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.
True, but such decisions are not always made in the best end users interest.
We could argue that majority of Windows users would prefer syncing their iPhones with more or less anything but iTunes for Windows. Even if we need to keep iTunes for purchasing music and apps on-line, many would rather do daily syncing from WMP, small resident sync tool (like Palm was using) or even use simple drag & drop for transferring music, documents, images...
...not going to happen, because all those options wouldn't work for Apple. Likewise, if they decide going MS way would be better strategy for them (and would not create much damage - now that is a million dollar question), I can see them - any corporation, basically - doing it in a heartbeat.
Apple is just using HTC as a proxy to get Google. They won't sue Google directly because:
1)Google has the cash reserves to defend themselves for years in court. HTC is a handset maker, where the profit margins are razor thin. HTC does not charge customers a 100% premium like Apple does. 2) Google has their own impressive set of IP, a number of which is utilized by Apple and the iPhone. Removing all the Google applications, IP, and tools from the iPhone would restrict it even more. 3) Google would fight back hard if Apple filed suit against them and, as I said, they have the resources to defend themselves.
Corporate stiff-arm tactics at their finest (or worst).
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?
Thank you for that explanation, it was very informative.
So when it comes to other products having multitouch, did they all just reverse engineer what Apple did?
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?
Its going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out. I wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that Google/HTC is infringing on Apple patents, anymore than it would surprise me to see that Apple is infringing on Nokia patents as so on...This is why a lot of people think patent law is inherently flawed.
In the end I would think there must be more than one way to do multi-touch anyhow. So win or lose I don't think anyone is going to permanently win or lose. Neither Google or HTC is going to die from this and Apple isn't always going to have the only multi-touch phone either. This strikes me as standard business procedure really and an attempt to maintain market share. Not that I blame Apple for that. This is exactly what they should be doing.
That being said, I kind of hope the patent system is changed to allow for more competition without litigation. Admittedly however, I don't know enough about that system to understand what would work better.
It could be because Google isn't a hardware manufacturer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo
Apple is just using HTC as a proxy to get Google. They won't sue Google directly because:
1)Google has the cash reserves to defend themselves for years in court. HTC is a handset maker, where the profit margins are razor thin. HTC does not charge customers a 100% premium like Apple does. 2) Google has their own impressive set of IP, a number of which is utilized by Apple and the iPhone. Removing all the Google applications, IP, and tools from the iPhone would restrict it even more. 3) Google would fight back hard if Apple filed suit against them and, as I said, they have the resources to defend themselves.
Corporate stiff-arm tactics at their finest (or worst).
We can now add HTC to the list of those we hate, right after Adobe, who is lazy, and Google, who is trying to kill us. Oh. And Intuit. And Microsoft, of course.
For anyone to criticize Apple, Nokia or any company or individual for protecting their creations or inventions -- as evidenced by copyrights, trademarks of patents -- may be indicative of a person who is either ignorant of the law, or just plain grandstander.
And after a lot of simply opinions and no facts I stopped reading that crap here:
Quote:
(because Microsoft has bet all of its marbles on a plan that sacrifices today?s WiMo to resurrect it as WP7 in a make-or-break effort that is modeled to look as close to the iPhone as possible).
Is Microsoft or Google paying Eran? Because I don't know no one which can make so bad publicity for Apple that him.
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.
Both Nokia and Apple has said that they were in negotiations since 2.007
From the wording of Apple's claim, they truly believe they are the injured party. The wording of their claim - those are the words of someone who is truly aggrieved. Apple isn't scared, they're monumentally offended. This isn't some bogus attempt to stifle innovation via patent suits. Apple is, however, reaching very, very far with the suit.
It isn't that Apple is using the system to attack competitors out of fear or as a way to "cheat", but they're looking to make competitors pay very, very dearly for the injuries Apple believes they've caused. Some think, too dearly. This of course depends on the belief that Apple's motivations are genuine and they truly believe that something has been taken from them unjustly, motivations which I believe to be true. Whether something *has* been taken from Apple unjustly is for the courts to decide.
From the wording of Apple's claim, they truly believe they are the injured party. The wording of their claim - those are the words of someone who is truly aggrieved. Apple isn't scared, they're monumentally offended. This isn't some bogus attempt to stifle innovation via patent suits. Apple is, however, reaching very, very far with the suit.
It isn't that Apple is using the system to attack competitors out of fear or as a way to "cheat", but they're looking to make competitors pay very, very dearly for the injuries Apple believes they've caused. Some think, too dearly. This of course depends on the belief that Apple's motivations are genuine and they truly believe that something has been taken from them unjustly, motivations which I believe to be true. Whether something *has* been taken from Apple unjustly is for the courts to decide.
Is this interpretation from John Gruber or did you independently come up with it?
It's going to be a little bit of all of the above, including strategic business moves. To actually bring up the suit, one has to be offended, scared, slighted, betrayed, cheated, etc. It's just natural. But don't discount strategic direction. Jobs knows just like the next guy that this is a race to the bottom and that Google is leading the way by offering "free" as the price of entry for mobile OS development. Anybody in the mobile software business should know that they have to blunt Android as much as possible or they are going to be out of business.
I think everyone wants fiefdoms to spur on competition. Google/Android is spurring on mono-culture by creating something just good enough and giving it away to spur on usage of Google advertising. Maybe Apple wants to put a stop to that now.
Considering that, an alliance with Microsoft on Bing or Yahoo would be the way to go instead of a lawsuit, but who knows.
We can now add HTC to the list of those we hate, right after Adobe, who is lazy, and Google, who is trying to kill us. Oh. And Intuit. And Microsoft, of course.
Am I forgetting anybody?
LOL! They're all thinking it, you're just saying it ;P
We can now add HTC to the list of those we hate, right after Adobe, who is lazy, and Google, who is trying to kill us. Oh. And Intuit. And Microsoft, of course.
While I have no doubt that Microsoft has journalists and bloggers on its payroll, I highly doubt if Daniel is one of them.
My rhetorical question was ironic
As I also think that companies have paid "advertisers" I also highly doubt that MS pay Eran, as I totally convinced that Apple doesn't and won't pay someone like him
Comments
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.
True, but such decisions are not always made in the best end users interest.
We could argue that majority of Windows users would prefer syncing their iPhones with more or less anything but iTunes for Windows. Even if we need to keep iTunes for purchasing music and apps on-line, many would rather do daily syncing from WMP, small resident sync tool (like Palm was using) or even use simple drag & drop for transferring music, documents, images...
...not going to happen, because all those options wouldn't work for Apple. Likewise, if they decide going MS way would be better strategy for them (and would not create much damage - now that is a million dollar question), I can see them - any corporation, basically - doing it in a heartbeat.
1)Google has the cash reserves to defend themselves for years in court. HTC is a handset maker, where the profit margins are razor thin. HTC does not charge customers a 100% premium like Apple does. 2) Google has their own impressive set of IP, a number of which is utilized by Apple and the iPhone. Removing all the Google applications, IP, and tools from the iPhone would restrict it even more. 3) Google would fight back hard if Apple filed suit against them and, as I said, they have the resources to defend themselves.
Corporate stiff-arm tactics at their finest (or worst).
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?
Thank you for that explanation, it was very informative.
So when it comes to other products having multitouch, did they all just reverse engineer what Apple did?
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?
Brilliant post. Says all that needs to be said.
Brilliant post. Says all that needs to be said.
Its going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out. I wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that Google/HTC is infringing on Apple patents, anymore than it would surprise me to see that Apple is infringing on Nokia patents as so on...This is why a lot of people think patent law is inherently flawed.
In the end I would think there must be more than one way to do multi-touch anyhow. So win or lose I don't think anyone is going to permanently win or lose. Neither Google or HTC is going to die from this and Apple isn't always going to have the only multi-touch phone either. This strikes me as standard business procedure really and an attempt to maintain market share. Not that I blame Apple for that. This is exactly what they should be doing.
That being said, I kind of hope the patent system is changed to allow for more competition without litigation. Admittedly however, I don't know enough about that system to understand what would work better.
Apple is just using HTC as a proxy to get Google. They won't sue Google directly because:
1)Google has the cash reserves to defend themselves for years in court. HTC is a handset maker, where the profit margins are razor thin. HTC does not charge customers a 100% premium like Apple does. 2) Google has their own impressive set of IP, a number of which is utilized by Apple and the iPhone. Removing all the Google applications, IP, and tools from the iPhone would restrict it even more. 3) Google would fight back hard if Apple filed suit against them and, as I said, they have the resources to defend themselves.
Corporate stiff-arm tactics at their finest (or worst).
Search.
Why don't you google it?
Am I forgetting anybody?
Kind of like Apple's push to control all things media?
incorrect. they want to control all things within the ecosystems they create. i have no problem with that.
For anyone to criticize Apple, Nokia or any company or individual for protecting their creations or inventions -- as evidenced by copyrights, trademarks of patents -- may be indicative of a person who is either ignorant of the law, or just plain grandstander.
no-one like that around here!
Daniel Eran Dilger's take
And after a lot of simply opinions and no facts I stopped reading that crap here:
(because Microsoft has bet all of its marbles on a plan that sacrifices today?s WiMo to resurrect it as WP7 in a make-or-break effort that is modeled to look as close to the iPhone as possible).
Is Microsoft or Google paying Eran? Because I don't know no one which can make so bad publicity for Apple that him.
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.
Both Nokia and Apple has said that they were in negotiations since 2.007
It isn't that Apple is using the system to attack competitors out of fear or as a way to "cheat", but they're looking to make competitors pay very, very dearly for the injuries Apple believes they've caused. Some think, too dearly. This of course depends on the belief that Apple's motivations are genuine and they truly believe that something has been taken from them unjustly, motivations which I believe to be true. Whether something *has* been taken from Apple unjustly is for the courts to decide.
From the wording of Apple's claim, they truly believe they are the injured party. The wording of their claim - those are the words of someone who is truly aggrieved. Apple isn't scared, they're monumentally offended. This isn't some bogus attempt to stifle innovation via patent suits. Apple is, however, reaching very, very far with the suit.
It isn't that Apple is using the system to attack competitors out of fear or as a way to "cheat", but they're looking to make competitors pay very, very dearly for the injuries Apple believes they've caused. Some think, too dearly. This of course depends on the belief that Apple's motivations are genuine and they truly believe that something has been taken from them unjustly, motivations which I believe to be true. Whether something *has* been taken from Apple unjustly is for the courts to decide.
Is this interpretation from John Gruber or did you independently come up with it?
It's going to be a little bit of all of the above, including strategic business moves. To actually bring up the suit, one has to be offended, scared, slighted, betrayed, cheated, etc. It's just natural. But don't discount strategic direction. Jobs knows just like the next guy that this is a race to the bottom and that Google is leading the way by offering "free" as the price of entry for mobile OS development. Anybody in the mobile software business should know that they have to blunt Android as much as possible or they are going to be out of business.
I think everyone wants fiefdoms to spur on competition. Google/Android is spurring on mono-culture by creating something just good enough and giving it away to spur on usage of Google advertising. Maybe Apple wants to put a stop to that now.
Considering that, an alliance with Microsoft on Bing or Yahoo would be the way to go instead of a lawsuit, but who knows.
We can now add HTC to the list of those we hate, right after Adobe, who is lazy, and Google, who is trying to kill us. Oh. And Intuit. And Microsoft, of course.
Am I forgetting anybody?
LOL! They're all thinking it, you're just saying it ;P
We can now add HTC to the list of those we hate, right after Adobe, who is lazy, and Google, who is trying to kill us. Oh. And Intuit. And Microsoft, of course.
Am I forgetting anybody?
Nokia and Amazon
And after a lot of simply opinions and no facts I stopped reading that crap here:
To each his own, I thought he made some great points.
Is Microsoft or Google paying Eran? Because I don't know no one which can make so bad publicity for Apple that him.
While I have no doubt that Microsoft has journalists and bloggers on its payroll, I highly doubt if Daniel is one of them.
While I have no doubt that Microsoft has journalists and bloggers on its payroll, I highly doubt if Daniel is one of them.
My rhetorical question was ironic
As I also think that companies have paid "advertisers" I also highly doubt that MS pay Eran, as I totally convinced that Apple doesn't and won't pay someone like him