or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iPhone Patent Wars: Apple's $1.1 billion ARM injection ignites a mobile patent race
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone Patent Wars: Apple's $1.1 billion ARM injection ignites a mobile patent race - Page 2

post #41 of 70
This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary.

This means that the 17" Mac Book Pro might not come back. The iMacs, Mini, and even the Mac Pro are doomed. Somewhere in Tim Cooks mind is a cutoff point where he will say that more resources need to be placed into iOS products and the Macs will be cut.

I read that OS X was supposed to last about fifteen years before needing new architecture. Of course that was an estimate but it's got just a couple more years left. That estimate might have been right. Since Apple is just now updating the Mac Pro, OS X might have a few more years left. I've also heard that X11 is just not cutting it these days. What is next?
post #42 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

Lots of companies have had wide ranging influences major CE devices over the years.  This is what I mean by minimizing the contributions of others and viewing history through a narrow lens.

 

I can construct similar "Microsoft was behind everything" narratives if I want. For example, the GPU that makes the iPhone even possible can be traced directly back to Microsoft's investment into DirectX and the PC gaming market. SGI plays the role of Xerox here, creating OpenGL, but failing to make it relevant for everyday consumers. Enter the savior, Microsoft, rescuing the HW industry from the ineffective ARB, pushing forward a baseline spec that got better every 18 months, and enabling a competitive GPU market for the desktop that allowed other vendors to sell compatible hardware into a ready made market. This lead to an advancement in GPU capabilities that surpassed Moore's Law on CPUs.

 

PowerVR began as a desktop class GPU, but tile-based-deferred-renderers, designed for low memory bandwidth, could not compete on the desktop where immediate mode renderers were getting faster and faster GDDR coupled with ginormous 256, 384, and 512-bit memory busses. So PowerVR rescued their IP by pivoting to mobile, where tile-based-deferred-rendering shines, leading to the introduction of the series of GPUs that sit in mobile today.

 

No Microsoft investment in DirectX making the PC a competitive gaming market, and OpenGL would be stagnant, likely delaying the timeline of GPUs by years, and in 2007, the iPhone would have had a much less powerful graphics chip.

 

The most bizarre part of your post is the logical leap between Microsoft's DirectX and then, suddenly, PowerVR. Games wouldn't have existed without Microsoft?

 

DirectX was only an effort to tie PC games to Windows, so that the vibrant market for games (yes, before DirectX) working on DOS PCs would be forced to upgrade to each new version of Windows because Microsoft could control the release of new versions of DirectX. Killed competition among DOS vendors, killed competition between OpenGL/GPU vendors and made Windows the industry's bottleneck and Microsoft its toll booth with those 90% gross margins on software that was added to PCs like a tax you couldn't avoid in a market with no alternative products to choose between.

 

The only Microsoft graphics technology that's made its way into Apple's chips is the wasted space support for DirectX and WMV/VC1 that Apple leaves deactivated.

post #43 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


I think you don't know engineering or even capitalism.  Just answer the question.  Why Apple can keep iPhone market share near 50% but its market share in China dropped to 5% recently? 

 

How does my post reflect ignorance in engineering or capitalism? I think Corrections answered your question quite well, so I'll leave it there. 

post #44 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary.

This means that the 17" Mac Book Pro might not come back. The iMacs, Mini, and even the Mac Pro are doomed. Somewhere in Tim Cooks mind is a cutoff point where he will say that more resources need to be placed into iOS products and the Macs will be cut.

I read that OS X was supposed to last about fifteen years before needing new architecture. Of course that was an estimate but it's got just a couple more years left. That estimate might have been right. Since Apple is just now updating the Mac Pro, OS X might have a few more years left. I've also heard that X11 is just not cutting it these days. What is next?

 

Great think about Capitalism is that people get to vote for which products stick around. 

 

I got a 17" MPB, and it does have a nice screen. But it's super heavy and not very totable (I carried it around Europe for a month at one point, trust me). I now have a 13" MBA.

 

If you think Apple's Macs are nearly dead, you're not paying attention to the fact that OS X Mavericks got equal attention to iOS 7 at WWDC, despite iPhones and iPads making Apple more money than all of its Macs put together. The Mac business is still larger and much more profitable than any other PC maker, even those choosing to churn out a lot of cheap netbooks or basic boxes at near zero profit. 

 

Again, that's some concern trolling you don't also focus on the industry outside of Apple, which faces the same issues but also a much more ugly one: Windows. 

post #45 of 70

Why was rjc999 banned?

post #46 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

How does my post reflect ignorance in engineering or capitalism? I think Corrections answered your question quite well, so I'll leave it there. 


Because you think innovation is such an easy thing that Apple can easily use it to crush copycats. 

post #47 of 70
@Smallwheels, then again, you could say that where the users are, the money will be. Therefore, go for the users and the money will take care of itself.

Maybe they'll do a 17" portable when the screen, memory and battery tech allow it to be like an Air, with retina. Then it might find enough users.

The new Pro is clearly a fun new exercise in architecture for them. We'll see if it finds users, i.e., makes money.

It's still about the users. Believe it or not, those are the foundation ethics. You can trace them all the way back to Richard Alpert, Stewart Brand and Gregory Bateson, in the 60s and 70s.

Edit: Anticipated by Corrections above.
post #48 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


Because you think innovation is such an easy thing that Apple can easily use it to crush copycats. 

 

Really? I said that? Please, please show me where I said that. 

post #49 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary.

This means that the 17" Mac Book Pro might not come back. The iMacs, Mini, and even the Mac Pro are doomed. Somewhere in Tim Cooks mind is a cutoff point where he will say that more resources need to be placed into iOS products and the Macs will be cut.

I read that OS X was supposed to last about fifteen years before needing new architecture. Of course that was an estimate but it's got just a couple more years left. That estimate might have been right. Since Apple is just now updating the Mac Pro, OS X might have a few more years left. I've also heard that X11 is just not cutting it these days. What is next?

 

It is about making great products and furthering technology, however, when the people (money) don't support it, you must move on. If you don't stay profitable, you won't be around long enough to create the next great product. 

post #50 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Why was rjc999 banned?

I doubt they'll give it away.

Like his predecessors, one of which was jdnc123, I think his posts are being written with details supplied by a pool of "experts" who can supply him with inside jargon and industry facts in this or that area, so we get a wall of troll sound on virtually any subject. Organized anti-Apple black PR, in other words. But then i'm paranoid, as everyone here knows.

For me, one definition of paranoid is that you've been around long enough to see just how much treachery certain humans can come up with.
post #51 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


I doubt they'll give it away.

Like his predecessors, one of which was jdnc123, I think his posts are being written with details supplied by a pool of "experts" who can supply him with inside jargon and industry facts in this or that area, so we get a wall of troll sound on virtually any subject. Organized anti-Apple black PR, in other words. But then i'm paranoid, as everyone here knows.

For me, one definition of paranoid is that you've been around long enough to see just how much treachery certain humans can come up with.

But that isn't the only definition of paranoia, is it? ;)

post #52 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

Really? I said that? Please, please show me where I said that. 


Read your post #9 carefully. 

post #53 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I swear there's a box in AI headquarters filled with DED essays that just spews out lengthy random combinations of passages on a vague subject any time a deadline for an "editorial" comes up.  It also appears to have some kind of crossover error, when you end up with careless mistakes like this:

 

 

 

 

 

That wasn't a mistake. Motorola did do a port of Windows NT 3.5. Sames as Intergraph who made a port of Windows NT 3.5 to SPARC.

post #54 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Why was rjc999 banned?

They weren't. That's an avatar picture they've been using for quite some time.

post #55 of 70
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post
They weren't. That's an avatar picture they've been using for quite some time.

 

Not sure if serious, given that you can't do that…

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #56 of 70

Well I've seen it under their name for a while now when they've posted. Maybe some sort of Huddler glitch?

post #57 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Perhaps the assumption was made that readers would recall events and therefore the line would not be controversial. See also:

 

MOTOROLA PORTS WINDOWS NT 3.5 TO POWERPC(TM) SYSTEMS - Free Online Library (Sept 1994)

 

Duly burned.  Apologies, I didn't know that.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #58 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary. ...

 

If you think that, then you literally know nothing and understand nothing about Apple, and about Steve Jobs. 

 

I think money is obviously *your* focus, and you are just looking through "money coloured glasses" at the world. 

post #59 of 70
Bring back the Sumo tutu ads.
post #60 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


Read your post #9 carefully. 

 

I think you need to read it carefully with the words in the correct order. 

post #61 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post

They weren't. That's an avatar picture they've been using for quite some time.

 

LOL I like it. 

post #62 of 70

Very interesting read. I'm enjoying this series of articles.

post #63 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

If you think that, then you literally know nothing and understand nothing about Apple, and about Steve Jobs. 

 

I think money is obviously *your* focus, and you are just looking through "money coloured glasses" at the world. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

It is about making great products and furthering technology, however, when the people (money) don't support it, you must move on. If you don't stay profitable, you won't be around long enough to create the next great product. 

Sure Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak put together a company to go after business markets. They succeeded. Eventually they built some great products that they believed people would want. Those were new products with new ideas. Some of them sold well. Others sold but not as well as they had hoped. Instead of making the products better and letting people know about them, the products were dropped.

 

We can see that the Mini is sort of the step child of the desktop computer and a laptop computer. It doesn't get any respect. Its refresh times are almost as long as the Mac Pro and it almost seems that it gets hardware that was left over from laptop parts orders. The iMac was a wonder in its beginning. Now it is becoming an anorexic desktop masquerading as a laptop on a stand.

 

Sure OS X got a lot of attention at WWDC because it had been a long time since it got any attention. Mavericks needed to be created because it is an intermediate step between the merging of OS X and iOS. iOS still gets the biggest attention. It just got revamped in a huge push since Scott Forstall was kicked out.

 

My post isn't an anti Apple post. It just is pointing out that Apple isn't out for the people. It is out for the profits that people can give it. They are making things that are just good enough to get people to upgrade. Card readers were in competitors machines two years before Apple added them to their computers. People still can't get micro SD cards in iOS devices. Apple wants people to pay out the butt for more storage. Faster buses were in other machines far ahead of the Macs.

 

I wish I had realized all of this a long time ago when I was wishing for a new Mini to come out. I waited and waited and waited. Eventually I bought a Mac Book because it had the newer tech I had hoped would be in the Mini. When I wanted to upgrade I still wanted a Mini. The updates were just underwhelming. I visit this site because I'm hopeful that Apple will come out with a new product that will interest me. I know they have the capability to produce something great that Microsoft or the others will never do. What I wonder is if that spirit of innovation died a long time ago. The iPad was an idea Steve had long before the iPhone. Did he even have any other ideas percolating? I hope there was more than the TV because I don't want a TV even if it is a smart TV.

post #64 of 70
Corrections, these are fantastic articles that I & others have had the pleasure of reading but is there a chance that they could be combined into ONE article when the series is finished so we don't have to go skipping through other articles to find them?
post #65 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I doubt they'll give it away.

Like his predecessors, one of which was jdnc123, I think his posts are being written with details supplied by a pool of "experts" who can supply him with inside jargon and industry facts in this or that area, so we get a wall of troll sound on virtually any subject. Organized anti-Apple black PR, in other words. But then i'm paranoid, as everyone here knows.

For me, one definition of paranoid is that you've been around long enough to see just how much treachery certain humans can come up with.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #66 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post
Eventually they built some great products that they believed people would want.

 

I think this is better said 'they built products they were passionate about and believed people would want.' I changed this because this better explains 

 

Quote:
Others sold but not as well as they had hoped. Instead of making the products better and letting people know about them, the products were dropped.

 

This might be explained by 1) not having the resources to put into to (people or money) 2) they lost interest in the project 3) the technology to do what they wanted was not available so they could not move forward 'as they thought was needed'. 

 

I also get frustrated when my favorite product line is not updated as often as I would like, but creativity sometimes goes in cycles and when you run dry on one, you many have ideas in another. Some products just fall behind because you are so consumed by another that you don't have any more time, energy, or resources to devote to them. 

 

I don't think it is because they can't innovate, but more so that instant success takes a long time to happen. Apple has also gone through a huge corporate change and still fighting a big battle with Samsung. I have confidence that once Apple gets their legs back under them (and I think they have) we will start seeing more amazing products. 

 

Quote:
My post isn't an anti Apple post. It just is pointing out that Apple isn't out for the people. It is out for the profits that people can give it.

 

OH, I never thought Apple was out for people or profit but for themselves. They make things they want to make because they like them. They market themselves as being the cool kids because that builds their ego, which I am perfectly fine with as long as the products keep rolling. : ) 

 

Quote:
They are making things that are just good enough to get people to upgrade.

 

Yes, stagnation is hard to endure, and I agree 100%. However, if your focus is elsewhere, or you are simply blocked at the moment to what to add next, or you are waiting on technology to catch up to your ideas, you increment. Sometimes too slowly. 

 

Quote:
Card readers were in competitors machines two years before Apple added them to their computers. People still can't get micro SD cards in iOS devices. Apple wants people to pay out the butt for more storage. Faster buses were in other machines far ahead of the Macs.

 

And now card readers are not offered in many Macs. I for one am glad there is no SD cards in iOS devices. I agree that Apple seldom has the fastest tech, but it is a product as a whole. At least that is why I buy Apple products. 

 

Quote:
 I waited and waited and waited

 

And we all do : ) 

 

Quote:
I visit this site because I'm hopeful that Apple will come out with a new product that will interest me.

 

You should never hope on unannounced products... but we all do :) 

 

Quote:
What I wonder is if that spirit of innovation died a long time ago.

 

I doubt this very much! 

 

Quote:
 I hope there was more than the TV because I don't want a TV even if it is a smart TV.

 

And that is it. Perhaps this is what they are excited about internally, what motivates them, what has their creative juices flowing at the moment. For me, if they never spent another day on the Mac mini I would not even notice. 

 

The Steve's Apple seemed to do what they wanted to do, when they wanted to do it, I hope that is still the case. 

 

"Patiently" waiting on the 5S ;) 

post #67 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision33r View Post

Sadly, Apple does not have have the foresight to see beyond the current state of tech and reach beyond.

Apple is touched by your concern for their lack of foresight.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #68 of 70
From little Acorn's big Apples Grow!!
post #69 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbia View Post

Forgive me Lord, For I have Sinned ....

Those years, I thought MS did not copy Apple. Please forgive me for being so dumb!!!

 

Yeah, hindsight is 20-20 vision.

 

In reality, knowledge during and after the fact is ordinary.

 

Knowledge BEFORE the fact is Mastery, is Vision, and is much rarer.

 

Sadly, the only thing we learn from History is, strangely, that Mankind learns absolutely NOTHING from History...

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
post #70 of 70
Great story. It would be great if a follow-on article could include Apple's involvement in telecom and networking through the 1980s and 1990s.

I too lived through this period; in the 1980s as an Apple dealer and from 1987-1993 as the alliance manager from Northern Telecom (later Nortel, now defunct) to Apple. NT's involvement related to telephony and networking, resulting in several products, most of which were ahead of their times and therefore failures in the market. This was in the days when data communications involved terminal emulation, and file transfer involved a 30 minute phone call to make sure you both had set the proper start-bits, stop-bits and set the parity bit on or off. One step removed from sneakernet, tin cans and string.

One of those joint products was software that gave the Mac the functionality of Skype in 1991, Meridian TeleCenter, later re-named Visit. TeleCenter had a GUI/drag-and-drop UI with a call manager, call log, phone directory and interface to voicemail (e.g. forward a voice message to 8 people with your comments via drag and drop, which is something you could never imagine doing by using the keypad on your phone). Visit added screen-sharing, plus the equivalent of a Webcam (pre-Web of course, in 1991) for point-to-point video calls. Later, a multi-party videoconferencing option was added.

All of this was via circuit-switched networks, not IP. Within private corporate networks, it would use Northern Telecom's Meridian-series PBXs (which used two 64kbps bearer channels plus two 16kbps signaling channels, ISDN-like). In a public network setting (digital Centrex) it would use DMS central office switches and ISDN, which was still in beta, or switched-56. The Mac was connected to an optional serial port on the back of desktop telephone set via the Mac's serial port, to enable call control by signalling the phone system.

Anyway, a few years ago, the Taiwanese mobile phone-maker HTC attempted to use this intellectual property against Apple, asserting that the ability to dial from a directory or call-log was theirs - and Apple had to prove it was Apple's. Apple won but the final settlement terms were kept secret.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iPhone Patent Wars: Apple's $1.1 billion ARM injection ignites a mobile patent race