or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9%
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9% - Page 4

post #121 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

I believe you're off topic.

No one is denying that android post iPhone was inspired by the iPhone. Also Android looked like a BBOS well into the end of 2007 but nice try.

My point was Google had plans to enter the phone business independent of Apple's plans

Android in 2005 is not the same as Android OS that came out in 2008. There are many ways in which Google could have used that mobile OS. From vending machines to in-car systems and so on. What proof do you have that Google bought Android with plans to use it as a phone OS back in 2005. I have seen none. What I have seen is Google switch Android's focus on many occasions to suit various changes in the market. They even locked down Android at one point. Not exactly a well honed idea they are working with.

Maybe ConradJoe will have some insights for us.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #122 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Independent of Apple or not, I think it was a mistake to use so many resources (money, talent and time) for eyeballs (which is how Google makes its money) that would most likely been there regardless with much less effort.

Time will tell. 2012 is the first full year of Larry Page CEO. We'll see if he continues to streamline and focus Google.
post #123 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Better question is, respond to the question at hand. You claim Google is making money hand over fist (clever way of monetization) on Android. I claim it is a financial disaster.

Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?

Financial disaster? Hardly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

It is well established that Larry Page bought Android with out discussing it with the CEO of the company (then Eric S.) or his co-founder (S. Brin).

Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself. But people here seem to think Google executives are dishonest SOBs. Why believe them when it suits your purpose? If one understands how corporate acquisitions are carried out, one would understand that it didn't happen as simply as Brin or Page just proceeding without anyone else knowing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

It is well established that Google makes more mobile revenue off of iOS than Android.

Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


It is well established Google has put between 12-15 billion into Android.

Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

They are a one trick pony and worse they view every thing through that single pony. From Android to ChromeOS everything they do, Google ties into the one trick pony. Given DuckDuckGo (a 1 man band for the most part) kicks Google's a$$ on search, what happens when more people learn there are much better options for search.

Search. Mobile OS. AI-based navigation system. Google+. Are these all counted as one trick? Oh you're talking about the fact that they monetize all of them from selling ads? In that case, Apple is a one-trick pony because they make money mostly from manufacturing goods and selling them for a profit. Stupid Apple - just a pathetic one-trick pony regardless of how many iDevices and Macbooks it produces. Same old, same old. Just repeating same old trick of designing and selling computers and devices year after year, decade after decade. Someone needs to save Apple before it's too late.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Given I have OSes I have written orbiting the Earth, I can comment.

Spaced out, circular logic indeed.

If you want to keep spouting that Google is stupid and evil on all counts, go ahead. For your sake, I really hope you're just acting intransigent because you think it gives the appearance of intelligence, and don't actually believe everything you write.

Sigh ...
post #124 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

You molest little boys and girls.

Prove.
Me.
Wrong.

Doesn't a post like this violate the user agreement?
post #125 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?

Financial disaster? Hardly

Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself. But people here seem to think Google executives are dishonest SOBs. Why believe them when it suits your purpose? If one understands how corporate acquisitions are carried out, one would understand that it didn't happen as simply as Brin or Page just proceeding without anyone else knowing.



Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.



Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.


http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google...om-apples-ios/
This link shows where the 2/3s statement comes from which was part of sworn testimony in front of a government body.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #126 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

Doesn't a post like this violate the user agreement?

No.. I'm pointing out his/her faulty logic.

The burden of proof is always on those making a claim not those who deny a claim made without evidence and even in the face of contradictory evidence.
post #127 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


And looked like the BlackBerry OS until January 9, 2007, I believe is what he's saying. He's not being very clear about it.

Actually... we don't know what Android looked like back then.

Android Beta wasn't revealed until November 2007... 10 months after the iPhone. And it still looked like Blackberry OS.

I have a feeling Google will never show a timeline of photos of Android's development.
post #128 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

No.. I'm pointing out his/her faulty logic.

The burden of proof is always on those making a claim not those who deny a claim made without evidence and even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Actually, you're disguising a personal attack as a 'lesson'. Nothing more, nothing less.
post #129 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Actually, we don't know that. It's one of the most misunderstood and most extrapolated factoid this year. But we all hear what we want to hear, and it's not, on the surface, an unreasonable stretch.

And given it matches well with web utilization stats, it makes sense. I am sure you believe what you want to in spite of data.
post #130 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

Actually, you're disguising a personal attack as a 'lesson'. Nothing more, nothing less.

No I'm using an extreme example of why his/her logic is flawed.

According to GTR it is up to her/him to provide evidence that what I said is incorrect.

Also...don't quote mine me if what you quote skews my point. It's another dishonest tactic in debates especially on an internet forum.
post #131 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So you've never used a Google service, then? Their search has ads. Their e-mail has ads. Their video service has ads. Their maps have ads. I think their documents thing even has ads. They exist primarily to BE an ad.

The awesome stuff that comes off of their main business (the translation, self-driving cars, etc.) are the GOOD parts of Google.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Have you used Google's search recently. Bombarded is a good term. Cluttered is another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Are you one of those that believe that the entire iPhone was put together in a matter of days? I would guess several years from initial concept to demonstration meaning the iPhone/iPad projects had their genesis in 2003 to 2004.

If Apple did the iPhone in just a few days, your statement of Google going down Android path before anyone had even heard of the iPhone has merit.

If Apple actually spent several years developing the software, hardware, getting contracts in line, certification from FCC and UL and CE, documentation then your beliefe that Google started down the Android path before the iPhone was envisioned is just all wet.

Given the polish of the first iPhone and given I have worked on engineering projects for 25+ years, I am guessing your thought process is all wet.

NOTE: In 2005 Apple had to decide on going down a Linux based phone path or a shrunk OS X path. Senior VP Tony Fadell had this to say on Linux/iOS:

I inherited the competitive iPhone OS project from Jon Rubenstein and Steve Sakoman when they left Apple. I quickly shuttered the project after assessing that a modified Mac OS was the right platform to build the iPhone upon. It was clear that to create the best smartphone product possible, we needed to leverage the decades of technology, tools and resources invested in Mac OS while avoiding the unnecessary competition of dueling projects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Android in 2005 is not the same as Android OS that came out in 2008. There are many ways in which Google could have used that mobile OS. From vending machines to in-car systems and so on. What proof do you have that Google bought Android with plans to use it as a phone OS back in 2005. I have seen none. What I have seen is Google switch Android's focus on many occasions to suit various changes in the market. They even locked down Android at one point. Not exactly a well honed idea they are working with.

Maybe ConradJoe will have some insights for us.


It was made as a mobile phone OS.
post #132 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

No I'm using an extreme example of why his/her logic is flawed.

According to GTR it is up to her/him to provide evidence that what I said is incorrect.

Also...don't quote mine me if what you quote skews my point. It's another dishonest tactic in debates especially on an internet forum.

That's not an extreme example. It's a personal attack. There are literally thousands of other negatives you can't disprove that would have worked as an example, but you went right for the 'you molest boys and girls' for the attack value.

As for not quoting 'mine me', I cut it down to the part I found in bad taste. I'm not going to quote 2 pages of an online discussion just to get to your insult to another board member, the insult itself is enough.
post #133 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Nope, no bombardment of ads... unless you count the entire top half of the page results and the entire right side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Have you used Google's search recently. Bombarded is a good term. Cluttered is another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So you've never used a Google service, then? Their search has ads. Their e-mail has ads. Their video service has ads. Their maps have ads. I think their documents thing even has ads. They exist primarily to BE an ad.

The awesome stuff that comes off of their main business (the translation, self-driving cars, etc.) are the GOOD parts of Google.

I guess we have vastly different definitions of "bombard"
post #134 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

That's not an extreme example. It's a personal attack. There are literally thousands of other negatives you can't disprove that would have worked as an example, but you went right for the 'you molest boys and girls' for the attack value.

As for not quoting 'mine me', I cut it down to the part I found in bad taste. I'm not going to quote 2 pages of an online discussion just to get to your insult to another board member, the insult itself is enough.

If you're offended, do something about it. I use shock-worthy tactics to get my points across. If you want to cry about it being a veiled personal attack and not an undeniable proof of GTRs faulty logic then that's on you.
post #135 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?

Financial disaster? Hardly

Yes. Billions out and 100's of million in. You claim Google has found a clever way to monetize Android. I claim it is a money sink. MMI's purchase. Android's purchase. IBM Patent purchases. The list goes on. Yes I own both AAPL and GOOG. I am glad to see Larry reigning in many of the Google projects and getting some focus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself.

Don't you mean Google's CEO? Yes, it is well established.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.

Again, you choose not believe the published on the record data when it does not hold to your world view. Unless you are saying Google will lie to the Senate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.

Touched a nerve? You don't like adding up all those financials do you? Might hurt your world view. Add what Google has been paying to try and protect Android and see where you get. It is a big number. Really really big.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Search. Mobile OS. AI-based navigation system. Google+. Are these all counted as one trick? Oh you're talking about the fact that they monetize all of them from selling ads?

Yep. One trick. Are you telling me Google lies on their financials (and to Senate committees)?

MobileOS? What is the monetization?
Google+? What is the monetization?
Google Nav (hardly AI based)? What is the monetization?

Google Search? Dude, that is the cash cow. The rest is like Apple's iTunes revenue. Small.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

If you want to keep spouting that Google is stupid and evil on all counts, go ahead. For your sake, I really hope you're just acting intransigent because you think it gives the appearance of intelligence, and don't actually believe everything you write.

And you can worship everything Google does as unfettered brillance. Do I think Google is Evil? Since they did Google Books and the wholesale copyright theft of millions of works HELL YES. As evil and BP and the most corrupt of oil companies. I have no idea how Larry Page thought Google Books was even remotely legal, ethical, right or a good idea.

Stupid on all accounts? Nope. They have an amazing search technology. They had great fast follower status on Android but I think they have made some very serious legal/financial missteps that have cost them dearly financially and will continue to cost them for years to come.

And yes, I have used Android quiet a bit. Has some nice aspects. Has lots of not nice aspects.

iOS has lots of nice aspects. it has some not nice aspects.

For usage, iOS is much more pleasant to use.
post #136 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

If you're offended, do something about it. I use shock-worthy tactics to get my points across. If you want to cry about it being a veiled personal attack and not an undeniable proof of GTRs faulty logic then that's on you.

Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.


See, you can't win that side of the argument either.
post #137 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.


See, you can't win that side of the argument either.

Great idea for a courtroom ploy!

Defendant:
"Your honor, let's shift the burden of proof and disprove the theory the prosecuting attorney did it"
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #138 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Nope, no bombardment of ads... unless you count the entire top half of the page results and the entire right side.

I have adblock, so I can't see what you're talking about.

Why doesn't everyone have adblock? Seriously. No ads. Ever!
post #139 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Why doesn't everyone have adblock? Seriously. No ads. Ever!

Indeed. I remember a few years back being confused at seeing people complain on YouTube that they had to watch ads before the video actually played. Not to mention the pop-up ads during the videos.

I've had Click2Flash and AdBlock since they were first available, so I never knew that was the case.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #140 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

No.. I'm pointing out his/her faulty logic.

The burden of proof is always on those making a claim not those who deny a claim made without evidence and even in the face of contradictory evidence.

While I understand it's hard to prove/disprove a negative or non-facts/perceptions; you could help your cause with some(more?) published facts/timelines etc(contradictory evidence). Granted I skimmed these through these posts... So if contradictory evidence was given I apologize.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #141 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

I have adblock, so I can't see what you're talking about.

Why doesn't everyone have adblock? Seriously. No ads. Ever!

I have Block Pop-Up WIndows, and Ghostery and Click-To-Flash extensions. That suits me just fine. All the other ads that appear on sites aren't as in-your-face so I can easily ignore them. Does anyone actually click on Google's suggestions?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #142 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

While I understand it's hard to prove/disprove a negative or non-facts/perceptions; you could help your cause with some(more?) published facts/timelines etc(contradictory evidence). Granted I skimmed these through these posts... So if contradictory evidence was given I apologize.

Once a user is banned there is little sense in replying to them.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #143 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Once a user is banned there is little sense in replying to them.

So he was "kicked out of the mobile world at the stroke of a pen. "

Too soon?
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #144 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Once a user is banned there is little sense in replying to them.

Was it due to one particular post/thread or just an overall pattern of being too aggressive? Just curious.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #145 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


Again, you choose not believe the published on the record data when it does not hold to your world view. Unless you are saying Google will lie to the Senate.

Ah, there lies the rub. Schmidt didn't tell the Senate that Google generated 2/3 out mobile ad revenue from iOS. It was something close to that fact, but not quite - hence my point about this being one of the most misunderstood factoids in 2011.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Google Nav (hardly AI based)? What is the monetization?

I'm not referring to maps, dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

And you can worship everything Google does as unfettered brillance.

Did I say that? I have stated my share of concerns about Google tactics. Similarly, I have spoken up against Apple and iOS when I felt it was right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Stupid on all accounts? Nope. They have an amazing search technology. ....

And yes, I have used Android quiet a bit. Has some nice aspects. Has lots of not nice aspects.

iOS has lots of nice aspects. it has some not nice aspects.

For usage, iOS is much more pleasant to use.

Now I call that fair and open-minded commentary.
post #146 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.


See, you can't win that side of the argument either.

That's really not a reasonable demand - the basic tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" requires the party making the accusation to be responsible for supplying some evidence, and to some level, proof, that the accusation is true.

And that was AbsoluteDesignz's point, even if made a bit clumsily; you can't just make an accusation, provide no evidence, and then shout "prove that's not true".
post #147 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Was it due to one particular post/thread or just an overall pattern of being too aggressive? Just curious.

It most likely was due to a post that included a veiled but way harsh personal insult.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #148 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

And given it matches well with web utilization stats, it makes sense. I am sure you believe what you want to in spite of data.

Like I said, it was a reasonable extrapolation but it is oh so important not to distort what was truly stated, and what wasn't. I feel it is important to be precise in this instance, since Schmidt's statement in the Senate hearing on this issue has been consistently distorted, here and elsewhere.
post #149 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You proved his point.

It took years of development just for Google to get the Android they bought to become the BB OS ripoff they intended. Judging by the time it took them to even get anything that resembled a BB clone in to some pictures it was a long a grueling effort mostly bought for the people not any underlying tech advantage in the way NeXT had a great foundation for Apple to work with.

BB clone? In hardware perhaps (which was not Google's doing), but not the software. But I agree Android then was a distant ancestor of what it is today.
post #150 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Like I said, it was a reasonable extrapolation but it is oh so important not to distort what was truly stated, and what wasn't. I feel it is important to be precise in this instance, since Schmidt's statement in the Senate hearing on this issue has been consistently distorted, here and elsewhere.

But what is distorted? Google makes most of its revenue in search/mobile advertising. Google acknowledges that 2/3s of its mobile searches are from ios devices AND third party studies backs that up. It's not like someone is saying, "2/3s of web search comes from ios devices therefore Google is selling nukes to Iran."
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #151 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

It most likely was due to a post that included a veiled but way harsh personal insult.

I'm sure that was it, but it was obviously a construct to prove logical absurdity, and not a real insult. To construe it any other way is either disingenuous or not very bright.
post #152 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

BB clone? In hardware perhaps (which was not Google's doing), but not the software. But I agree Android then was a distant ancestor of what it is today.

It's not surprising that Android likely changed course after iOS appeared, but does anyone have any data to suggest that both were not originally independently under development as phone OSs?
post #153 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm sure that was it, but it was obviously a construct to prove logical absurdity, and not a real insult. To construe it any other way is either disingenuous or not very bright.

Oh, I understand what he was trying to do, but it seemed way harsh and extreme (IMHO obviously).
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #154 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

"2/3s of web search comes from ios devices therefore Google is selling nukes to Iran."

They are! Damn. Wait til MacRumor's gets hold of that. Paired with the 40% return rate on Android smart-phones claim that originated there, Google is doomed!
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #155 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They are! Damn. Wait til MacRumor's gets hold of that. Paired with the 40% return rate on Android smart-phones claim that originated there, Google is doomed!

Lol. That return rate article was pretty hilarious. Maybe the "source" for the Iran article can come from an anonymous Sprint employee.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #156 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And that was AbsoluteDesignz's point, even if made a bit clumsily; you can't just make an accusation, provide no evidence, and then shout "prove that's not true".

And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.

Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.
post #157 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.

Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.

Except that wasn't the allegation. It wasn't whether or not Google copied Apple. The allegation was that Eric Schmidt personally gave details of Apple's iPhone plans to Google. IMHO this is pretty unlikely as everyone knew Google was working on Android even before Schmidt joined Apple so therefore he would not have been given details of the iPhone project (Schmidt had to excuse himself whenever the board discussed the iPhone). The most he could have done is confirm rumors that Apple was working on a phone. Schmidt probably had to wait for the public unveiling to see what the design and UI looked like.
post #158 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.

Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.

All it really demonstrates is that any software program, much less an entire OS, is only a collection of hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of different ideas put together in a unique way. Yet with some of those individual ideas likely given patents somewhere in year's past for a different need in a different product by someone perhaps working on a totally unrelated issue to yours, your product can be ripped asunder no matter how uniquely it was developed, or how creative the idea.

That's what software patents do. It matters little if your finished product is original if there's one idea buried in there that someone thought of before. . . which is darn likely.

But that's the hand that's been dealt and the cards get played.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #159 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

All it really demonstrates is that any software program, much less an entire OS, is only a collection of hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of different ideas put together in a unique way. Yet with some of those individual ideas likely given patents somewhere in year's past for a different need in a different product by someone perhaps working on a totally unrelated issue to yours, your product can be ripped asunder no matter how uniquely it was developed, or how creative the idea.

Not in this case since the ideas being defended although started in a different product category are still being implemented by the same company in a different product category that competes with the infringer. It's not Apple's fault that it had decades of experience in desktop computing that it then used in mobile computing.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #160 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Not in this case since the ideas being defended although started in a different product category are still being implemented by the same company in a different product category that competes with the infringer. It's not Apple's fault that it had decades of experience in desktop computing that it then used in mobile computing.

Tho that particular patent may not be a good example, I have no doubt that there are hundreds or thousands fitting my argument being licensed, disputed, knowingly infringed or not yet discovered in iOS, Android and any other large software collection.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9%
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9%