AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge affirms vital Apple touchscreen patent in case against Motorola
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge affirms vital Apple touchscreen patent in case against Motorola - Page 2

post #41 of 167
4/1/12 at 2:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

" I hope the judge throws this out of court"
FTA:
"Judge Richard Posner has issued an order upholding some of"

He just issued a ruling.. the EXACT opposite of throwing it out of court. The judge found merit in Apple's argument. A case gets thrown out when neither side's arguments hold merit.

"no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride"
this is a patent suit - there are VERY LARGE SUMS OF MONEY AT STAKE.

this is what can happen when a patent holder is on the winning side:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1120318.html

Apple won a temporary injunction (that was eventually overturned) which means Samsung was not allowed to sell their tablet in Australia while the injunction was in effect.

doesn't take a genius to figure out what could happen to other touchscreen phones if Apple wins this.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 167
4/1/12 at 4:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

As an attorney I can promise you there is no such requirement under Patent law. Companies quietly allow other companies to use patented ideas all the time. Perhaps, you are thinking of Trademark law where indeed one does have to police one's patents.

I think you meant to say 'trademarks'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

With that said, I don't see the point of inventing something, patenting it, and than not benefitting in some way from it. Unlike companies like Microsoft that have little problem licensing their patents, Apple wants to distinguish itself by design. So it doesn't want others to use its ideas.

There is a reason to patent everything in sight even if you're not going to enforce it. Some companies do it for defensive reasons - they patent something simply to prevent others from doing so and putting them out of business. This is often used for marginal inventions where it's not a slam-dunk on proving infringement, but a patent might save you from millions of dollars in legal costs defending your use of the technology.

That's not the case here, but there IS a reason for patenting something and then not enforcing the patent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

This particular patent really is a useful one.

It appears to be. It's one of several patents that won't prevent Motorola and others from making a touch screen phone, but will condemn them to having a clunky interface compared to Apple's smooth, fluid performance.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 167
4/1/12 at 4:41am
Mueller is full of it. EVERY idea ever patented would have been thought of eventually. Using Mueller's logic all patents should be considered invalid.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #44 of 167
4/1/12 at 4:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the people who berate Apple would litigate like crazy if their own inventions were copied without permission. That charity feeling of 'they should all settle this' would drain from their bodies when their hard work, time, and money invested was making profits for their competition.

Exactly. Well said.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #45 of 167
4/1/12 at 4:48am
Fandroids: Apple just does this to make money!

In real world: All Android OEMs exempt two pays licensing/protection fees to MSFT 5-15 dollar per device. MSFT that have done zero innovation in multitouch gets money from Android, and the Fandroid thinks Apple is evil.

But todays Apple is not the same as Apple under Steve. Apple is starting to do the same mistakes that the did in 1985 when Steve left.
Dividend, stock buy back program, 5 month slip of iOS5, 2-3 month slip of SSD 2011 iMacs, no redesign of iPhone, iPad 3 with a subpar A5X SoC, iPad 3 with LTE that only works in America and many more examples.

Tim accepts non perfect products. Steve would never have done it. When TSMC would say "we can't deliver enough wafers for mars launch of iPad" Steve would have gone mad and screamed, maybe even bought TSMC to make it work. Steve would have postponed Ipad3 availability 1-2 month to get a more elegant iPad 3. (double performance, lower power SoC, LTE world wide, not thicker).

For Steve, Apple was not about making money, Apple was about making the best products in the world, that then would make Apple money.

Tim values short term monitory gains by releasing iPad 3 a couple of month to early. Tim wants this money so that Appel can blow 50 billion in dividend and share buy back.

This will change Apples patents. Apple did not make money on its patents. Steve had 2 ways. Either it was industry standard and Appel licensed out its patents for free (like H264). If it was non industry standard patents Steve would refuse to license them out. Steve wanted Google/MSFT to invent their own stuff, not loan ideas from Apple.

Tim will license out Apple patents to make money.

Its sad to see Apple repeat every single mistake that they did when Steve left last time.

History will repeat it self. Apple will have many good years ahead, but the peak of innovation and think different attitude is gone.

The 50 billion that Tim blew really annoys me. Apple could have built its own foundries or bought 1 of Intels 22nm factories. Now Apple is depending on Samsung stuff, the same company that steals ideas from Apple. Its fun how Samsung leaks Apple roadmap. They know exactly what Apple is doing since they deliver the SoC, screen, NAND flash and so on.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 167
4/1/12 at 5:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

He countered your point.

You too make my point, again and again, with fierce conviction.


Quote:
They have the right not license any patents that they haven't already made agreements to license. If they feel they can use their tech in-house, instead of getting compensated from 3rd-parties, to better their position financially then they should pursue that.

That's what I said, didn't I? Rephrasing doesn't help much, does it?

Quote:
Except for all the tech they license or buy from other others. No Apple product is built in a bubble and your foolish hyperbole isn't helping any argument you may have.

Pro tip: Hyperbole can be effective when you try to make it funny but when you state something that axiomatically wrong it just comes across as trollish.

The only pro element that I can find is... well in fact, I can't find it.
Let me correct your sentence:
Quote:
[...]but when you state something that I believe is axiomatically wrong it just comes across as trollish

Actually, I think it's much fun making fun of shills like you.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 167
4/1/12 at 5:13am
Well, here are a couple of things.

Touch was not invented by Apple
The display of the app icons was not invented by Apple
The swipe to unlock was not invented by Apple
The tablet was not invented by Apple
Apple did not invent the rounded rectangle
...
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 167
4/1/12 at 5:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

You too make my point, again and again, with fierce conviction.

That's what I said, didn't I? Rephrasing doesn't help much, does it?

The only pro element that I can find is... well in fact, I can't find it.
Let me correct your sentence:

Actually, I think it's much fun making fun of shills like you.

You've got a bit of verbal diarrhea happening today, Blitz, and the quantity of posts isn't making up for lack of quality.

And we're definitely going to be leaving the 'does he have a girlfriend box?' unchecked after you provided your definition of the word 'fun'.

Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt.

Reply

Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt.

Reply
post #49 of 167
4/1/12 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Well, here are a couple of things.

Touch was not invented by Apple
The display of the app icons was not invented by Apple
The swipe to unlock was not invented by Apple
The tablet was not invented by Apple
Apple did not invent the rounded rectangle
...

None of which have any relevance.

Apple never claims to have invented 'touch'. Or 'app icons'. Or 'swipe to unlock'. Or any of the other things you cited.

The way patents work is that Apple claimed specific implementations of those things. You have to read the patent claims rather than a one sentence description on non-technical sites to understand what is being claimed. It is never as simple as you apparently believe.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 167
4/1/12 at 5:43am
the galvins, who founded motorola are turning over.

a once great company has now become a law firm. the kodak, xerox and aol path et al,
is their destiny.

you can't sue the usa government and expect to win. they have all the money. apple
probably has more money than the usa government now. at least without debt.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 167
4/1/12 at 6:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

You left this out of your post:

"Posted from my Android phone".
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 167
4/1/12 at 6:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Vital patents? I think not. The '949 patent is a 400 page behemoth, there's bound to be some original ideas in it. However, as with the "data tapping", "overscroll bounceback", "slide-to-unlock image" and "photo gallery page-turning" methods that Mueller reminded about, there will be workarounds. I for one care not one bit whether my page will scroll straight up due to heuristics, or follow precisely my fingers motion when heuristics is turned off.

Lawyers making money, that's what this bickering is in the end. Patents or not, Android is here to stay.



well I HATE that in windows, when you use the scroll bar to get to the end of a list and overshoot the end of the scroll bar, it goes back to where is started from.
really, can't window recognize that i am pulling down the scroll bar to the end, and when i get to the bottom of the bar, it(window contents) should stay at the bottom... i'm holding the mouse buttom down, shouldn't it know that I don't want to leave the scroll bar, but get to the end.?

MINOR problems such as this are what apple solves.(not to say that there is a patent that solves this...) the patent of bouncing the contents when you get to the bottom is a subtle reminder that you have reached the end... is it really needed? perhaps no, but it is better that it is there... hence it is patented

TL;DR. nothing here to see; move along now... ROLF
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 167
4/1/12 at 6:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Mueller is full of it. EVERY idea ever patented would have been thought of eventually. Using Mueller's logic all patents should be considered invalid.

death and taxes. ... eventually it happens...
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 167
4/1/12 at 6:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

That's just reality, Motorola are trying to become the ultimate patent trolls, their "reasonable" demand from Microsoft over H.264 patents amounts to $4 billion a year, Microsoft currently pays MPEG-LA $6.5 million a year if it wasn't capped it would be $60 million a year to license all the other essential patents in the pool.

Motorola is a money grubbing extortionist.

You're referring to the cherry-picked standard that Florian Mueller used in the article on Microsoft (who happens to pay Mr. Mueller for his "expertise") and Moto. There's other standards he doesn't mention that ask for much more in the way of royalties. Some FRAND-contributors such as Qualcomm or Nokia and partners asking for more than Motorola does in certain essential standards. The only one Mr. Mueller ever uses for comparison is MPEG-LA. Odd in my view if he's trying to present an honest picture.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #55 of 167
4/1/12 at 6:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

Fandroids: Apple just does this to make money!

In real world: All Android OEMs exempt two pays licensing/protection fees to MSFT 5-15 dollar per device. MSFT that have done zero innovation in multitouch gets money from Android, and the Fandroid thinks Apple is evil.

But todays Apple is not the same as Apple under Steve. Apple is starting to do the same mistakes that the did in 1985 when Steve left.
Dividend, stock buy back program, 5 month slip of iOS5, 2-3 month slip of SSD 2011 iMacs, no redesign of iPhone, iPad 3 with a subpar A5X SoC, iPad 3 with LTE that only works in America and many more examples.

Tim accepts non perfect products. Steve would never have done it. When TSMC would say "we can't deliver enough wafers for mars launch of iPad" Steve would have gone mad and screamed, maybe even bought TSMC to make it work. Steve would have postponed Ipad3 availability 1-2 month to get a more elegant iPad 3. (double performance, lower power SoC, LTE world wide, not thicker).

For Steve, Apple was not about making money, Apple was about making the best products in the world, that then would make Apple money.

Tim values short term monitory gains by releasing iPad 3 a couple of month to early. Tim wants this money so that Appel can blow 50 billion in dividend and share buy back.

This will change Apples patents. Apple did not make money on its patents. Steve had 2 ways. Either it was industry standard and Appel licensed out its patents for free (like H264). If it was non industry standard patents Steve would refuse to license them out. Steve wanted Google/MSFT to invent their own stuff, not loan ideas from Apple.

Tim will license out Apple patents to make money.

Its sad to see Apple repeat every single mistake that they did when Steve left last time.

History will repeat it self. Apple will have many good years ahead, but the peak of innovation and think different attitude is gone.

The 50 billion that Tim blew really annoys me. Apple could have built its own foundries or bought 1 of Intels 22nm factories. Now Apple is depending on Samsung stuff, the same company that steals ideas from Apple. Its fun how Samsung leaks Apple roadmap. They know exactly what Apple is doing since they deliver the SoC, screen, NAND flash and so on.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's already been said that there is about 3-5 years worth of products on the roadmap that Steve Jobs was involved in.

You complain about the iPhone 4S's design (not a redesign), but you completely ignored the iPhone 3GS. Did you miss that one? It was the same design as the iPhone 3G. Want to guess how that went over with the consumers? IT SOLD MORE THAN THE IPHONE 3G, A LOT MORE! And, it's STILL IN PRODUCTION.

Considering there is well over a year in R&D for a new product, Steve was still around during the new iPad's development.

Just in case you missed it, Apple has been partners with Samsung for a LONG time... just like they were partners with Google, well before Android became what it is.

You really need to do some more research before you come here blabbering about stuff you obviously don't know anything about.

I could go on dissecting your other stupid comments, but it isn't worth my time or effort.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 167
4/1/12 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Ah, c'mon!

There must be something loveable about us.

I mean, you keep coming back, right?

✔
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 167
4/1/12 at 7:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedGeminiPA View Post

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's already been said that there is about 3-5 years worth of products on the roadmap that Steve Jobs was involved in.

You complain about the iPhone 4S's design (not a redesign), but you completely ignored the iPhone 3GS. Did you miss that one? It was the same design as the iPhone 3G. Want to guess how that went over with the consumers? IT SOLD MORE THAN THE IPHONE 3G, A LOT MORE! And, it's STILL IN PRODUCTION.

Considering there is well over a year in R&D for a new product, Steve was still around during the new iPad's development.

Just in case you missed it, Apple has been partners with Samsung for a LONG time... just like they were partners with Google, well before Android became what it is.

You really need to do some more research before you come here blabbering about stuff you obviously don't know anything about.

I could go on dissecting your other stupid comments, but it isn't worth my time or effort.

Every product he mentioned as being the downfall happened under Steve's watch.

The biggest non-change for the iPhone was between the original iPhone and iPhone 3G. They changed the casing and added 3G but most of the internals were the same. They even moved from a "sophisticated" metal to a "cheap" plastic... under Steve. To make matters worse iOS 2.0 had the most problems with Safari crashing often under version 2.1 or so.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #58 of 167
4/1/12 at 7:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

You left this out of your post:

"Posted from my Android phone".

"Posted from anything but an Apple product" yet followed up with "I own everything Apple makes I just think it all sucks."

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #59 of 167
4/1/12 at 7:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Patents or not, Android is here to stay.

That's a platitude. Of course they are.

The question is whether they have to pay to stay.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 167
4/1/12 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

SpamSandwich will be in for a shock when you charge him a 1 hour consultation fee for that post.

Maybe he will cover it with some of that Apple stock.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 167
4/1/12 at 7:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Every product he mentioned as being the downfall happened under Steve's watch..

Exactly.

Even the iPad 3 was probably essentially complete under Jobs' watch. Any products released after the iPad 3 will still have Jobs' influence to a greater or lesser degree. For example, if they introduce a new MBP this month, the basic design and almost all of the details would have been done under Jobs. It's conceivable that Cook might have contributed a small tweak her or there. As time goes on, Cook's influence will be more visible. By 2020 or so, new products will be essentially completely done under Cook (although there would still be some influence from what he's learned from Jobs.

We're still at least a year away from a product that wasn't largely done under Jobs.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 167
4/1/12 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Well, here are a couple of things.

Touch was not invented by Apple
The display of the app icons was not invented by Apple
The swipe to unlock was not invented by Apple
The tablet was not invented by Apple
Apple did not invent the rounded rectangle
...

True, but the specific implementation of how those things are used in Apple's devices was invented by Apple. There is more than one way to do something, and in most cases each way may be eligible for patent protection.

Further, when you take a whole bunch of things and put them together to make a single item, the arrangement of those small things might be eligible for patent, trademark, and possibly copyright protection.

Look no further than Coke's original bottle for an example of how that works. Other's created bottles to drink from before Coke. Yet, its bottle was protected by patent, copyright, and trademark law.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 167
4/1/12 at 7:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

We're still at least a year away from a product that wasn't largely done under Jobs.

Next year's iPad's processor will probably be the first major component that didn't have high-level approval from him (as it didn't exist beyond projections when he died). As for combinations of product specs before that, I think we'll see (though we'll never know it's the case) the 6th iPhone have a feature set that isn't exactly what he wanted.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #64 of 167
4/1/12 at 7:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Maybe he will cover it with some of that Apple stock.

BTW, it's nice to see occasional legal comments from an actual attorney rather than someone who plays one on the forum.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #65 of 167
4/1/12 at 8:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Thanks for trolling.

How about learning a little about patent law and the requirement that companies defend their patents or lose them, then come back (tail between legs) with an informed comment for everyone.

I'd like to learn about that. Can you give any cites for the proposition that you lose a patent if you do not defend it?
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 167
4/1/12 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

I'd like to learn about that. Can you give any cites for the proposition that you lose a patent if you do not defend it?

I think he's probably well aware he misspoke. It happens to all of us on occasion, so no need to rub it in. What goes around comes around and all that.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #67 of 167
4/1/12 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

As an attorney I can promise you there is no such requirement under Patent law. Companies quietly allow other companies to use patented ideas all the time. Perhaps, you are thinking of Trademark law where indeed one does have to police one's patents.

I don't believe that you are an attorney, due to the ignorant and sloppy writing displayed here.

I find it unlikely that an attorney would use the wrong word in this context. Maybe it was just a brain fart? But as of now, I call bullshit.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 167
4/1/12 at 8:34am
It should be aired on A&E, we already have Storage Wars and Shipping Wars, Patent Wars would make a good show.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #69 of 167
4/1/12 at 8:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

well I HATE that in windows, when you use the scroll bar to get to the end of a list and overshoot the end of the scroll bar, it goes back to where is started from.
really, can't window recognize that i am pulling down the scroll bar to the end, and when i get to the bottom of the bar, it(window contents) should stay at the bottom... i'm holding the mouse buttom down, shouldn't it know that I don't want to leave the scroll bar, but get to the end.?



There are a zillion annoying aspects of Windows. In the 1990's I used to curse at Microsoft because of them.

There are many fewer now, and most of them are no longer even noticed. Many of them can be worked around, so they never appear. Many of them are mere default settings, which can be easily changed.

Windows is far from perfect, and I an very sceptical of their new UI for Windows 8. I suspect that many people will just opt for the "Classic" Win7 UI and will rarely if ever look at Metro on the desktop.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 167
4/1/12 at 8:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

True, but the specific implementation of how those things are used in Apple's devices was invented by Apple. There is more than one way to do something, and in most cases each way may be eligible for patent protection.

Further, when you take a whole bunch of things and put them together to make a single item, the arrangement of those small things might be eligible for patent, trademark, and possibly copyright protection.

Look no further than Coke's original bottle for an example of how that works. Other's created bottles to drink from before Coke. Yet, its bottle was protected by patent, copyright, and trademark law.

The Coke bottle is protected by a trademark? Really?
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 167
4/1/12 at 8:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It should be aired on A&E, we already have Storage Wars and Shipping Wars, Patent Wars would make a good show.

You can count on a book or two covering this some time. It should be a good read.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 167
4/1/12 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think he's probably well aware he misspoke. It happens to all of us on occasion, so no need to rub it in. What goes around comes around and all that.

If it is the case that he misspoke, then all is well. Yes, it happens to all of us.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 167
4/1/12 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

The Coke bottle is protected by a trademark? Really?

Pages 6, 7, 10 and 11 will be quite enlightening, though the whole thing is informative while being easy to digest.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #74 of 167
4/1/12 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

The Coke bottle is protected by a trademark? Really?

"Widely recognized as a pioneering example of package-driven branding, the contour bottle is one of the few packages to ever receive a trademark from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, helping to make Coca-Cola one of the most famous brands in the world today."

http://www.junkfoodnews.net/Coke-Bottles-90-Years.htm



I don't vouch for the accuracy of the information, but it exists independently as a statement of fact...
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 167
4/1/12 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Pages 6, 7, 10 and 11 will be quite enlightening, though the whole thing is informative while being easy to digest.

That's a nice presentation and an easy read. Thanks for the find Solip.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #76 of 167
4/1/12 at 9:35am
Moto's products are lousy and so is their service. Derivative, undifferentiated junk (unless "fugly" counts as differentiation.)
There's a reason they needed a buyout. They were tanking.

Those who fail to re-invent their business end up as buyout-bait with nothing left but an old trove of patents,
most of which they try to wield around (or abuse) for FRAND licensing dollars. Like an old hooker way past her sell-by date.

I kinda feel sorry for Moto. That like Nokia, they've become this sad and pathetic in their old age.
There was a time when they made decent products and were able to respond to market forces (which to be fair, were moving along at a glacial pace anyway.)

Apple in 2007 and later in 2010 destroyed a lot of comfortable (but hopelessly dated) business strategies in the mobile sector.
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
post #77 of 167
4/1/12 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedGeminiPA View Post

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's already been said that there is about 3-5 years worth of products on the roadmap that Steve Jobs was involved in.

You complain about the iPhone 4S's design (not a redesign), but you completely ignored the iPhone 3GS. Did you miss that one? It was the same design as the iPhone 3G. Want to guess how that went over with the consumers? IT SOLD MORE THAN THE IPHONE 3G, A LOT MORE! And, it's STILL IN PRODUCTION.

Considering there is well over a year in R&D for a new product, Steve was still around during the new iPad's development.

Just in case you missed it, Apple has been partners with Samsung for a LONG time... just like they were partners with Google, well before Android became what it is.

You really need to do some more research before you come here blabbering about stuff you obviously don't know anything about.

I could go on dissecting your other stupid comments, but it isn't worth my time or effort.

Even with a product refresh once a year, its not as easy to totally change or reinvent totally.
Most people look for the physival hardware changes they can see to call it new and different. Unfortunately people forget its the new operating system and better inside components that are worth more.
Lastly why do a total change when you have a winning product they just tweak it (even when Steve Jobs was alive) because you never know how well a reinvented product will be accepted......Even though its Apple and people will buy it there are many that buy for the technology not just because its Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 167
4/1/12 at 10:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4 View Post

Lastly why do a total change when you have a winning product they just tweak it (even when Steve Jobs was alive) because you never know how well a reinvented product will be accepted......Even though its Apple and people will buy it there are many that buy for the technology not just because its Apple.

Apple is clever about doing that. It often releases products in parallel to the existing products.

The MBA is an example. It came out in parallel to the MBP. Now there are rumors of a merger between the two, presumably taking the best aspects of each.

Likely a similar case could be made in the iPod world as well.

Finally, people talk about some sort of merger between the MBA and the iPad. I don't know what it would be like, but the general theme is similar WRT "reinvented products" in that they are parallel releases, which are later merged.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 167
4/1/12 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Finally, people talk about some sort of merger between the MBA and the iPad.

People also talk about Elvis living on Mars with Marilyn Monroe.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 167
4/1/12 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Apple is clever about doing that. It often releases products in parallel to the existing products.

The MBA is an example. It came out in parallel to the MBP. Now there are rumors of a merger between the two, presumably taking the best aspects of each.

Likely a similar case could be made in the iPod world as well.

Finally, people talk about some sort of merger between the MBA and the iPad. I don't know what it would be like, but the general theme is similar WRT "reinvented products" in that they are parallel releases, which are later merged.

Apple has a long history of borrowing tech from its products. It's one area their competitors don't seem to understand. Apple has built iOS from Mac OS and since then have returned pieces back that make Mac OS better. They also did this with their iPhone HW with their iPod Hw expertise, which includes their knowledge of multi-touch trackpad drivers.

The MBA was their first unibody design. It seemed expensive and "over engineered" at the time, if you want to take a pejorative look at it, but since then the MBP, then iPhone, then iPad, and Mac mini have adopted it. I think the Apple TV remote is also milled from a solid piece of aluminium.

From their ASIC to their casings they are building upon their expertise with each new release. If you decide to keep your groups in isolation or switch horses because you've "innovated" your way into a corner you are limited in your scope and will have to start over way too often to be competitive.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge affirms vital Apple touchscreen patent in case against Motorola