Well you have a lot of chutzpah to post this here.
Needless to say yo don't know what you're talking about and are wrong on on almost every one of these points, but it isn't worth the time to debate it with you. I'm guessing you are either a teenager or just a complete troll. Do a bit of reading up on the facts and tell us if you still believe this rot when you are done.
During Apple's most recent quarterly earnings conference call in July, Oppenheimer revealed that his company is planning a major "future product transition" that will have a material impact on the September quarter.
Listening to the earnings call, this was in response to a question asking why Apple's [profit] projections were low.
Based on rumors at the time, I figured:
1) an iPad 3, Retina Display, A6 -- at the same, or slightly price -- and the iPad 2 at a significantly reduced price, say, $249 for the base WiFi model
2) an iP5 world phone
Now, it appears that neither the retina display nor the A6 will be ready for the September quarter!
So, now I am at a loss...
... Maybe content deals with the cablecos and studios to integrate ATV and the HDTV. Might require AppleTV 3 for, say, $150:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- ...
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- ...
all these idea's taken from others
This is getting tiresome.
If you truly believe that all new ideas come out thin air, then I can't really help you with that delusion. However, if you're open to learning the difference between using other ideas as a starting point and building your own breakthroughs off of them vs just repackaging the work of others, then I encourage you to read the following pages on the real history of the topics you're being so glib about:
I'm hoping that what you take away from this is that there is no clear starting point for the history of inventions. There is always work that came before. However, there are clearly people who add new ideas to things, and it's hard to argue that engineers at Apple haven't contributed a fair number of new ideas along the way (even if there is work that came before them which they built off of).
This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP
You forgot to mention the cheap plastic and nearly 7 pound weight that would let even a blind person differentiate the HP and Apple products correctly. Not to mention the totally different operating system GUI which alone would be enough for sighted folks to not get confused.
Really, are you trying to prove trolls are all idiots? Every damn one of you cites the same poorly thought out tripe that self defeats your cause. It's pathetic.
This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP
And if you happen to look at the picture, the HP tablet looks absolutely nothing like Apple's tablet. Now, put the Samsung tablet next to Apple's and try to tell me that your HP example is relevant.
Couldn't agree more! I've been saying this since these lawsuits have started. People accuse Apple of trying to stifle competition for suing over patent infringement, but I don't see cloning another company's product as competition. I think that's setting the bar for competition very, very low. I don't consider what Samsung or RIM or Motorola do in the tablet space to be competition.
And because I anticipate being accused of fanboy-ism, I'll point out an example of what I think is true competition in the tablet market. Sony has shown some competitive spirit and real initiative with their S2. While it doesn't appeal to me personally, it's the kind of creative, tangential thinking in product design that I consider true competition.
I agree. I always point to Windows Phone 7. Rather than copy Apple's iPhone, they went in a similar direction, but really made it their own. It's not bad... Pretty good actually.
I don't dislike Android. It's a nice OS. I simply have a problem with how it came to be.
What is truly anticompetitive is sitting in board meetings and stealing ideas from a truly innovative company and then turning around and selling a knockoff of that product.
Google is the anticompetitive company here. Apple has to protect themselves.
12.5 Billion ?!?
desperation move. Google knows they were being "evil" and is doing everything to avoid the consequences.
They are not a mobility company. They are a software company. google just might be shooting themselves in the foot here.
wht do they gain? Motorola's mobility division is going down, their hardware is lame and their software isn't any better.
It has to be the patents they hold.
Beyond that, Google gains nothing. Not even CPU know-how. Motorola long ago spun off FreeScale, os that option is not on the table.
12.5 billion to gain some patents that may not even be defensible.
pure desperation. Be interesting to see what this does to Google's value over the next two years. I'll be grabbing some popcorn...
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's taken from others
Oh god, here we go again. Another person who doesn't understand that innovation means making ideas successful. By your definition, no one has 'invented' anything.
Invention is recombination with a bit of something 'extra', that turns the past on its head.
To go through your silly list...
- Xerox was famous as the place where great ideas went to die
- and before iPod/iTunes, MP3 players were a geeky, niche market.
- Yeah, I remember EVERYONE walking around with a Psion
- Again, how much is my Fingerworks stock worth today and how many people do they employ?
- How's that Bell Labs computer and network working out for you?
- Coverflow is such a silly idea that even Apple isn't really using it any more
- Yup, MS Tablets just took the world by storm.
Rent 'Connections' by James Burke to understand what creativity, innovation, and invention are really about.
Oppenheimer is being way too charitable. By any stretch of imagination, this is a ridiculously overpriced acquisition that will come back to bite them in the bu**.
The detritus is already evident, with the (massive) stock price drop and the downgrades. If I was a direct shareholder of the company I'd be quite ticked off with this decision.
Let's hope -- and I have no doubt that it's a well-placed hope -- that Oppenheimer never does anything so remotely reckless.
What is truly anticompetitive is sitting in board meetings and stealing ideas from a truly innovative company and then turning around and selling a knockoff of that product.
Google is the anticompetitive company here. Apple has to protect themselves.
12.5 Billion ?!?
desperation move. Google knows they were being "evil" and is doing everything to avoid the consequences.
They are not a mobility company. They are a software company. google just might be shooting themselves in the foot here.
wht do they gain? Motorola's mobility division is going down, their hardware is lame and their software isn't any better.
It has to be the patents they hold.
Beyond that, Google gains nothing. Not even CPU know-how. Motorola long ago spun off FreeScale, os that option is not on the table.
12.5 billion to gain some patents that may not even be defensible.
pure desperation. Be interesting to see what this does to Google's value over the next two years. I'll be grabbing some popcorn...
Actually Google is more of an Advertising company in my opinion. They want as many ways as they can to keep their greasy fingers in our lives. To Google we are nothing more than food. They offer "free services" (often using IP that they don't own) as a way of keeping a good supply of food for their real customers, the advertisers.
Honestly, I don't have as much of a problem with the similar hardware as I do with Android.
Having your "partner" and board member steal your stuff is bad enough, but when they simply give it away for "free", that is hard to swallow. It's pretty difficult to compete with "FREE" and when that "FREE" OS is actually YOUR hard work, it's a double whammy. Yes, Google is the anti-competitive one. Then again, this is the way that they've operated for years.
This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP
Troll! The Tab design is a total rip off of the iPad. There has never been anything that uses the same design as the ipad before let alone anything from Samsung.
Well, it's such obvious nonsense I shouldn't have replied at all. So I started to, then I realised every single thing he said was crap and that not only that the point of view he is working from is flawed as well. I shouldn't have replied at all.
Most trolls register on these forums to pick a fight with Apple fans because they think Apple fans are stupid, ignorant or sheep. Or they want you to pay attention to them. They rarely deserve a reply.
Oh god, here we go again. Another person who doesn't understand that innovation means making ideas successful. By your definition, no one has 'invented' anything.
Invention is recombination with a bit of something 'extra', that turns the past on its head.
Rent 'Connections' by James Burke to understand what creativity, innovation, and invention are really about.
Apple does them all in spades.
Seriously, James Burke is awesome, but I'm afraid such nuanced and intellectual understanding is above his intellectual grasp. He really believes Apple is a sham. HP is obviously the "real innovator" here.
Beside a lot of your history being messed up (e.g. the first mouse was credited to Douglas Engelbart from the Stanford Research Institute who built the first prototype in 1963), what is your point?
You somehow seem to equate first with being original. For instance, you could create an MP3 player before me, and I can build one much later that is significantly different, maybe even better. Are you suggesting because I build a MP3 player after you, I didn't invent my own technology. That is BS. Take for instance your incorrect example of the computer mouse. Xerox's Bill English built a mouse based on Englehert's work. It cost $400 to build. Apple was looking to bring a computer to market for about $2, 000. It couldn't use a mouse that cost that much to build. Instead, Apple created some serious magic and figured out how to build a mouse that did the same thing as the $400 mouse, but for $25.
Out of all the examples you provide below, Apple either paid for the technology upon which it build on (e.g. iTunes, Cover Flow, Finger works), or outright brought its own design to the table. People don't understand Apple paid Xerox by giving it one million dollars worth of its Pre-IPO shares. Do you know what that would be worth today? In exchange, all Apple got was a visit to Xerox Parc where Apple could view a GUI in action (which was helpful because Apple's engineers already wanted to build a GUI product, but needed to convince Jobs it was feasible).
Apple isn't complaining about HP or Microsoft because those companies are bringing their own designs to the table. Samsung's products are almost exact replicates of some of Apple's products, right down tot he packaging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?
Lets consider past patent deals.
Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000
450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent
Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000
12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent
Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000
4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000
Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.
Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.
Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES
I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.
Comments
Well you have a lot of chutzpah to post this here.
Needless to say yo don't know what you're talking about and are wrong on on almost every one of these points, but it isn't worth the time to debate it with you. I'm guessing you are either a teenager or just a complete troll. Do a bit of reading up on the facts and tell us if you still believe this rot when you are done.
Don't quote the troll please.
During Apple's most recent quarterly earnings conference call in July, Oppenheimer revealed that his company is planning a major "future product transition" that will have a material impact on the September quarter.
Listening to the earnings call, this was in response to a question asking why Apple's [profit] projections were low.
Based on rumors at the time, I figured:
1) an iPad 3, Retina Display, A6 -- at the same, or slightly price -- and the iPad 2 at a significantly reduced price, say, $249 for the base WiFi model
2) an iP5 world phone
Now, it appears that neither the retina display nor the A6 will be ready for the September quarter!
So, now I am at a loss...
... Maybe content deals with the cablecos and studios to integrate ATV and the HDTV. Might require AppleTV 3 for, say, $150:
--->cable--->CableCo STB--->ATV 3--->HDTV
Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band
This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP
And it didn't create an entirely new and wildly successful product category because . . . ?
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- ...
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- ...
all these idea's taken from others
This is getting tiresome.
If you truly believe that all new ideas come out thin air, then I can't really help you with that delusion. However, if you're open to learning the difference between using other ideas as a starting point and building your own breakthroughs off of them vs just repackaging the work of others, then I encourage you to read the following pages on the real history of the topics you're being so glib about:
On Xerox, Apple and Progress by Bruce Horn
Busy Being Born by Andy Hertzfeld
Multi-touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved by Bill Buxton
Who invented Unix by Ken Thompson
I'm hoping that what you take away from this is that there is no clear starting point for the history of inventions. There is always work that came before. However, there are clearly people who add new ideas to things, and it's hard to argue that engineers at Apple haven't contributed a fair number of new ideas along the way (even if there is work that came before them which they built off of).
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the cfo of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the gui; it was xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the ipod nor itunes
- that didn't invent the pda; that was psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was fingerworks
- that didn't invent os x; unixe was bell labs' idea
- that didn't invent coverflow
- that didn't invent tabletpcs; that was ms
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's legally acquired or legally reverse engineered and executed differently from others. not illegally copied.
tftfy
Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band
This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP
You forgot to mention the cheap plastic and nearly 7 pound weight that would let even a blind person differentiate the HP and Apple products correctly. Not to mention the totally different operating system GUI which alone would be enough for sighted folks to not get confused.
Really, are you trying to prove trolls are all idiots? Every damn one of you cites the same poorly thought out tripe that self defeats your cause. It's pathetic.
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's taken from others
If you are honestly interested in this topic, may I suggest :
Creation Myth - Xerox PARC, Apple, and the truth about innovation.
by Malcolm Gladwell
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_gladwell
I think that this explains the actual nature of modern tech development in a concise way. It is also an amazing analysis of how tech works.
Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band
This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP
And if you happen to look at the picture, the HP tablet looks absolutely nothing like Apple's tablet. Now, put the Samsung tablet next to Apple's and try to tell me that your HP example is relevant.
Couldn't agree more! I've been saying this since these lawsuits have started. People accuse Apple of trying to stifle competition for suing over patent infringement, but I don't see cloning another company's product as competition. I think that's setting the bar for competition very, very low. I don't consider what Samsung or RIM or Motorola do in the tablet space to be competition.
And because I anticipate being accused of fanboy-ism, I'll point out an example of what I think is true competition in the tablet market. Sony has shown some competitive spirit and real initiative with their S2. While it doesn't appeal to me personally, it's the kind of creative, tangential thinking in product design that I consider true competition.
I agree. I always point to Windows Phone 7. Rather than copy Apple's iPhone, they went in a similar direction, but really made it their own. It's not bad... Pretty good actually.
I don't dislike Android. It's a nice OS. I simply have a problem with how it came to be.
Google is the anticompetitive company here. Apple has to protect themselves.
12.5 Billion ?!?
desperation move. Google knows they were being "evil" and is doing everything to avoid the consequences.
They are not a mobility company. They are a software company. google just might be shooting themselves in the foot here.
wht do they gain? Motorola's mobility division is going down, their hardware is lame and their software isn't any better.
It has to be the patents they hold.
Beyond that, Google gains nothing. Not even CPU know-how. Motorola long ago spun off FreeScale, os that option is not on the table.
12.5 billion to gain some patents that may not even be defensible.
pure desperation. Be interesting to see what this does to Google's value over the next two years. I'll be grabbing some popcorn...
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's taken from others
Oh god, here we go again. Another person who doesn't understand that innovation means making ideas successful. By your definition, no one has 'invented' anything.
Invention is recombination with a bit of something 'extra', that turns the past on its head.
To go through your silly list...
- Xerox was famous as the place where great ideas went to die
- and before iPod/iTunes, MP3 players were a geeky, niche market.
- Yeah, I remember EVERYONE walking around with a Psion
- Again, how much is my Fingerworks stock worth today and how many people do they employ?
- How's that Bell Labs computer and network working out for you?
- Coverflow is such a silly idea that even Apple isn't really using it any more
- Yup, MS Tablets just took the world by storm.
Rent 'Connections' by James Burke to understand what creativity, innovation, and invention are really about.
Apple does them all in spades.
The detritus is already evident, with the (massive) stock price drop and the downgrades. If I was a direct shareholder of the company I'd be quite ticked off with this decision.
Let's hope -- and I have no doubt that it's a well-placed hope -- that Oppenheimer never does anything so remotely reckless.
What is truly anticompetitive is sitting in board meetings and stealing ideas from a truly innovative company and then turning around and selling a knockoff of that product.
Google is the anticompetitive company here. Apple has to protect themselves.
12.5 Billion ?!?
desperation move. Google knows they were being "evil" and is doing everything to avoid the consequences.
They are not a mobility company. They are a software company. google just might be shooting themselves in the foot here.
wht do they gain? Motorola's mobility division is going down, their hardware is lame and their software isn't any better.
It has to be the patents they hold.
Beyond that, Google gains nothing. Not even CPU know-how. Motorola long ago spun off FreeScale, os that option is not on the table.
12.5 billion to gain some patents that may not even be defensible.
pure desperation. Be interesting to see what this does to Google's value over the next two years. I'll be grabbing some popcorn...
Actually Google is more of an Advertising company in my opinion. They want as many ways as they can to keep their greasy fingers in our lives. To Google we are nothing more than food. They offer "free services" (often using IP that they don't own) as a way of keeping a good supply of food for their real customers, the advertisers.
Honestly, I don't have as much of a problem with the similar hardware as I do with Android.
Having your "partner" and board member steal your stuff is bad enough, but when they simply give it away for "free", that is hard to swallow. It's pretty difficult to compete with "FREE" and when that "FREE" OS is actually YOUR hard work, it's a double whammy. Yes, Google is the anti-competitive one. Then again, this is the way that they've operated for years.
Can't stand Google. Can't stand Eric Schmidt.
Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band
This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP
Troll! The Tab design is a total rip off of the iPad. There has never been anything that uses the same design as the ipad before let alone anything from Samsung.
Well, it's such obvious nonsense I shouldn't have replied at all. So I started to, then I realised every single thing he said was crap and that not only that the point of view he is working from is flawed as well. I shouldn't have replied at all.
Most trolls register on these forums to pick a fight with Apple fans because they think Apple fans are stupid, ignorant or sheep. Or they want you to pay attention to them. They rarely deserve a reply.
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band
Let's see…
Check.
Check.
Check.
Plastic, but check.
Check.
Oh, I'm sorry HP. 2001! Beaten again.
You're so full of nonsense, I could open a nonsense store and sell everything at half cost and still make a profit.
Oh god, here we go again. Another person who doesn't understand that innovation means making ideas successful. By your definition, no one has 'invented' anything.
Invention is recombination with a bit of something 'extra', that turns the past on its head.
Rent 'Connections' by James Burke to understand what creativity, innovation, and invention are really about.
Apple does them all in spades.
Seriously, James Burke is awesome, but I'm afraid such nuanced and intellectual understanding is above his intellectual grasp. He really believes Apple is a sham. HP is obviously the "real innovator" here.
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's taken from others
Apple actually made them matter.
You somehow seem to equate first with being original. For instance, you could create an MP3 player before me, and I can build one much later that is significantly different, maybe even better. Are you suggesting because I build a MP3 player after you, I didn't invent my own technology. That is BS. Take for instance your incorrect example of the computer mouse. Xerox's Bill English built a mouse based on Englehert's work. It cost $400 to build. Apple was looking to bring a computer to market for about $2, 000. It couldn't use a mouse that cost that much to build. Instead, Apple created some serious magic and figured out how to build a mouse that did the same thing as the $400 mouse, but for $25.
Out of all the examples you provide below, Apple either paid for the technology upon which it build on (e.g. iTunes, Cover Flow, Finger works), or outright brought its own design to the table. People don't understand Apple paid Xerox by giving it one million dollars worth of its Pre-IPO shares. Do you know what that would be worth today? In exchange, all Apple got was a visit to Xerox Parc where Apple could view a GUI in action (which was helpful because Apple's engineers already wanted to build a GUI product, but needed to convince Jobs it was feasible).
Apple isn't complaining about HP or Microsoft because those companies are bringing their own designs to the table. Samsung's products are almost exact replicates of some of Apple's products, right down tot he packaging.
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's taken from others
Lets consider past patent deals.
Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000
450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent
Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000
12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent
Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000
4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000
Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.
Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.
Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES
I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.