With regards to multi-touch, why hasn't Apple gone after Palm or Microsoft? Both use multitouch currently.
And Palm seems to be in a weeks position than HTC which would make them an easy "kill". HTC has the backing of Google, which means that Apple might be barking up the wrong tree.
No guarantee there going to win. Going by the patent pages they haven't been awarded just applied for. There's also no guarantee there going to get them either, a quick Google on multi touch indicates that the whole multi figure pinching was invented by Pierre Wellner in 1991. Actually using multi fingers on a touch surface is even older with a device using it in 1982. Given the prior art Apple may have absolutely no claim on multi touch.
So, Apple believes that there is only one implementation of of underclocking. The chance of an exact duplication of Apple's implementation assuming there are multiple iterations of such feature are infinitesimally small.
Or, Apple believes there is only one way to do it and is suing because of that violation.
Either way, Apple looks like a fool for including this as a patent violation.
Your post is incredibly confusing.
Apple believes there are many ways to underclock. (This doesn't seem to be one of your choices which makes your post, not Apple, look kinda foolish.) Apple has claimed at least one of those ways in its patent application. If HTC's way is within the bounds of what Apple claimed (and was approved by the USPTO) in the publically-available patent application, HTC should be found guilty. The odds of this are far from infinitesimally small.
If HTC has innovated and done something different, then it has nothing to fear and Apple should lose. Obviously, in investigating HTC's phones, Apple's engineers and lawyers believe that HTC has not done any such innovation on underclocking.
Wasn't the microsoft Surface around before the iPhone? And that uses Multi-touch.
If you knew anything about Surface, you'll see that it's process for implementing multi-touch is completely different. It's so different, it requires a honking-big ass table to make it work.
Quote:
More than that though Apple should be incredibly careful about angering Google further. Google said they WILL backup HTC in this, and how would it make Apple look if Google maps died on the iPhone? Or GMail stopped working?
Let's see, Google pays Apple for the privilege of being in the search box in Safari. Can Apple forgo that revenue? Let's see, $40B in the bank, and MS just chomping at the bit to pay Apple to carry Bing. Yeah, I would think so.
Now Google maps: If Apple replaced Google's maps with NAVTEQ maps (NAVTEQ, owned by Nokia, also supplies maps to Bing and Mapquest), will iPhone users miss a beat? I don't think so.
And Gmail: Apple is certainly not paying Google to have Gmail on the iPhone, so there's no reason to cut that off. But if Apple made other mail systems, like Hotmail or Yahoo Mail, more prominent and easier to hook up, would iPhone users miss a beat? I don't think so.
Quote:
Steve should just get over his petty squables and start improving the iPhone, as it's 3 years old now and has barely changed since launch. (the app store being the only major change) The competition is ahead now, especially on the hardware side but (arguably) software too.
Is the competition ahead on touch-screen sensitivity/usability? No.
Responsiveness? No.
Battery life? Same ballpark.
Flash storage capacity? Same ballpark.
Flash capacity for Apps? No.
Size and weight? Same ballpark.
Web browser? No.
Local content sync? No.
App variety, quality and global reach? No.
Quality of App Store integration on phone? No.
Quality of SDK/App Store backend? No.
Content (i.e., iTunes) store integration on phone? No.
Quantity and quality of accessories? No.
Cost to consumer? Same ballpark.
Profit? No.
Yeah, the competition is ahead now. But sure, Apple can still improve the iPhone by a lot, and I expect nothing less in the 4th Gen and iPhone 4.0.
So, Apple believes that there is only one implementation of of underclocking. The chance of an exact duplication of Apple's implementation assuming there are multiple iterations of such feature are infinitesimally small.
Or, Apple believes there is only one way to do it and is suing because of that violation.
Either way, Apple looks like a fool for including this as a patent violation.
Or Apple knows the exact method that a particular CPU is under-clocked because they paid the manufacturer to make it so and partnered with the manufacturer supplying engineering talent when designing the CPU, and as part of the engineering contract was granted patent rights to that particular IP. Or at least to the system software needed to access the hardware functions as specifically fabbed into the silicon.
I don't know if that is the case, but it is quite possible. So seeing as I was able to offer up a quick and plausible reason Apple might know what it is doing, maybe it is you who is acting the fool pronouncing absolutes in a complete vacuum.
Psst. News flash. There's such a thing as the address bar. You know, the one where you type in www.google.com?
No way in hell Apple would dare block that. If they ever did, I foresee 40M+ users screaming at Apple and maybe a class-action lawsuit or two.
Not to mention the concept of a bookmark.
Hardly. The address bar default search engine is a paid for positioning. And not having a particular company isn't preventing them from being used. just type the address manually.
While I agree a few idiots might sue over that, it is a lawsuit dead before it is filed.
No guarantee there going to win. Going by the patent pages they haven't been awarded just applied for. There's also no guarantee there going to get them either, a quick Google on multi touch indicates that the whole multi figure pinching was invented by Pierre Wellner in 1991. Actually using multi fingers on a touch surface is even older with a device using it in 1982. Given the prior art Apple may have absolutely no claim on multi touch.
Why the F&^$ are you STILL talking about multi-touch?!?!?!?!
Multi-touch is NOT part of the patent suit!
The closest thing is the slide to unlock functionality. And in a world where Amazon can own One-click, Apple most assuredly can own slide to unlock. Overturning one means overturning the whole precedent tree, and that's highly unlikely. Patent reform needs to originate from Congress not the Judicial branch.
Hardly. The address bar default search engine is a paid for positioning. And not having a particular company isn't preventing them from being used. just type the address manually.
While I agree a few idiots might sue over that, it is a lawsuit dead before it is filed.
I think we're on the same page, but somehow missed each other.
My post was a reply back saying exactly what you said. You can just type "www.google.com" into the address bar. So just because they aren't the default search bar engine doesn't mean that they'll lose 40M+ users, as vinea implied.
I was talking about if Apple coded Mobile Safari to reject "www.google.com" or any version of that into the address bar. That would definitely be a violation of some sort.
It's a browser it can't be done at a browser level, ISP maybe but not browser.
If on the other hand Google started blocking services then they would be looking at antitrust and anti competition issues to go on top of the one's they are already facing over the acquisition of AdMob.
Besides 'bums on seats' is how Google earns money, it's closer to 80 million when you add in iPod Touch users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
I think we're on the same page, but somehow missed each other.
My post was a reply back saying exactly what you said. You can just type "www.google.com" into the address bar. So just because they aren't the default search bar engine doesn't mean that they'll lose 40M+ users, as vinea implied.
I was talking about if Apple coded Mobile Safari to reject "www.google.com" or any version of that into the address bar. That would definitely be a violation of some sort.
Aaah, memories...
...the first smartphone HTC copied (with a little help from a Redmond software company).
It's a browser it can't be done at a browser level, ISP maybe but not browser.
Are You serious? Why do people post when they don't understand the words they are using?
Of course Apple could do it in the browser (block google in the address bar). Would they? Of course not. But it would be fairly trivial for them to add the code to check for google URLs and prevent browsing to them. It would be ineffective, as there would be ways to get where you want to go anyway, but the same is true if an ISP tried it.
AI-Please, please, please bring in a facepalm smiley...some of these nonsense posts demand it.
I agree a facepalm smiley is required for whoever brought up the stupid idea of coding a browser to not go to Google, as a paranoid delusional extension of the myth of Apple "controlling" the user experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Are You serious? Why do people post when they don't understand the words they are using?
Of course Apple could do it in the browser (block google in the address bar). Would they? Of course not. But it would be fairly trivial for them to add the code to check for google URLs and prevent browsing to them. It would be ineffective, as there would be ways to get where you want to go anyway, but the same is true if an ISP tried it.
AI-Please, please, please bring in a handpalm smiley...some of these nonsense posts demand it.
I agree a facepalm smiley is required for whoever brought up the stupid idea of coding a browser to not go to Google, as a paranoid delusional extension of the myth of Apple "controlling" the user experience.
Ever hear of a hosts file? Or I suppose, if they were feeling really adventurous, they could block the range of IPs and URLs.
The idea was brought up as a counter to some silly idea that changing the toolbar search away from google would cost them every user of Mobile Safari. It was mentioned as the only possible way, though itself ineffective, to take away all access. I guess you missed that.
As for the "myth of Apple controlling the user experience"...shit, wasn't just the other day you were extolling the virtues of Apple tightly controlling the user experience?
I guess it really would be easier to just write statements, regardless of them being factual or contradicting prior assertions or having a comprehension of their meaning. That must be fun.
Psst. News flash. There's such a thing as the address bar. You know, the one where you type in www.google.com?
No way in hell Apple would dare block that. If they ever did, I foresee 40M+ users screaming at Apple and maybe a class-action lawsuit or two.
Not to mention the concept of a bookmark.
As the default search engine. Google pays Apple for that and they don't do so to be nice but because it's worth a lot of money to them to be the default search engine in Safari...both on Macs and on the iPhone. It also opens the door for another search provider *cough*bing*cough* to claim the mobile space with some kind of tailored search based on location.
Not something that Google doesn't do already but if it say, tied into the Yelp database for restaurants, another db for cheapest gas, etc, using the default engine within the iPhone might be more natural for all searches rather than manually going to google.com via bookmark.
If you knew anything about Surface, you'll see that it's process for implementing multi-touch is completely different. It's so different, it requires a honking-big ass table to make it work.
Let's see, Google pays Apple for the privilege of being in the search box in Safari. Can Apple forgo that revenue? Let's see, $40B in the bank, and MS just chomping at the bit to pay Apple to carry Bing. Yeah, I would think so.
Now Google maps: If Apple replaced Google's maps with NAVTEQ maps (NAVTEQ, owned by Nokia, also supplies maps to Bing and Mapquest), will iPhone users miss a beat? I don't think so.
And Gmail: Apple is certainly not paying Google to have Gmail on the iPhone, so there's no reason to cut that off. But if Apple made other mail systems, like Hotmail or Yahoo Mail, more prominent and easier to hook up, would iPhone users miss a beat? I don't think so.
Is the competition ahead on touch-screen sensitivity/usability? No.
Responsiveness? No.
Battery life? Same ballpark.
Flash storage capacity? Same ballpark.
Flash capacity for Apps? No.
Size and weight? Same ballpark.
Web browser? No.
Local content sync? No.
App variety, quality and global reach? No.
Quality of App Store integration on phone? No.
Quality of SDK/App Store backend? No.
Content (i.e., iTunes) store integration on phone? No.
Quantity and quality of accessories? No.
Cost to consumer? Same ballpark.
Profit? No.
Yeah, the competition is ahead now. But sure, Apple can still improve the iPhone by a lot, and I expect nothing less in the 4th Gen and iPhone 4.0.
Regardless of how it was done, the MS Surface DID do multi-touch, so I don't get your point. The point I was making was that the concept of multi-touch was not Apple's so to sue HTC over it seems silly and pointless.
You are being incredibly naive if you think iPhone users would not miss Google services. How many people would be, to put it bluntly, pissed off if GMail stopped working on the iPhone? Why would Google do that? To give Apple a bloody nose.
Google Search is the world number one was a vast amount. Again, people *would* miss it and would want to know what it was gone. I believe the Bing story was just a threat, Jobs warning Google not anger him further. Bluffs are sometimes called though, as can be seen with Google's imminent pull out from China.
Nicely cherry picked pro-iPhone bullet points there too. Well done, you get 5 bonus Apple stars. You can cherry pick for the Nexus One too of course.
OLED screen? - Nexus
High-res screen? - Nexus
Open app store with no arbitrary restrictions/bans? - Nexus
Ability to download anything over 3G? - Nexus
1ghz CPU? - Nexus
Ability to install third party web browsers? - Nexus
Can mount as USB mass storage? - Nexus
Watermark free MP3 downloads on phone? - Nexus
Google Voice? - Nexus
Full Gmail support with search and push? - Nexus
Google Maps with turn by turn and buzz integration? - Nexus
Flash support coming later this year? - Nexus
5MP camera with flash? - Nexus
720p video playback? - Nexus
Voice recognition throughout the OS and core apps? - Nexus
Noise cancelling microphone? - Nexus
Oh, and MULTI-TASKING? - Nexus
It's an easy game to play and rather pointless. Pros and cons on both sides, but only a really crazy hardcore fanboy could claim the iPhone is a superior piece of hardware to the Nexus One. Software is more subjective.
Regardless of how it was done, the MS Surface DID do multi-touch, so I don't get your point. The point I was making was that the concept of multi-touch was not Apple's so to sue HTC over it seems silly and pointless.
You can't patent concepts or ideas. Go read a few patents and tell me if it's just an idea that was patented.
Quote:
You are being incredibly naive if you think iPhone users would not miss Google services. How many people would be, to put it bluntly, pissed off if GMail stopped working on the iPhone? Why would Google do that? To give Apple a bloody nose.
Did you read what I wrote? Did I say that Apple would cut off GMail? No way would they do that. I said they would promote the others; that's not the same. Would Google cut off GMail? No way would they do that just to give Apple a bloody nose. That's just annoying your own customers.
I really don't know what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Apple would cut Google services? (I addressed the ones that I think Apple wouldn't hesitate to switch.) Or are you saying that Google would remove their services from Apple devices? If so, I'll address that later.
Quote:
Google Search is the world number one was a vast amount. Again, people *would* miss it and would want to know what it was gone. I believe the Bing story was just a threat, Jobs warning Google not anger him further. Bluffs are sometimes called though, as can be seen with Google's imminent pull out from China.
No, people won't miss it. 1) It's been shown over and over again that people just use whatever the default is. 2) And if it really mattered, the Google app provides the same search, so those who really want Google would start from there.
Quote:
Nicely cherry picked pro-iPhone bullet points there too. Well done, you get 5 bonus Apple stars. You can cherry pick for the Nexus One too of course.
OLED screen? - Nexus
High-res screen? - Nexus
Open app store with no arbitrary restrictions/bans? - Nexus
Ability to download anything over 3G? - Nexus
1ghz CPU? - Nexus
Ability to install third party web browsers? - Nexus
Can mount as USB mass storage? - Nexus
Watermark free MP3 downloads on phone? - Nexus
Google Voice? - Nexus
Full Gmail support with search and push? - Nexus
Google Maps with turn by turn and buzz integration? - Nexus
Flash support coming later this year? - Nexus
5MP camera with flash? - Nexus
720p video playback? - Nexus
Voice recognition throughout the OS and core apps? - Nexus
Noise cancelling microphone? - Nexus
Oh, and MULTI-TASKING? - Nexus
It's an easy game to play and rather pointless. Pros and cons on both sides, but only a really crazy hardcore fanboy could claim the iPhone is a superior piece of hardware to the Nexus One. Software is more subjective.
I wasn't playing a game and they weren't cherry-picked. My list included only those things that matter most to users (outside of the cellular network). Sure, users would like more, but is it critical? Nexus has sold 135K in almost three months. That reveals how important some of that Nexus stuff, like OLED high-res, 5MP, third party web browser, and open app store, really are. The Zune HD has a bunch of those items on your list, and it's still not made a dent in that other media player market. Even the 2007 Nokia N95 had some of those features (including Flash) and the N-series phones are declining in sales (in a rapidly growing market).
By the way, it's pretty desperate to point to something coming later this year, especially since it's a game of roulette when it comes to whether an Android phone will actually be upgradeable.
And when people feel the need to trot out the six-letter word: FANBOY, I can be sure that they've lost the argument.
Or Apple knows the exact method that a particular CPU is under-clocked because they paid the manufacturer to make it so and partnered with the manufacturer supplying engineering talent when designing the CPU, and as part of the engineering contract was granted patent rights to that particular IP. Or at least to the system software needed to access the hardware functions as specifically fabbed into the silicon.
I don't know if that is the case, but it is quite possible. So seeing as I was able to offer up a quick and plausible reason Apple might know what it is doing, maybe it is you who is acting the fool pronouncing absolutes in a complete vacuum.
Possibly, though I doubt that the chip manufacturer would break a contract with Apple.
Regardless of how it was done, the MS Surface DID do multi-touch, so I don't get your point. The point I was making was that the concept of multi-touch was not Apple's so to sue HTC over it seems silly and pointless.
Well if Apple was suing over multi-touch you would have a point. But they aren't!
Possibly, though I doubt that the chip manufacturer would break a contract with Apple.
Where would the chip manufacturer have to break a contract? They just sell the hardware and some of that hardware can be enabled and/or controlled via the OS and/or boot process.
This isn't out of the ordinary for partnered hardware. The consulting company gets what they want and share the long term costs with other buyers who won't have access to the locked down chunks without additional licenses.
I agree a facepalm smiley is required for whoever brought up the stupid idea of coding a browser to not go to Google, as a paranoid delusional extension of the myth of Apple "controlling" the user experience.
Ok. First off, I said "could", not "would". And also note that I said that Apple wouldn't do that for the same reasons you are. And I said nothing of the sort about Apple controlling the user experience. I was offering up hypothetical situation that Apple could do if Google decided to stop paying them for being the default search engine.
Why are you looking for a fight where none exists?
But since you brought it up, it is no "myth" that Apple controls the user experience. They control the OS, they control the hardware. If Apple doesn't offer a feature on the current set of models, you don't get that feature period. Until Apple decides to add it in some time down the road. Apps? Only available from the App Store. While this gives a very uniform experience across the board, it's clear, positive proof that Apple does control the user experience. Uniform means tight control. And Apple isn't trying to hide this fact at all. Who's delusional now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
As the default search engine. Google pays Apple for that and they don't do so to be nice but because it's worth a lot of money to them to be the default search engine in Safari...both on Macs and on the iPhone. It also opens the door for another search provider *cough*bing*cough* to claim the mobile space with some kind of tailored search based on location.
Not something that Google doesn't do already but if it say, tied into the Yelp database for restaurants, another db for cheapest gas, etc, using the default engine within the iPhone might be more natural for all searches rather than manually going to google.com via bookmark.
Even with IE being the dominant browser in the world, Bing is holds nothing next to the results Google provides. Safari only holds a 5.27% hold on the browser world, so losing Google as the default search bar there is barely a minor inconvenience for Google. At last count, I believe there's more people using Chrome to access the web than Safari.
The one thing you fail to consider is the habit of the user. We have been going to Google so much that our fingers lead us there by default. When I ask my friends to search something up, the vast majority of the time they'll go to a Google service over Bing or Yahoo!. We all know that Google will come through the vast majority of the time for our searches within the first results page. That's why I believe that even with other services like Yelp or Bing available, users will still reach out to Google.
With regards to multi-touch, why hasn't Apple gone after Palm or Microsoft? Both use multitouch currently.
And Palm seems to be in a weeks position than HTC which would make them an easy "kill". HTC has the backing of Google, which means that Apple might be barking up the wrong tree.
This is a publicity on the part of Apple to discredit others in the EYES of the average Joe Snooze whose reading these headlines with everything else. Our product is Superior to yours,
H.T.C.=Discredit.
This reminds me of some infringement cases before such as the LG Prada phone. It became another reality, just like many mobile inventions, long before the Iphone. So L.G. Sued.
Nothing will happen to HTC about the multi-touch. LG lost that battle almost two years ago, because the technology was not created by EITHER of them.
IBM created the first touch screen in the late 1960's , and a Educational Company called Control Data in 72' Made a PLATO 4 Computer terminal for education that had a touch interface.
University of Toronto created Multi-Touch at Bell Labs, then was not released to the public till 85' and it was a multi-touch tablet.
Later on in the early early 90's there was a device before Palm pilots and Handsprint called "Digital Desk" that did the same multi-finger and pinching and zoom motions.
What I mentioned above is why LG lost the lawsuit against Apple for the Prada about Apple was saying that was a technology they created. Well it wasn't. It was neither of them.
So should all web browsing touch screen phones have it? Yes they should. And if anything they should be hiring or paying these old research developers or paying these companies if they are in still in business they're royalties.
Comments
With regards to multi-touch, why hasn't Apple gone after Palm or Microsoft? Both use multitouch currently.
And Palm seems to be in a weeks position than HTC which would make them an easy "kill". HTC has the backing of Google, which means that Apple might be barking up the wrong tree.
No guarantee there going to win. Going by the patent pages they haven't been awarded just applied for. There's also no guarantee there going to get them either, a quick Google on multi touch indicates that the whole multi figure pinching was invented by Pierre Wellner in 1991. Actually using multi fingers on a touch surface is even older with a device using it in 1982. Given the prior art Apple may have absolutely no claim on multi touch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_touch
So, Apple believes that there is only one implementation of of underclocking. The chance of an exact duplication of Apple's implementation assuming there are multiple iterations of such feature are infinitesimally small.
Or, Apple believes there is only one way to do it and is suing because of that violation.
Either way, Apple looks like a fool for including this as a patent violation.
Your post is incredibly confusing.
Apple believes there are many ways to underclock. (This doesn't seem to be one of your choices which makes your post, not Apple, look kinda foolish.) Apple has claimed at least one of those ways in its patent application. If HTC's way is within the bounds of what Apple claimed (and was approved by the USPTO) in the publically-available patent application, HTC should be found guilty. The odds of this are far from infinitesimally small.
If HTC has innovated and done something different, then it has nothing to fear and Apple should lose. Obviously, in investigating HTC's phones, Apple's engineers and lawyers believe that HTC has not done any such innovation on underclocking.
Wasn't the microsoft Surface around before the iPhone? And that uses Multi-touch.
If you knew anything about Surface, you'll see that it's process for implementing multi-touch is completely different. It's so different, it requires a honking-big ass table to make it work.
More than that though Apple should be incredibly careful about angering Google further. Google said they WILL backup HTC in this, and how would it make Apple look if Google maps died on the iPhone? Or GMail stopped working?
Let's see, Google pays Apple for the privilege of being in the search box in Safari. Can Apple forgo that revenue? Let's see, $40B in the bank, and MS just chomping at the bit to pay Apple to carry Bing. Yeah, I would think so.
Now Google maps: If Apple replaced Google's maps with NAVTEQ maps (NAVTEQ, owned by Nokia, also supplies maps to Bing and Mapquest), will iPhone users miss a beat? I don't think so.
And Gmail: Apple is certainly not paying Google to have Gmail on the iPhone, so there's no reason to cut that off. But if Apple made other mail systems, like Hotmail or Yahoo Mail, more prominent and easier to hook up, would iPhone users miss a beat? I don't think so.
Steve should just get over his petty squables and start improving the iPhone, as it's 3 years old now and has barely changed since launch. (the app store being the only major change) The competition is ahead now, especially on the hardware side but (arguably) software too.
Is the competition ahead on touch-screen sensitivity/usability? No.
Responsiveness? No.
Battery life? Same ballpark.
Flash storage capacity? Same ballpark.
Flash capacity for Apps? No.
Size and weight? Same ballpark.
Web browser? No.
Local content sync? No.
App variety, quality and global reach? No.
Quality of App Store integration on phone? No.
Quality of SDK/App Store backend? No.
Content (i.e., iTunes) store integration on phone? No.
Quantity and quality of accessories? No.
Cost to consumer? Same ballpark.
Profit? No.
Yeah, the competition is ahead now.
So, Apple believes that there is only one implementation of of underclocking. The chance of an exact duplication of Apple's implementation assuming there are multiple iterations of such feature are infinitesimally small.
Or, Apple believes there is only one way to do it and is suing because of that violation.
Either way, Apple looks like a fool for including this as a patent violation.
Or Apple knows the exact method that a particular CPU is under-clocked because they paid the manufacturer to make it so and partnered with the manufacturer supplying engineering talent when designing the CPU, and as part of the engineering contract was granted patent rights to that particular IP. Or at least to the system software needed to access the hardware functions as specifically fabbed into the silicon.
I don't know if that is the case, but it is quite possible. So seeing as I was able to offer up a quick and plausible reason Apple might know what it is doing, maybe it is you who is acting the fool pronouncing absolutes in a complete vacuum.
Psst. News flash. There's such a thing as the address bar. You know, the one where you type in www.google.com?
No way in hell Apple would dare block that. If they ever did, I foresee 40M+ users screaming at Apple and maybe a class-action lawsuit or two.
Not to mention the concept of a bookmark.
Hardly. The address bar default search engine is a paid for positioning. And not having a particular company isn't preventing them from being used. just type the address manually.
While I agree a few idiots might sue over that, it is a lawsuit dead before it is filed.
No guarantee there going to win. Going by the patent pages they haven't been awarded just applied for. There's also no guarantee there going to get them either, a quick Google on multi touch indicates that the whole multi figure pinching was invented by Pierre Wellner in 1991. Actually using multi fingers on a touch surface is even older with a device using it in 1982. Given the prior art Apple may have absolutely no claim on multi touch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_touch
Why the F&^$ are you STILL talking about multi-touch?!?!?!?!
Multi-touch is NOT part of the patent suit!
The closest thing is the slide to unlock functionality. And in a world where Amazon can own One-click, Apple most assuredly can own slide to unlock. Overturning one means overturning the whole precedent tree, and that's highly unlikely. Patent reform needs to originate from Congress not the Judicial branch.
Hardly. The address bar default search engine is a paid for positioning. And not having a particular company isn't preventing them from being used. just type the address manually.
While I agree a few idiots might sue over that, it is a lawsuit dead before it is filed.
I think we're on the same page, but somehow missed each other.
My post was a reply back saying exactly what you said. You can just type "www.google.com" into the address bar. So just because they aren't the default search bar engine doesn't mean that they'll lose 40M+ users, as vinea implied.
I was talking about if Apple coded Mobile Safari to reject "www.google.com" or any version of that into the address bar. That would definitely be a violation of some sort.
It's a browser it can't be done at a browser level, ISP maybe but not browser.
If on the other hand Google started blocking services then they would be looking at antitrust and anti competition issues to go on top of the one's they are already facing over the acquisition of AdMob.
Besides 'bums on seats' is how Google earns money, it's closer to 80 million when you add in iPod Touch users.
I think we're on the same page, but somehow missed each other.
My post was a reply back saying exactly what you said. You can just type "www.google.com" into the address bar. So just because they aren't the default search bar engine doesn't mean that they'll lose 40M+ users, as vinea implied.
I was talking about if Apple coded Mobile Safari to reject "www.google.com" or any version of that into the address bar. That would definitely be a violation of some sort.
Aaah, memories...
...the first smartphone HTC copied (with a little help from a Redmond software company).
http://www.gsmarena.com/sendo_z100-228.php
It's a browser it can't be done at a browser level, ISP maybe but not browser.
Are You serious?
Of course Apple could do it in the browser (block google in the address bar). Would they? Of course not. But it would be fairly trivial for them to add the code to check for google URLs and prevent browsing to them. It would be ineffective, as there would be ways to get where you want to go anyway, but the same is true if an ISP tried it.
AI-Please, please, please bring in a facepalm smiley...some of these nonsense posts demand it.
I agree a facepalm smiley is required for whoever brought up the stupid idea of coding a browser to not go to Google, as a paranoid delusional extension of the myth of Apple "controlling" the user experience.
Are You serious?
Of course Apple could do it in the browser (block google in the address bar). Would they? Of course not. But it would be fairly trivial for them to add the code to check for google URLs and prevent browsing to them. It would be ineffective, as there would be ways to get where you want to go anyway, but the same is true if an ISP tried it.
AI-Please, please, please bring in a handpalm smiley...some of these nonsense posts demand it.
How will a browser block IP's eg 127.0.0.1
I agree a facepalm smiley is required for whoever brought up the stupid idea of coding a browser to not go to Google, as a paranoid delusional extension of the myth of Apple "controlling" the user experience.
Ever hear of a hosts file? Or I suppose, if they were feeling really adventurous, they could block the range of IPs and URLs.
The idea was brought up as a counter to some silly idea that changing the toolbar search away from google would cost them every user of Mobile Safari. It was mentioned as the only possible way, though itself ineffective, to take away all access. I guess you missed that.
As for the "myth of Apple controlling the user experience"...shit, wasn't just the other day you were extolling the virtues of Apple tightly controlling the user experience?
I guess it really would be easier to just write statements, regardless of them being factual or contradicting prior assertions or having a comprehension of their meaning. That must be fun.
Please bring in the facepalm smiley.
Psst. News flash. There's such a thing as the address bar. You know, the one where you type in www.google.com?
No way in hell Apple would dare block that. If they ever did, I foresee 40M+ users screaming at Apple and maybe a class-action lawsuit or two.
Not to mention the concept of a bookmark.
As the default search engine. Google pays Apple for that and they don't do so to be nice but because it's worth a lot of money to them to be the default search engine in Safari...both on Macs and on the iPhone. It also opens the door for another search provider *cough*bing*cough* to claim the mobile space with some kind of tailored search based on location.
Not something that Google doesn't do already but if it say, tied into the Yelp database for restaurants, another db for cheapest gas, etc, using the default engine within the iPhone might be more natural for all searches rather than manually going to google.com via bookmark.
If you knew anything about Surface, you'll see that it's process for implementing multi-touch is completely different. It's so different, it requires a honking-big ass table to make it work.
Let's see, Google pays Apple for the privilege of being in the search box in Safari. Can Apple forgo that revenue? Let's see, $40B in the bank, and MS just chomping at the bit to pay Apple to carry Bing. Yeah, I would think so.
Now Google maps: If Apple replaced Google's maps with NAVTEQ maps (NAVTEQ, owned by Nokia, also supplies maps to Bing and Mapquest), will iPhone users miss a beat? I don't think so.
And Gmail: Apple is certainly not paying Google to have Gmail on the iPhone, so there's no reason to cut that off. But if Apple made other mail systems, like Hotmail or Yahoo Mail, more prominent and easier to hook up, would iPhone users miss a beat? I don't think so.
Is the competition ahead on touch-screen sensitivity/usability? No.
Responsiveness? No.
Battery life? Same ballpark.
Flash storage capacity? Same ballpark.
Flash capacity for Apps? No.
Size and weight? Same ballpark.
Web browser? No.
Local content sync? No.
App variety, quality and global reach? No.
Quality of App Store integration on phone? No.
Quality of SDK/App Store backend? No.
Content (i.e., iTunes) store integration on phone? No.
Quantity and quality of accessories? No.
Cost to consumer? Same ballpark.
Profit? No.
Yeah, the competition is ahead now.
Regardless of how it was done, the MS Surface DID do multi-touch, so I don't get your point. The point I was making was that the concept of multi-touch was not Apple's so to sue HTC over it seems silly and pointless.
You are being incredibly naive if you think iPhone users would not miss Google services. How many people would be, to put it bluntly, pissed off if GMail stopped working on the iPhone? Why would Google do that? To give Apple a bloody nose.
Google Search is the world number one was a vast amount. Again, people *would* miss it and would want to know what it was gone. I believe the Bing story was just a threat, Jobs warning Google not anger him further. Bluffs are sometimes called though, as can be seen with Google's imminent pull out from China.
Nicely cherry picked pro-iPhone bullet points there too. Well done, you get 5 bonus Apple stars. You can cherry pick for the Nexus One too of course.
OLED screen? - Nexus
High-res screen? - Nexus
Open app store with no arbitrary restrictions/bans? - Nexus
Ability to download anything over 3G? - Nexus
1ghz CPU? - Nexus
Ability to install third party web browsers? - Nexus
Can mount as USB mass storage? - Nexus
Watermark free MP3 downloads on phone? - Nexus
Google Voice? - Nexus
Full Gmail support with search and push? - Nexus
Google Maps with turn by turn and buzz integration? - Nexus
Flash support coming later this year? - Nexus
5MP camera with flash? - Nexus
720p video playback? - Nexus
Voice recognition throughout the OS and core apps? - Nexus
Noise cancelling microphone? - Nexus
Oh, and MULTI-TASKING? - Nexus
It's an easy game to play and rather pointless. Pros and cons on both sides, but only a really crazy hardcore fanboy could claim the iPhone is a superior piece of hardware to the Nexus One. Software is more subjective.
Regardless of how it was done, the MS Surface DID do multi-touch, so I don't get your point. The point I was making was that the concept of multi-touch was not Apple's so to sue HTC over it seems silly and pointless.
You can't patent concepts or ideas. Go read a few patents and tell me if it's just an idea that was patented.
You are being incredibly naive if you think iPhone users would not miss Google services. How many people would be, to put it bluntly, pissed off if GMail stopped working on the iPhone? Why would Google do that? To give Apple a bloody nose.
Did you read what I wrote? Did I say that Apple would cut off GMail? No way would they do that. I said they would promote the others; that's not the same. Would Google cut off GMail? No way would they do that just to give Apple a bloody nose. That's just annoying your own customers.
I really don't know what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Apple would cut Google services? (I addressed the ones that I think Apple wouldn't hesitate to switch.) Or are you saying that Google would remove their services from Apple devices? If so, I'll address that later.
Google Search is the world number one was a vast amount. Again, people *would* miss it and would want to know what it was gone. I believe the Bing story was just a threat, Jobs warning Google not anger him further. Bluffs are sometimes called though, as can be seen with Google's imminent pull out from China.
No, people won't miss it. 1) It's been shown over and over again that people just use whatever the default is. 2) And if it really mattered, the Google app provides the same search, so those who really want Google would start from there.
Nicely cherry picked pro-iPhone bullet points there too. Well done, you get 5 bonus Apple stars. You can cherry pick for the Nexus One too of course.
OLED screen? - Nexus
High-res screen? - Nexus
Open app store with no arbitrary restrictions/bans? - Nexus
Ability to download anything over 3G? - Nexus
1ghz CPU? - Nexus
Ability to install third party web browsers? - Nexus
Can mount as USB mass storage? - Nexus
Watermark free MP3 downloads on phone? - Nexus
Google Voice? - Nexus
Full Gmail support with search and push? - Nexus
Google Maps with turn by turn and buzz integration? - Nexus
Flash support coming later this year? - Nexus
5MP camera with flash? - Nexus
720p video playback? - Nexus
Voice recognition throughout the OS and core apps? - Nexus
Noise cancelling microphone? - Nexus
Oh, and MULTI-TASKING? - Nexus
It's an easy game to play and rather pointless. Pros and cons on both sides, but only a really crazy hardcore fanboy could claim the iPhone is a superior piece of hardware to the Nexus One. Software is more subjective.
I wasn't playing a game and they weren't cherry-picked. My list included only those things that matter most to users (outside of the cellular network). Sure, users would like more, but is it critical? Nexus has sold 135K in almost three months. That reveals how important some of that Nexus stuff, like OLED high-res, 5MP, third party web browser, and open app store, really are. The Zune HD has a bunch of those items on your list, and it's still not made a dent in that other media player market. Even the 2007 Nokia N95 had some of those features (including Flash) and the N-series phones are declining in sales (in a rapidly growing market).
By the way, it's pretty desperate to point to something coming later this year, especially since it's a game of roulette when it comes to whether an Android phone will actually be upgradeable.
And when people feel the need to trot out the six-letter word: FANBOY, I can be sure that they've lost the argument.
Or Apple knows the exact method that a particular CPU is under-clocked because they paid the manufacturer to make it so and partnered with the manufacturer supplying engineering talent when designing the CPU, and as part of the engineering contract was granted patent rights to that particular IP. Or at least to the system software needed to access the hardware functions as specifically fabbed into the silicon.
I don't know if that is the case, but it is quite possible. So seeing as I was able to offer up a quick and plausible reason Apple might know what it is doing, maybe it is you who is acting the fool pronouncing absolutes in a complete vacuum.
Possibly, though I doubt that the chip manufacturer would break a contract with Apple.
Regardless of how it was done, the MS Surface DID do multi-touch, so I don't get your point. The point I was making was that the concept of multi-touch was not Apple's so to sue HTC over it seems silly and pointless.
Well if Apple was suing over multi-touch you would have a point. But they aren't!
Does anybody really READ anymore???
Possibly, though I doubt that the chip manufacturer would break a contract with Apple.
Where would the chip manufacturer have to break a contract? They just sell the hardware and some of that hardware can be enabled and/or controlled via the OS and/or boot process.
This isn't out of the ordinary for partnered hardware. The consulting company gets what they want and share the long term costs with other buyers who won't have access to the locked down chunks without additional licenses.
How will a browser block IP's eg 127.0.0.1
I agree a facepalm smiley is required for whoever brought up the stupid idea of coding a browser to not go to Google, as a paranoid delusional extension of the myth of Apple "controlling" the user experience.
Ok. First off, I said "could", not "would". And also note that I said that Apple wouldn't do that for the same reasons you are. And I said nothing of the sort about Apple controlling the user experience. I was offering up hypothetical situation that Apple could do if Google decided to stop paying them for being the default search engine.
Why are you looking for a fight where none exists?
But since you brought it up, it is no "myth" that Apple controls the user experience. They control the OS, they control the hardware. If Apple doesn't offer a feature on the current set of models, you don't get that feature period. Until Apple decides to add it in some time down the road. Apps? Only available from the App Store. While this gives a very uniform experience across the board, it's clear, positive proof that Apple does control the user experience. Uniform means tight control. And Apple isn't trying to hide this fact at all. Who's delusional now?
As the default search engine. Google pays Apple for that and they don't do so to be nice but because it's worth a lot of money to them to be the default search engine in Safari...both on Macs and on the iPhone. It also opens the door for another search provider *cough*bing*cough* to claim the mobile space with some kind of tailored search based on location.
Not something that Google doesn't do already but if it say, tied into the Yelp database for restaurants, another db for cheapest gas, etc, using the default engine within the iPhone might be more natural for all searches rather than manually going to google.com via bookmark.
Even with IE being the dominant browser in the world, Bing is holds nothing next to the results Google provides. Safari only holds a 5.27% hold on the browser world, so losing Google as the default search bar there is barely a minor inconvenience for Google. At last count, I believe there's more people using Chrome to access the web than Safari.
The one thing you fail to consider is the habit of the user. We have been going to Google so much that our fingers lead us there by default. When I ask my friends to search something up, the vast majority of the time they'll go to a Google service over Bing or Yahoo!. We all know that Google will come through the vast majority of the time for our searches within the first results page. That's why I believe that even with other services like Yelp or Bing available, users will still reach out to Google.
With regards to multi-touch, why hasn't Apple gone after Palm or Microsoft? Both use multitouch currently.
And Palm seems to be in a weeks position than HTC which would make them an easy "kill". HTC has the backing of Google, which means that Apple might be barking up the wrong tree.
This is a publicity on the part of Apple to discredit others in the EYES of the average Joe Snooze whose reading these headlines with everything else. Our product is Superior to yours,
H.T.C.=Discredit.
This reminds me of some infringement cases before such as the LG Prada phone. It became another reality, just like many mobile inventions, long before the Iphone. So L.G. Sued.
Nothing will happen to HTC about the multi-touch. LG lost that battle almost two years ago, because the technology was not created by EITHER of them.
IBM created the first touch screen in the late 1960's , and a Educational Company called Control Data in 72' Made a PLATO 4 Computer terminal for education that had a touch interface.
University of Toronto created Multi-Touch at Bell Labs, then was not released to the public till 85' and it was a multi-touch tablet.
Later on in the early early 90's there was a device before Palm pilots and Handsprint called "Digital Desk" that did the same multi-finger and pinching and zoom motions.
What I mentioned above is why LG lost the lawsuit against Apple for the Prada about Apple was saying that was a technology they created. Well it wasn't. It was neither of them.
So should all web browsing touch screen phones have it? Yes they should. And if anything they should be hiring or paying these old research developers or paying these companies if they are in still in business they're royalties.