google, there is a risk that you will infringe patents covering their technology.
post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It would be cool if you could actually access the hover event.

Why? What would you do with the hover data?
post #26 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsimpsen View Post

This remains to be seen. Let's hope the Fingerworks crew were far enough ahead of the curve that they've got a good footing in multi-touch. Cypress, Atmel, Synaptics and others have been working in this area since before the iPhone. We won't know the value of Apple's patent until they bring it to bear against potential infringers.

Apple bought Fingerworks not because they needed Multitouch Engineers [They already had several such talent on staff], but to expand their portfolio and to make sure their work doesn't infringe on Fingerworks. They gained a solid portfolio footing and applied all of their research with Fingerworks to build a much larger pool of multitouch IP.

The Inventor, Kristoph H. Krah has worked at Apple and on 3-D multitouch patent research years before Fingerworks was bought by Apple.
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Is that why they have all those ad-supported apps on the Android Market?

Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google.

Let's assume Google doesn't care about dominating and only cares about people using its search engine. Explain why Google brags about activation numbers? If they make more money out of iOS (or even equal amount) why are they aggressively pushing Android and giving it away for free such that no one can develop a business case in creating a competing OS (Amazon and Baidu found a way around that). Android is to Google what Bing or XBox are to Microsoft. Remember how Microsoft got its Windows and Office monopoly? There is a longterm plan and Google wants to control everything, what better way to sell you ads than controlling the OS you use to access the web on a device that has all your personal info linked to Google services. Why no company is actively developing a desktop OS to compete with Microsoft except for Apple (Linux and others have less than 3%)? Microsoft thru back-room deals with OEMs made it cost prohibitive, and this is Google's game with Android.

They brag about Activation because that's the only number that matters to them since they don't sell Android.
post #28 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Google created Android to kill innovation in the mobile world. Unfortunately for Google this isn't working as good as they hoped. Microsoft is collecting royalties on Android rendering Android non-free for hardware vendors. Also companies like Baidu and Amazon are using Android to compete against Google and cutting Google off of any profits that they might make. Android might stifle innovation as Google intended but it will also compete against itself, leaving Google with an expensive endeavor that can never be truly monetized and if we are lucky Google will slowly distance itself away from it.

Actually, they bought Android in an attempt to side-swipe Microsoft's plans of taking over the mobile market as they did with the desktop market, which would've cut Google out of the mobile search market - one that was expected to become larger than the desktop search market.

Unfortunately for Google's inability to look forward and innovate, Android was just another clone of what Microsoft and RIM already had. Then when Apple released the iPhone, it pretty much derailed the entire industry, which was desperately needed. This sent Google back the drawing board for 18 months to rejigger their user interface so it was more iPhone-like (again, because they completely failed at coming up with their own ideas).
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarquisMark View Post

Now this is a real patent. Developing a hardware and software solution to the multi-touch problem is real innovation. I'm sorry, I love AAPL and all but the patents these guys have been fighting over (vague or look/feel or "...on a mobile" type patents) just seem so... I don't know... petty.

Whether this is going to hurt GOOG et al. shall be seen. Don't know what tech is in the current androids so I can't say but this isn't the only way to do multi-touch (see: jeff han or MS Surface or DiamondTouch). Not saying those are better/worse than AAPL, just saying there are many different ways to sort an array (or skin a cat, if you're more comfortable with that analogy).

Hey, all Apple has to do is enforce an across the board $10 per every touch phone licensing fee. Nothing says the licensing fee must be low, right? After all, Microsoft makes something like $5 per Android phone licensing fee.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

Why? What would you do with the hover data?

Change colors in a drawing program? Choose which character to attack in a MMPORG? Equivalent to <right-click>? Hover could be used as a whole extra dimension of UI.
post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google

Google would probably prefer you to use Android; however, iOS doesn't have an Android market either and Google still makes lots of money on iOS. Why should the other platforms be any different?
post #32 of 46
Android time to go home....back to search for google..no more bootlegging for samsung..
post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Hey, all Apple has to do is enforce an across the board $10 per every touch phone licensing fee. Nothing says the licensing fee must be low, right? After all, Microsoft makes something like $5 per Android phone licensing fee.

There better off taking zero and taking away android and others ability to use there technology the more apple can show there phones and devices are different the better..
post #34 of 46
That's it! Going right back to laptops.

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Google created Android to kill innovation in the mobile world. Unfortunately for Google this isn't working as good as they hoped. Microsoft is collecting royalties on Android rendering Android non-free for hardware vendors. Also companies like Baidu and Amazon are using Android to compete against Google and cutting Google off of any profits that they might make. Android might stifle innovation as Google intended but it will also compete against itself, leaving Google with an expensive endeavor that can never be truly monetized and if we are lucky Google will slowly distance itself away from it.

Google is about making money and data mining. They don't give a F about anything else or how they achieve these goals. That is also why they don't care that Android vendors have to pay 5-15 dollar per Android device as protection fee to MSFT.

This is the perfect unholy alliance. Google gets its data mining with Android and MSFT gets their beloved licensing fee's.

MSFT makes it money on doing crappy programs so that people have to upgrade every 18-24 month. Google makes it money from advertising. Both these approaches is not good for innovation.

Steve Jobs was about making great products that he would like to use. He was not obsessed about maximizing profit. This is also the reason why Apple hoards money. To be able to create great products without maximizing profit you need a cushion. Otherwise we have Apple 1985 again where they start to make shortcuts to maximize profit.

A bit off topic. This is also something that most uneducated persons don't understand: Apple's stuff is not expensive. There is no "Apple tax". Intel, MSFT, Google all have higher profit margins then Apple. The difference is that Apple uses quality components that cost much money. "But Apple makes billions in profit. This have to be because their stuff is expensive" No. Its simple mathematics. An iPhone costs 650 dollar and Apple makes in average 30%. Microsoft license Windows mobile 7.5 is 15 dollar and MSFT makes 50% profit. Apple makes about 200 dollar on a phone. MSFT makes 7.5 dollars.

And last:
Its fun that MSFT make much more money on Android then what Google does.
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

Google is about making money and data mining. They don't give a F about anything else or how they achieve these goals. That is also why they don't care that Android vendors have to pay 5-15 dollar per Android device as protection fee to MSFT.

This is the perfect unholy alliance. Google gets its data mining with Android and MSFT gets their beloved licensing fee's.

MSFT makes it money on doing crappy programs so that people have to upgrade every 18-24 month. Google makes it money from advertising. Both these approaches is not good for innovation.

Steve Jobs was about making great products that he would like to use. He was not obsessed about maximizing profit. This is also the reason why Apple hoards money. To be able to create great products without maximizing profit you need a cushion. Otherwise we have Apple 1985 again where they start to make shortcuts to maximize profit.

A bit off topic. This is also something that most uneducated persons don't understand: Apple's stuff is not expensive. There is no "Apple tax". Intel, MSFT, Google all have higher profit margins then Apple. The difference is that Apple uses quality components that cost much money. "But Apple makes billions in profit. This have to be because their stuff is expensive" No. Its simple mathematics. An iPhone costs 650 dollar and Apple makes in average 30%. Microsoft license Windows mobile 7.5 is 15 dollar and MSFT makes 50% profit. Apple makes about 200 dollar on a phone. MSFT makes 7.5 dollars.

And last:
Its fun that MSFT make much more money on Android then what Google does.

The model is changing though. The web is only a part of the internet. As apps continue to become the major way people access stuff out there they by pass the web entirely and Google is closed out of the loop. Google's financial model is tied to the web or their own apps and we all know iOS is so far ahead in use on the internet as to make you wonder what Android owners use them for ...
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Google would probably prefer you to use Android; however, iOS doesn't have an Android market either and Google still makes lots of money on iOS. Why should the other platforms be any different?

How does Google gain revenues from an iOS device running an app? Yes, more iOS devices are accessing the web than anything else but as they use Safari less and use more and more apps Google get left out. Siri is the key to this since more searching will be done via Siri in the future. Siri is Google's worst nightmare as she gets you info without you eyeballing a Google ad.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

How does Google gain revenues from an iOS device running an app? Yes, more iOS devices are accessing the web than anything else but as they use Safari less and use more and more apps Google get left out. Siri is the key to this since more searching will be done via Siri in the future. Siri is Google's worst nightmare as she gets you info without you eyeballing a Google ad.

..It*
post #39 of 46
Prediction:
By this time next year there will be a (cross?) licensing agreement between Apple and at least Samsung, if not Google themselves. The lawsuits aren't having the impact that was hoped for.

Bloomberg has an article up along the same lines.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...-war-tech.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

How does Google gain revenues from an iOS device running an app?

AdMob. Still the #1 mobile ad in-app advertising platform.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple granted another key multitouch patent