For some reason you seem stuck on "code". I said design. You can't copy code, only algorithms.
Well, actually, you can. Microsoft stole and copied Quicktime code back in the 90s and was caught - leading to the "investment" in Apple in 1997 upon Jobs' return.
And recently, Microsoft was caught stealing code again overseas somewhere - it was determined that the MS subsidiary's code was exactly the same as that used by a small company. I think Ballmer apologized. I'm sure someone on this forum can provide the link.
The same can be said about the desktop version and the poor market share doesn't meens that it wasn't a good a full featured browser.
Bad memory, Opera mobile user-agent string is like the one from the desktop browser
But my original point was that the iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space partly because of its UI - including the UI that made its browser truly usable.
So I have no disagreement that Opera Mobile was a full featured browser - but its UI made it not something that anyone went out of their way to buy and use. Which limited any "revolutionariness" it would have in the mobile marketplace.
You keep pointing to this and it's wrong. This is a paper on hand gestures, not finger gestures, not multi-touch and really has nothing to do with the iPhone, any multi-touch phone, or Apple at all.
For all intents and purposes, the people that "invented" multi-touch and gesture based computing were the FingerWorks people. To imply anything else is to misdirect or dissemble.
These guys now work at Apple, and their names are on some of the patents in question. Period.
I wonder if the timing has anything to with the iPad's imminent release with the same OS and patents I assume which is most likely about to also have numerous copycats. Phones are one thing but the 'Pad' may be the next major computing paradigm shift and Apple don't want a rerun of Windows this time most likely from Google.
Also if this does get nasty has Apple got its alternative to Google Maps ready yet?
Bing and Bing Maps.
Since Win Mo 7 seems to be quite a bit different from iPhone experience (or at least has much less conflicting points compared to Android), I'd say it is reasonably safe bet.
Edited for missing his point... sheesh, Learn To read.
Yep - I agree. But I doubt the cross licensing will happen. At least not until the iPad and iPhone 4.0 are well established. Just setting back Android/WiPho7 a year will be enough to cement apples leadership.
But is that the leadership we really want - based on suppression of other ideas and implementations..?
I also have feeling competition is catching up faster than Apple is progressing. One of Apple's problems, the way I see it, is that it's development is actually limited by their own rules and rigidly set borders of what is allowed and what is not - something competition (part of it, at least) isn't limited with.
A year ago, Apple was untouchable with iPhone. Same time this year, Android platform, while not as polished as iPhone, already has some advantages, and Windows 7 Mobile can turn out to be heavy weight contender as well.
And somehow, I don't see iPhone OS (or iPhone itself) geting that much different with version 4. I wouldn't expect 3rd party multitasking, full GPS navigation included, Flash... I can't see them making any huge changes in the GUI as well, nor breaking iTunes-only syncing limitation. I hope I'm wrong and Apple actually will surprise us with some fresh, unexpected and exciting/useful new features, but... I just don't see that happening.
Apple made two revolutionary steps in the mobile arena - the first being multi-touch smartphone with usable browser and iTunes ecosystem, and Apple control of features, sales/marketing/distribution, and warranty service (very much in US, less so in other countries where there are fewer Apple Stores), and the second being the App Store.
On the first, the competitors are catching up with multi-touch smartphone with browser. But none have the iTunes ecosystem. Nor the control (except for Palm and the Google Nexus One). Some competitors have arguably moved ahead in navigation, social networking integration, multi-tasking.
On the second, Android is getting apps into its store (though still fewer added per day relative to Apple) but the fragmentation problem hasn't been solved.
What would be revolutionary as a next step at either the consumer level or the developer platform level? Or will it just be evolution? No one seems to know what's in iPhone 4.0.
Quote:
I'm not saying Apple is really scared, but they are definitely more... aware of competition at present, and being able to slow them at least is not bad strategy - purely from business side of view, of course.
Just about any patent lawsuit against a competitor would have the side effect of slowing down the competitor, IF (and it's a BIG IF) they actually thought they might be infringing.
Nokia sued Apple. I don't think it's because Nokia is "threatened" or "scared" but because at a minimum, Nokia thinks there's a reasonable probability that Apple is infringing (especially since Apple isn't paying them any licensing fees, but there are other circumstances that we don't have to get into here.) If Apple doesn't think they're doing anything wrong (i.e,, we're not paying because Nokia is trying to charge us more than FRAND rates as they agreed with the standards bodies), Apple will just continue to do what they planned to do - no slowdown whatsoever.
wasn't a phone, but it wasn't an apple innovation either. That video was posted in 2006, and while it may not be what we're looking for in regards to this discussion, it's enough proof that devices inevitably would have ended up with multitouch. Apple's claiming it as their own stems only from being able to get to the technology first.
Heck, I read it last year! If Mr. Patel did a search on Newton patents, dollars to donuts, there will be many patents that PalmOS is encroaching upon. The only point he was making was that many of the big and foundational companies treat patents like nuclear weapons, and that businesses are generally at a detente in the courtroom because of it.
Yes, Apple is playing big here.
Quote:
Palm's got patents that could do serious damage to Apple too. I think it's entirely feasible that Google would just buy Palm to use the IP as canon fodder to do as much damage to Apple's IP portfolio as possible. Who cares if they destroy Palm's patents in the process? Google being a fan of open source won't really care who copy's any of Palm's ideas vis-a-vis mobile operating systems. But for them the damage done to Apple in such a move could well be worthwhile.
Look, patent wars or "underhanded business" dealings are an unsavory part of reality that destroys our hopes and dreams of just world. That includes copying of IP, design, whathaveyou. I would prefer Apple to create better and better products rather than do this just like everyone else.
But the idea that Palm could out-duel Apple in a patent war is juvenile, as are 90% of the commentary out there regarding patent validity and who is right or wrong. You don't think Apple doesn't have patents that'll counter Palm's patents? Really? You think Google would survive unscathed? You do as you said it, but it's highly doubtful. It's going to be a mess.
That would be one heck of a good move by Google. ( I doubt that they have the balls to do it ) Apple has most likely violated some of these silly types of patents that Palm owns. I also suspect that is why Apple did not sue Motorola. I'll bet they could file a few suits against Apple as well.
I am not saying the suits would ( or would not ) be valid, but they would probably be as valid as the claims made by Apple against HTC....
One more thing to note here. Currently there is absolutely no proof that HTC has violated anything. Just because you are sued, does not necessary mean that you are guilty.... Many people here are making the assumption that these are valid defend able patents. It may or may not be true
Since Win Mo 7 seems to be quite a bit different from iPhone experience (or at least has much less conflicting points compared to Android), I'd say it is reasonably safe bet.
The problem is - Bing is still a distant second in terms of usability and results (probably a much farther 2nd in terms of user adaptation). If the Bing all in one app is any indication of MS search services taking over the iPhone, the consumers will have much to lose.
wasn't a phone, but it wasn't an apple innovation either. That video was posted in 2006, and while it may not be what we're looking for in regards to this discussion, it's enough proof that devices inevitably would have ended up with multitouch. Apple's claiming it as their own stems only from being able to get to the technology first.
Ugh, I hate it when people use this as an example. Note that Apple's granted patents don't include anything shown in that video. Nothing. There is only one thing in that video that it shares in common with the iPhone: speed. The multitouch, shadow tracking technology wasn't it. People were amazed by the speed of UI. He probably had a nice x86 machine with a nice CPU. Apple did it with hardware 10x less powerful on a 3.5 inch screen using a totally different multi-touch technology and shipped it for millions of people to use.
Moreover, it cheapens the work that Apple did. Apple was doing it concurrently to when Jeff Han was doing it, was limited to mobile CPUs and GPUS, and designed and built an actual real live product. It took real-hard, innovative work to do it. They had to design upteen UIs (Jeff Han did zero). They had to master the integrated work to actually get the iPhone to display as fast as it did. That's basically as difficult as it gets in project engineering. UI objects move in the iPhone UI as if they are stuck to your finger. On mobile hardware! That's a tremendous integration of screen technology, algorithm/software design, software optimizations, CPU/GPU choices, battery optimizations. The virtual keyboard design, the whole thing with its speed, dynamic hit targeting, and word correction is still unmatched. The dynamic hit targeting for UI buttons is still unmatched. If Apple didn't get the keyboard right, I bet you the iPhone wouldn't have taken off and the state-of-the-art cell phone design would be the QWERTY candy bar or slider.
Han's work has its applications, mostly in presentation style environments. They are not similar to iPhone at all. If it was so innovative, why doesn't HTC, Palm etc use screens with light projection and shadow tracking for their multitouch technology? They should invest in miniaturizing the technology. Even something like the horizontal swipe. The T-Mobile G1 used a 9 point grid with a user defined swipe pattern about those points to unlock the screen. That was interesting. In the Nexus 1, the unlock screen is basically a simple horizontal swipe, but slightly curved. Um, basically like the iPhone. Did Google/HTC really have to do that? They could have, say, used a vertical swipe? 2 fingers? A button? Buttons? Hardware based buttons? Kept the G1 style unlock design?
[edit]Had the time to go back and look in more detail at Jeff Han's multitouch hardware. "Shadow tracking" is unfair as that implies a light source in a certain way. It's "frustrated total internal reflection." Light is fired between two sheets (edge lit). When fingers, hands get closer to the sheets, it distorts the internal light and it shines out of the sheets. A rear mounted camera captures this and software interprets this. A rear projector displays the image on the sheet. I only thought of it as shadow tracking because that is essentially what the software is doing, but for those multitouch systems it really was a light source casting a shadow onto a screen and a camera tracking the shadows. Concept is the same, Han is just using a different technique to create high contrast "finger touches" as it touches the screen.[/edit]
The problem is - Bing is still a distant second in terms of usability and results (probably a much farther 2nd in terms of user adaptation). If the Bing all in one app is any indication of MS search services taking over the iPhone, the consumers will have much to lose.
Actually, I've been pleasantly surprised with the Bing iPhone app. Burns battery like no tomorrow, but the maps are good. It found an SSA building for me while the iPhone Maps app pointed me to an empty field. It seems to me either Apple is using old Google map tiles, Google doesn't update them as often, or Bing simply has newer maps.
From my understanding it was more to do with John Sculley's signing a contract which licensed key parts of the Mac OS to Microsoft for Office development.
Indeed. John Sculley can be held accountable for that since he was CEO at the time of the signing, not sure if he actually signed it though. That Apple suit may have turned out different if Sculley did not sign that license contract and Apple would be a much different place today.
Actually, I've been pleasantly surprised with the Bing iPhone app. Burns battery like no tomorrow, but the maps are good. It found an SSA building for me while the iPhone Maps app pointed me to an empty field. It seems to me either Apple is using old Google map tiles, Google doesn't update them as often, or Bing simply has newer maps.
They probably have newer satellite captures. Google did recently update my area's maps, showing a finished building where a construction site used to be. I'm guessing satellite sweeps are a bit sporadic.
Nokia sued Apple. I don't think it's because Nokia is "threatened" or "scared" but because at a minimum, Nokia thinks there's a reasonable probability that Apple is infringing (especially since Apple isn't paying them any licensing fees, but there are other circumstances that we don't have to get into here.) If Apple doesn't think they're doing anything wrong (i.e,, we're not paying because Nokia is trying to charge us more than FRAND rates as they agreed with the standards bodies), Apple will just continue to do what they planned to do - no slowdown whatsoever.
But I do think Nokia is very worried, considering their market share decline. Couldn't they call out "patent infringement!" before? Did they really need 3 years to sort out what is Apple "infringing"? Or were they just not worried (enough) at the beginning of iPhone to call for, presumably, very expensive lawyer team?
I believe Nokia's suit is over the use of GSM technology. Apparently it's licensed out to other companies that pay for it's use, and they're claiming Apple used the technology without paying fees to Nokia.
I guess Nokia waited because they didn't think Apple would be a rising player in the phone industry until it was too late.
Comments
For some reason you seem stuck on "code". I said design. You can't copy code, only algorithms.
Well, actually, you can. Microsoft stole and copied Quicktime code back in the 90s and was caught - leading to the "investment" in Apple in 1997 upon Jobs' return.
And recently, Microsoft was caught stealing code again overseas somewhere - it was determined that the MS subsidiary's code was exactly the same as that used by a small company. I think Ballmer apologized. I'm sure someone on this forum can provide the link.
Obviously Apple's implementation was sufficiently different to prior art, that the patents were granted.
The validity of a patent isn't decided until its tested in court. This is one of the reasons why the current patent laws are so stupid.
The same can be said about the desktop version and the poor market share doesn't meens that it wasn't a good a full featured browser.
Bad memory, Opera mobile user-agent string is like the one from the desktop browser
But my original point was that the iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space partly because of its UI - including the UI that made its browser truly usable.
So I have no disagreement that Opera Mobile was a full featured browser - but its UI made it not something that anyone went out of their way to buy and use. Which limited any "revolutionariness" it would have in the mobile marketplace.
I don't know about tap to zoom, but most of the "gestures" that make up modern multi-touch technology were invented by R.K. McConnell in 1986:
http://www.merl.com/papers/TR94-03/
You keep pointing to this and it's wrong. This is a paper on hand gestures, not finger gestures, not multi-touch and really has nothing to do with the iPhone, any multi-touch phone, or Apple at all.
For all intents and purposes, the people that "invented" multi-touch and gesture based computing were the FingerWorks people. To imply anything else is to misdirect or dissemble.
These guys now work at Apple, and their names are on some of the patents in question. Period.
I wonder if the timing has anything to with the iPad's imminent release with the same OS and patents I assume which is most likely about to also have numerous copycats. Phones are one thing but the 'Pad' may be the next major computing paradigm shift and Apple don't want a rerun of Windows this time most likely from Google.
Also if this does get nasty has Apple got its alternative to Google Maps ready yet?
Bing and Bing Maps.
Since Win Mo 7 seems to be quite a bit different from iPhone experience (or at least has much less conflicting points compared to Android), I'd say it is reasonably safe bet.
Edited for missing his point... sheesh, Learn To read.
Yep - I agree. But I doubt the cross licensing will happen. At least not until the iPad and iPhone 4.0 are well established. Just setting back Android/WiPho7 a year will be enough to cement apples leadership.
But is that the leadership we really want - based on suppression of other ideas and implementations..?
You keep pointing to this and it's wrong. ... Period.
Good luck cat herding.
Serious question: Is there an example of an original Google creation that is successful in the marketplace?
Search.
Why don't you google it?
I also have feeling competition is catching up faster than Apple is progressing. One of Apple's problems, the way I see it, is that it's development is actually limited by their own rules and rigidly set borders of what is allowed and what is not - something competition (part of it, at least) isn't limited with.
A year ago, Apple was untouchable with iPhone. Same time this year, Android platform, while not as polished as iPhone, already has some advantages, and Windows 7 Mobile can turn out to be heavy weight contender as well.
And somehow, I don't see iPhone OS (or iPhone itself) geting that much different with version 4. I wouldn't expect 3rd party multitasking, full GPS navigation included, Flash... I can't see them making any huge changes in the GUI as well, nor breaking iTunes-only syncing limitation. I hope I'm wrong and Apple actually will surprise us with some fresh, unexpected and exciting/useful new features, but... I just don't see that happening.
Apple made two revolutionary steps in the mobile arena - the first being multi-touch smartphone with usable browser and iTunes ecosystem, and Apple control of features, sales/marketing/distribution, and warranty service (very much in US, less so in other countries where there are fewer Apple Stores), and the second being the App Store.
On the first, the competitors are catching up with multi-touch smartphone with browser. But none have the iTunes ecosystem. Nor the control (except for Palm and the Google Nexus One). Some competitors have arguably moved ahead in navigation, social networking integration, multi-tasking.
On the second, Android is getting apps into its store (though still fewer added per day relative to Apple) but the fragmentation problem hasn't been solved.
What would be revolutionary as a next step at either the consumer level or the developer platform level? Or will it just be evolution? No one seems to know what's in iPhone 4.0.
I'm not saying Apple is really scared, but they are definitely more... aware of competition at present, and being able to slow them at least is not bad strategy - purely from business side of view, of course.
Just about any patent lawsuit against a competitor would have the side effect of slowing down the competitor, IF (and it's a BIG IF) they actually thought they might be infringing.
Nokia sued Apple. I don't think it's because Nokia is "threatened" or "scared" but because at a minimum, Nokia thinks there's a reasonable probability that Apple is infringing (especially since Apple isn't paying them any licensing fees, but there are other circumstances that we don't have to get into here.) If Apple doesn't think they're doing anything wrong (i.e,, we're not paying because Nokia is trying to charge us more than FRAND rates as they agreed with the standards bodies), Apple will just continue to do what they planned to do - no slowdown whatsoever.
And in which phone were they implemented before 2007?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/j...uchscreen.html
wasn't a phone, but it wasn't an apple innovation either. That video was posted in 2006, and while it may not be what we're looking for in regards to this discussion, it's enough proof that devices inevitably would have ended up with multitouch. Apple's claiming it as their own stems only from being able to get to the technology first.
At least, that's my deluded take on things
Search.
Why don't you google it?
lmao
Did you read the linked article?
Heck, I read it last year! If Mr. Patel did a search on Newton patents, dollars to donuts, there will be many patents that PalmOS is encroaching upon. The only point he was making was that many of the big and foundational companies treat patents like nuclear weapons, and that businesses are generally at a detente in the courtroom because of it.
Yes, Apple is playing big here.
Palm's got patents that could do serious damage to Apple too. I think it's entirely feasible that Google would just buy Palm to use the IP as canon fodder to do as much damage to Apple's IP portfolio as possible. Who cares if they destroy Palm's patents in the process? Google being a fan of open source won't really care who copy's any of Palm's ideas vis-a-vis mobile operating systems. But for them the damage done to Apple in such a move could well be worthwhile.
Look, patent wars or "underhanded business" dealings are an unsavory part of reality that destroys our hopes and dreams of just world. That includes copying of IP, design, whathaveyou. I would prefer Apple to create better and better products rather than do this just like everyone else.
But the idea that Palm could out-duel Apple in a patent war is juvenile, as are 90% of the commentary out there regarding patent validity and who is right or wrong. You don't think Apple doesn't have patents that'll counter Palm's patents? Really? You think Google would survive unscathed? You do as you said it, but it's highly doubtful. It's going to be a mess.
I am predicting that Google will buy Palm and start a patent war with Apple:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/a...epth-analysis/
That would be one heck of a good move by Google. ( I doubt that they have the balls to do it ) Apple has most likely violated some of these silly types of patents that Palm owns. I also suspect that is why Apple did not sue Motorola. I'll bet they could file a few suits against Apple as well.
I am not saying the suits would ( or would not ) be valid, but they would probably be as valid as the claims made by Apple against HTC....
One more thing to note here. Currently there is absolutely no proof that HTC has violated anything. Just because you are sued, does not necessary mean that you are guilty.... Many people here are making the assumption that these are valid defend able patents. It may or may not be true
Search.
As has been amply pointed out, no.
Bing and Bing Maps.
Since Win Mo 7 seems to be quite a bit different from iPhone experience (or at least has much less conflicting points compared to Android), I'd say it is reasonably safe bet.
The problem is - Bing is still a distant second in terms of usability and results (probably a much farther 2nd in terms of user adaptation). If the Bing all in one app is any indication of MS search services taking over the iPhone, the consumers will have much to lose.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/j...uchscreen.html
wasn't a phone, but it wasn't an apple innovation either. That video was posted in 2006, and while it may not be what we're looking for in regards to this discussion, it's enough proof that devices inevitably would have ended up with multitouch. Apple's claiming it as their own stems only from being able to get to the technology first.
Ugh, I hate it when people use this as an example. Note that Apple's granted patents don't include anything shown in that video. Nothing. There is only one thing in that video that it shares in common with the iPhone: speed. The multitouch, shadow tracking technology wasn't it. People were amazed by the speed of UI. He probably had a nice x86 machine with a nice CPU. Apple did it with hardware 10x less powerful on a 3.5 inch screen using a totally different multi-touch technology and shipped it for millions of people to use.
Moreover, it cheapens the work that Apple did. Apple was doing it concurrently to when Jeff Han was doing it, was limited to mobile CPUs and GPUS, and designed and built an actual real live product. It took real-hard, innovative work to do it. They had to design upteen UIs (Jeff Han did zero). They had to master the integrated work to actually get the iPhone to display as fast as it did. That's basically as difficult as it gets in project engineering. UI objects move in the iPhone UI as if they are stuck to your finger. On mobile hardware! That's a tremendous integration of screen technology, algorithm/software design, software optimizations, CPU/GPU choices, battery optimizations. The virtual keyboard design, the whole thing with its speed, dynamic hit targeting, and word correction is still unmatched. The dynamic hit targeting for UI buttons is still unmatched. If Apple didn't get the keyboard right, I bet you the iPhone wouldn't have taken off and the state-of-the-art cell phone design would be the QWERTY candy bar or slider.
Han's work has its applications, mostly in presentation style environments. They are not similar to iPhone at all. If it was so innovative, why doesn't HTC, Palm etc use screens with light projection and shadow tracking for their multitouch technology? They should invest in miniaturizing the technology. Even something like the horizontal swipe. The T-Mobile G1 used a 9 point grid with a user defined swipe pattern about those points to unlock the screen. That was interesting. In the Nexus 1, the unlock screen is basically a simple horizontal swipe, but slightly curved. Um, basically like the iPhone. Did Google/HTC really have to do that? They could have, say, used a vertical swipe? 2 fingers? A button? Buttons? Hardware based buttons? Kept the G1 style unlock design?
[edit]Had the time to go back and look in more detail at Jeff Han's multitouch hardware. "Shadow tracking" is unfair as that implies a light source in a certain way. It's "frustrated total internal reflection." Light is fired between two sheets (edge lit). When fingers, hands get closer to the sheets, it distorts the internal light and it shines out of the sheets. A rear mounted camera captures this and software interprets this. A rear projector displays the image on the sheet. I only thought of it as shadow tracking because that is essentially what the software is doing, but for those multitouch systems it really was a light source casting a shadow onto a screen and a camera tracking the shadows. Concept is the same, Han is just using a different technique to create high contrast "finger touches" as it touches the screen.[/edit]
The problem is - Bing is still a distant second in terms of usability and results (probably a much farther 2nd in terms of user adaptation). If the Bing all in one app is any indication of MS search services taking over the iPhone, the consumers will have much to lose.
Actually, I've been pleasantly surprised with the Bing iPhone app. Burns battery like no tomorrow, but the maps are good. It found an SSA building for me while the iPhone Maps app pointed me to an empty field. It seems to me either Apple is using old Google map tiles, Google doesn't update them as often, or Bing simply has newer maps.
From my understanding it was more to do with John Sculley's signing a contract which licensed key parts of the Mac OS to Microsoft for Office development.
Indeed. John Sculley can be held accountable for that since he was CEO at the time of the signing, not sure if he actually signed it though. That Apple suit may have turned out different if Sculley did not sign that license contract and Apple would be a much different place today.
Actually, I've been pleasantly surprised with the Bing iPhone app. Burns battery like no tomorrow, but the maps are good. It found an SSA building for me while the iPhone Maps app pointed me to an empty field. It seems to me either Apple is using old Google map tiles, Google doesn't update them as often, or Bing simply has newer maps.
They probably have newer satellite captures. Google did recently update my area's maps, showing a finished building where a construction site used to be. I'm guessing satellite sweeps are a bit sporadic.
Nokia sued Apple. I don't think it's because Nokia is "threatened" or "scared" but because at a minimum, Nokia thinks there's a reasonable probability that Apple is infringing (especially since Apple isn't paying them any licensing fees, but there are other circumstances that we don't have to get into here.) If Apple doesn't think they're doing anything wrong (i.e,, we're not paying because Nokia is trying to charge us more than FRAND rates as they agreed with the standards bodies), Apple will just continue to do what they planned to do - no slowdown whatsoever.
But I do think Nokia is very worried, considering their market share decline. Couldn't they call out "patent infringement!" before? Did they really need 3 years to sort out what is Apple "infringing"? Or were they just not worried (enough) at the beginning of iPhone to call for, presumably, very expensive lawyer team?
I guess Nokia waited because they didn't think Apple would be a rising player in the phone industry until it was too late.