Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9% - Page 5

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.

I don't disagree. In many ways Android is clearly modeled on iOS. How successful Apple will be in demonstrating that it is unreasonably copying iOS remains to be seen. For the most part I'm with Apple on this one.


But, as Orlando pointed out, this is not the issue that was being argued. The old accusation was raised again, by GTR I think, that Schmidt used his position with Apple to steal designs/information etc.. AbsoluteDesignz pointed out that there has been a notable lack of any statements or evidence to support that. The request for at least some evidence that it did happen is perfectly reasonable. The response "prove that it didn't happen" is just silly.

Then that company/individual has the right to sue once discovered and the alleged infringer has a right to defend itself. None of these cases (as you well know) are cut and dried. Patents can be invalidated, agreements can be reached, etc. None of this is a brand new phenomenon that erupted when android came onto the scene.

No but it's a problem created by software patents. if it was just a single product involved, say a lawnmower blade, then a determination whether your blade is unique enough for patent protection is fairly easy. Software patents are far from that, with the added problem of just what are they intended to apply to once granted? Should one that;s awarded for a time clock feature have any bearing on a mobile OS? Not saying that there's a current claim like that, but just trying to say how ridiculous software patent application can be. Software feature patents in a completely unrelated product can be dragged out of a dustbin (or purchased) to be used as a bludgeon to keep competitors at bay or just simply make it too difficult and expensive to even try creating a competing innovative feature or product. I can't imagine that's the kind of protection our fore-bearers really intended.

If Google and Apple were just starting out today with iOS and Android but limited bank accounts they'd both be gone within a year, put out of business by legal fees.

IRL nearly ALL options have drawbacks and removing software patents could (and IMO would) have just as many if not more than having them. Also, I think your example of a lawnmower blade is a bit problematic because "simple" products actually involve such subtle differentiations that determining its uniqueness is not simple at all.

Then I suppose my idea for a new kind of lawnmower blade may be off the table.

In any case there's no reason for an either/or on software patents. Europe has much stricter requirements for the granting of one. As an example, Amazon's One-Click passed muster here. In Europe it was a no-go, failing in the obviousness test.

Sales figures are distorted by the BYGO or free phone offers for Android phones. T has to recognize the rest of the phone related subscription revenue over the life of the contract.

Key would be unit comparisons.

Now I have zero problem with revisiting the patent system at all so I can definitely agree with you there. I just completely disagree with people who want to throw out the baby with the bath water just because his or her favored company is in the crosshairs of a lawsuit (and yes that includes Apple).

This is absolutely true, and I can also list off several other things resellers do that the corporate store doesn't do, and a few things the corporate store will do that calling customer service won't do.

Resellers have been known to
1. Push the device with the largest commission, they only get their commission if the new subscriber stays on service for a minimum of 6 months.
2. Make the buyer sign a contract that they will pay them damages if they cancel before they get their commission. (This is why you have to go back to the reseller to do everything correctly.)
3. "Pay off your old contract" by calling in as your mother or spouse and saying you died or went to Iraq. BTW, this no longer works, don't try it.
4. Call in to CS as the customer, and try to get illegal promo combinations attached (because they get more commissions for every bolt-on.) Likewise calling in as the customer to cancel service or change promos without permission after the commission is credited.

Corporate stores do all of the above as well, but it's easier for CS to see who is trying to pull something since their name will be all over it. Corporate stores are more known for calling into customer service to get "CS blamed" for something instead of themselves. This happens, but CS can't file complaints about corporate store reps because it's too much work. The unwritten policy is that corporate stores can do everything CS can do, as they have the same tools. Only resellers don't have any tools, and thus have to call their reseller contact (not CS) with their reseller ID to do anything.

If you want to make sure you're not getting ripped off, you have to buy the phone direct via the website (the computer gets no commission.) Even the phone direct sales people are known for bad bolt-on combinations for commission fraud. There is actually no reason to buy phones at stores since you'll be pressured into something you don't want.

Thank you Steven N. ! Duckduckgo is a GREAT search engine! Thank you so much. I will suggest it widely. So much cleaner, great results. Compared to goggle it rocks!
Appreciate your input here in this forum.

Another thread full of hair splitting, legalistic arguments attempting to defend the proposition that Google's, Samsung's, er al. shameless rip off of iOS and the iPhone is somehow OK. Morally, they're thieves, end of story.

Actually, females call each other "dude" constantly where I live.

Except that Apple isn't interested in such things as Ads providing 97% of their income as it does with Google. So if Apple did come out with such a car, they wouldn't be interested in bombarding you with Ads, or forced purchases, because they would have made a 25% profit when they sold you the car, whereas Google would have given away the OS for it, and would need the Ad income. Thats a big difference, and you have to understand it.

The basis of Roman law, which many EU countries rely upon.

One reason why it's not likely we would ever see any evidence for that it because it's almost impossible to prove it. Even if you know something was done, as long as it was just word of mouth, you need the people who did it to come forward and admit to it? Do you think that would happen?

And if it did, Schmitt and Google would be the target of the biggest lawsuit we've seen yet, and they would lose.

Your entire argument seems to be that since software products are so complex today, software patents should be eliminated. That's a strange reason. Hardware and electronic products can be just a complex, even more so when talking about big commercial products such as airliners as an example. So patents should be eliminated altogether to follow your reasoning down its logical path.

I see no reason why software patents are bad. They are needed just as they are in every field. It would be worse if software was copyrighted, as some code is. Then the copyright would never run out.

There are two problems with these patents. The first is that no government is willing to spend what they should to hire the needed number of examiners, so some patents that shouldn't be granted slip through.

The second it that software patents should be issues for a shorter term, say 7 to 10 years, rather than 20. Solve both of those problems and things would be much better.

On the other hand, the EU could be wrong. This is another case where one company comes up with something that no one else thought of. I've always wondered how people could think something was obvious when many thousands of skilled people in a field haven thought of something that one person finally did think of, and made workable. Why would that be thought of as obvious? Just because people aren't happy with the thought that one company owns it? Not a good reason.

I think the Eu is screwed up on many levels. I'll tell you one thing, if the company that came up was from the SU they wouldn't have ruled that way.

Yep. That just about sums it up.

I skipped pp. 2 - 4, since I could pretty much predict what was going on.

PS: Nice to see AD being told to take a hike. What a useless, value-destroying poster!

Would it be misrepresenting you to summarize your argument as "we have no evidence for our assumption of what happened so we'll make up for that by requiring anyone questioning our unsubstantiated position to prove that we are wrong"?

That is certainly the argument that I was disputing.

If Google didn't come out so fast with an OS and phone that looked and worked so much like the iPhone, no one would suspect Eric. But Google was somehow able to pull off what BB and even MS failed to do and Google didn't even have experience building phones or OS's.

All you people who don't think Apple's board of directors at least know a little bit about Apple's plans, just think back to all those times Al Gore has made little statements about upcoming products. A board of directors deals with budgets, and to design, develop, market and mass produce something as complicated an iPhone... it's unrealistic to believe that they didn't know at least general details of the device and its product strategy.

About Android not being a platform... I don't know WTF Android is. Google's business strategy with the Android has been mind boggingly stupid, but thats probably just an indication of how desperate they were at first to get the product out in the wild. In any case, you know something is wrong when one of your competitors (MS) is making more money off your OS than you are.

It all makes me wonder if Google is just waiting until the right time when all their licensees are completely dependent on Android, then they will be free to charge whatever they want/

Related to ATT smartphones, Engadget has a nicely done article on just how a smartphone comes to market. Did you know that the Android-compatible Motorola Atrix4G was built at ATT's request and to ATT specs? I had no idea the telcos put out bid requests for specific phones with specific features, tho perhaps I should have.

The article is well worth a read if you have a few minutes.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/15/h...cenes-part-on/

Carriers requesting certain specs and features in a phone from handset makers isn't new and was very, very common before the iPhone was released.

What did you think of the article overall?

It was ok although it did bring up horrible memories of when I had Cingular and bellsouth as marketing clients. Lol.

If that was accurate, it looked like rather a half-assed operation - a couple of guys dreaming up cell phones in a vacuum? Qualifications? Research techniques? Their technical and design teams? I assume they have design teams even if they are only working on features and concepts.

From my experience (which has been years ago) most of the requests come from marketing data gained from customers and focus groups. After gathering and analyzing the data, they break out certain features with particular markets to reach and then foward those requests to handset makers (or as the article mentioned a particular handset maker). These people aren't coming up with new tech for phones or anything like that.

Maybe so. In which case the whole process must end up a bit fragmented, with these guys trying to define where the industry will be in 18 months and forwarding focus group conclusions to the actual manufacturers, who, presumably, are independently trying to design cutting-edge phones based on their own ideas.

When you compare that to Apple's way of doing business, I guess the discrepancy in the quality of the results is not surprising.

It was (and is) very fragmenting and is the reason you see so many android handsets that have similar features by the same manufacturer come out so closely together. As for the actual manufacturers' independent designs vs. carrier requests, they don't butt heads that much since the carrier requests aren't too difficult to add (keyboards and it's layout, a Facebook/Twitter button, etc.)

hmmmm...so I always thought it was the OEMs who needed to get their shit together but it seems both the OEMs and Google need to team up to exercise a level of control at least 50% of what Apple enjoys.

Because this is getting ridiculous. I do love Android but I've always suggested iPhones for first time smartphone owners...their entire system trumps anything on the Android side thus far. You know what you're getting...no 40 phones a year...etc, etc, etc.

I hear HTC is going to focus on fewer better models for handsets...if true, I hope it catches on.

No, there's evidence for it. You can look at the timeline. Schmitt joined the board some time before Android came out, and even before Apple knew Google was working on it, according to reports as to why, and when, he had to recuse himself from some of Apple's business. That's all the indication you need to know that Apple was surprised at Google's doings. Until then, he had full knowledge as to Apple intentions, and even to early information as to what Apple was doing specifically, as he would, as a board member.

When Google, or rather Schmitt said that they changed the focus of Android from the Blacberry, and instead went after the iPhone, they did that major change in record time. That would only be possible if they knew it before it arrived. It's not likely that Jobs would have been so incensed if this wasn't true.

In addition, Andy Rubin was working at Apple before he started Android, before Google bought it. He was working on the project of the software that would eventually be for the iPad, which was dropped so that the iPhone could be developed and introduced first. You think that it's not likely Rubin spoke to Schmitt about all of this both before and after Schmitt joined the board? It's not credible to think otherwise.

Yes, that's been known for some time. For a long time, manufacturers had no sway with the carriers. The carriers had ALL the power. I've seen many phones that were spec'd for one carrier. Look at Nokia, last year, they had about 225 phone models. Many are variations of some very basic model that they transform to a carrier's request. It's like a manufacturer making a basic chassis, and making individual models for each dealer.

The problem is that focus groups are a crock. One major problem is that when you pay people, give then lunch or dinner, they're liable to say whatever they think you want. One reason for that is that people get put on lists for focus groups. If you get on one, you have a chance of getting on another, and another. As many people are paid up to $250 for a day's work, plus food, it's hard to turn down. Even my own business partner used to do that. But often, he knew nothing about the product, and would ask me questions about it so that he would know what to say. I tried not to help.

It's also dangerous to ask consumers what they want other than for a feature or two. When you get to entire product specs, you find that consumers don't really know what they want. They THINK they do, but they don't. Even on the rare occasion when they do, they don't know how to express it. So manufacturers get poor information they have to interpret, often not very well.

OK - we are arguing tangentially to each other here. What you describe is opportunity, not evidence. While I agree that it might be hard to find evidence in a situation like this, it doesn't excuse the need for it. Not in a legal sense, because there is not, and has never been, a legal case involved, nor even an explicit accusation from Apple. But, just because Schmidt may have had the opportunity to have done this and some believe that the outcome can only be explained that way, it still doesn't justify demanding that someone who points this out must prove that he didn't do it.

Anyway, I guess we should agree to disagree here. It's actually a somewhat amusing situation for me, because personally, I think he probably did abuse his position and pass information to Google (for many of the reasons that you do), but I hate sloppy arguments.

There's something called circumstantial evidence, some of which I presented, though there is a lot more. People have been hanged on less.

I'm not sure if you think I'm advocating for focus groups. I'm definitely not hence my comment to Gatorguy that the article gave me bad memories (nightmares actually lol). Also, the clients I had mainly only used the participants for small features (as you stated) and usage patterns.

No, I wasn't. I just wanted to get that off my back. It's bothered me for so many years, on several levels since I encountered it when I began my career in 1969 in advertising and fashion photography. They found I was majoring in psychology and biology, and so I ended up helping in writing surveys and other ad hoc marketing areas.

Surveys too can be a problem. Most are well intentioned, but some are done for the pure purpose of advertising. MS did a lot of those. I would get calls at home from some marketing company doing a survey, and I used to participate, as I did that work. But while the questions begin properly, after a while they become MS favored. Questions are asked that realistically can be answered in only one way. Then they use those results as published "in a survey done by----MS products were judged superior", or some such nonsense.

You are giving me PTSD. The reason surveys take a turn for the worse is because the client has a specific objective and it shows in the questions eventually. Third Party sources used to be better but waaay questionable now.

My understanding is that Apple have never used focus groups or surveys in this way. If that is indeed correct, then it is a good illustration that they are at best unnecessary, and, at worst, a really bad idea.

Wikipedia says Andy Rubin worked for Apple 1989-1992.

That's back when Steve Jobs was gone. Steve also said they were working on the fundamentals of the iPad in the early 2000's.... not the early 1990's

I seriously doubt Apple was working on anything to do with the iPad while Andy Rubin was there.

Hell... Apple was selling this kind of computer when Andy worked there:

Some off Mel's other "circumstantial evidence" falls apart on closer inspection too. Rumors that Google might be entering the phone business have been around since 2004. http://theponderingprimate.blogspot....s-to-go.html\\

Claiming Apple didn't know about Google and Android. Garbage! It was reported in Bloomberg for crying out loud, August of 2005.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0949_tc024.htm

Rumors of an actual phone in development started appearing in the press in mid-2006, with even the high-profile Engadget getting in on the stories.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/03/a...lk-wifi-phone/

All of those stories (I have more if you need 'em) were published before Schmidt became a member of Apple's BOD.

Pushing the idea that Apple, and particularly Steve Jobs "who took long walks with Google's founders discussing business" didn't know about Android development or Google's plans to enter the smartphone business, and doing so with a straight face, is plain silly.

When all is said and done you have an Eric Schmidt, asked to join Apple's board in spite of Google's purchase of Android and telegraphed smartphone and mobile plans. Who was trying to use who?