What would be great is if they changed the aspect ratio of the iPhone to be the same as on the iPad. It is a lot better.
The iPad is already more square than the iPhone. That would severely limit the short width to something you can hold in your hand and result in an even more stubby iPhone. While I doubt they will, going with an aspect ratio that is often used in Android phones would make a lot more sense. that. That would make it taller while holding in your hand for even more display area.
Such a shame. I thought the original German injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was based on its similarity in terms of size and appearance to the iPad.
Well you thought wrong. The trade dress infraction is based on a LOT more than just the shape of the rectangle.
Well you thought wrong. The trade dress infraction is based on a LOT more than just the shape of the rectangle.
Thompson
Actually, it's not. And it's not trade dress they're accused of in the EU, it's Community Design. This design does not consider software, and is based on the premise that an INFORMED consumer would be confused by the similarity of the devices (before software is taken into account). That claim was questionable with the Tab 10.1, it makes absolutely NO sense with the Tab 7.7
Exactly how much compensation should Apple get from Samsung, Motorola, etc.? Will we all be satisfied when the iPad is the only tablet on the market without any alternative. Or should these companies simply license the patents and pay Apple a fee (a la Microsoft charging fees to HTC et al.).
Ultimately, I believe Samsung should be allowed to sell their products, at a fee. There is demand for their stuff, so let all the Apple-haters pay Apple to allow Samsung to compete. Perhaps giving a new meaning to the phrase 'Apple Tax'.
A rational person wouldn't see paid posters all around them.\
I assume you don't really believe it, instead using that claim as your way of derailing differences of opinion when you're in danger of coming out on the short end. You don't come off as irrational in most posts you make. Just when your opponent is making sense.
I think you and some others here are paid. I think there are a bunch of other people here who are driven to state of irrationality by either their rabid Google/Android fanaticism or their curiously misguided hate of Apple. And, there are a bunch more who just don't have a clue what they are even talking about.
However, in this thread, there are certain posters, such as Menno who are knowingly making an argument that is completely beside the point, that is, as I said, an exercise in sophistry. When you have to focus exclusively on the legalistic aspects of the question in this forum to try to force your point, you know you're being dishonest in addressing the issue of whether Samsung is simply ripping off other people's work, and it's telling that you didn't defend his position, but attacked the person pointing out that his argument is bullshit.
And, yes, I think he is likely a paid representative of someone. I can't prove it, but I trust my instinct.
Exactly how much compensation should Apple get from Samsung, Motorola, etc.? Will we all be satisfied when the iPad is the only tablet on the market without any alternative.
No one intelligent holds this position. I posit that therefore, no one here holds that position.
We want Android to have its own, unique interface. We want OEMs to make hardware that is differentiated the iPad.
We absolutely want as many competitors as possible. But we don't have competitors right now. We have CLONES. DIRECT CLONES.
Quote:
Or should these companies simply license the patents and pay Apple a fee (a la Microsoft charging fees to HTC et al.).
That might be a solution. Make them pay out the ear if they're going to copy instead of innovate.
You can't TELL me that Android isn't a direct copy of iOS. You can't TELL anyone that there's no other way to do a tablet or phone OS.
No one intelligent holds this position. I posit that therefore, no one here holds that position.
We want Android to have its own, unique interface. We want OEMs to make hardware that is differentiated the iPad.
How? An iPad is pretty minimal. I'd argue hardware wise, if you want to make an ergonomic tablet there isn't much you can do to differentiate from the iPad, hardware-wise. You'll not see me argue about the software, there's no point.
Quote:
We absolutely want as many competitors as possible. But we don't have competitors right now. We have CLONES. DIRECT CLONES.
How different can you make a tablet from an iPad without making a different device altogether. This new tablet market is in its infancy, so it's understandable what constitutes a clone or not is in dispute. Hopefully the courts can come to a solution which will benefit all players in the long term.
Quote:
That might be a solution. Make them pay out the ear if they're going to copy instead of innovate.
You can't TELL me that Android isn't a direct copy of iOS. You can't TELL anyone that there's no other way to do a tablet or phone OS.
Or, instead of paying out the ear, pay a fair and reasonable fee. You know, like Apple pays Nokia. I have not and will not deny that Android has copied iOS. That's not my argument.
But no. Square icons in a grid on home screens. That's the ONLY way it can be done, so Apple can't have a patent on it.
Apple wasn't the first to have icons on a grid as a home screen. Kinda weakens your argument. That video looks horrendous btw - reminds me of the ELSE First OS. Which was innovative, but of course there's a reason that didn't take off. Learned behaviours and expectations etc. have resulted in desktop OS's seem to utilise such similar metaphors. Why would this not be the same for tablets?
But no. Square icons in a grid on home screens. That's the ONLY way it can be done, so Apple can't have a patent on it.
That video is awesome, but it's also a UI that has a much higher learning curve. Look at all of the people who complain that Honeycomb is "too hard to understand". They'd be downright confused if you gave them something like that.
And people won't buy it because it's confusing (compared to what they already know). And that UI is still easier to understand than the neat one you posted. Companies don't just make cool products, they have to make cool products they think will sell well.
you can make an interface that will only respond to Klingon if you want to, and it would totally unique, but the question becomes "will it sell." I'd buy a tablet with a UI like the one your video shows, but I'm a geek. I'm patient enough to take the time to learn how a new OS does something. Most people won't be.
The only obstacle they have to people getting to use that is how the UI hides unseen information.
With home screens, it's implied that to find anything on the device you can't see, you just flick in one direction or another and there it'll be.
With an open grid like this, you have to manually search for it (unless you have a dock with quick icons always visible. Like a CD for your music grid-group that you tap and the UI flies across the grid to that group, etc.) or be able to search for it quickly through a typed system like Spotlight.
Quote:
I'd buy a tablet with a UI like the one your video shows, but I'm a geek. I'm patient enough to take the time to learn how a new OS does something. Most people won't be.
Agreed. Also agreed that I wouldn't pin my video's interface as anything more fleshed out than an early alpha stage of the UI. It's just not polished enough to be a real interface, but it's a nice little peek at something brand new.
The only obstacle they have to people getting to use that is how the UI hides unseen information.
With home screens, it's implied that to find anything on the device you can't see, you just flick in one direction or another and there it'll be.
With an open grid like this, you have to manually search for it (unless you have a dock with quick icons always visible. Like a CD for your music grid-group that you tap and the UI flies across the grid to that group, etc.) or be able to search for it quickly through a typed system like Spotlight.
Agreed. Also agreed that I wouldn't pin my video's interface as anything more fleshed out than an early alpha stage of the UI. It's just not polished enough to be a real interface, but it's a nice little peek at something brand new.
The Grid10 (the tablet in the video) actually has a "minimap" that you can toggle in the upper right corner so you can jump to specific apps. I think the idea is that you group apps by common themes. It should be interesting.
What I REALLY want to try though is their Grid4, which is a phone that will supposedly work on ATT and Tmobile, and be sold unlocked for $399. At that price, it's Really tempting to pick one up.
Ok Apple fan boys. Calm down. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan but at the very least, I like to think critically before jumping on the bandwagon.
First of all, I completely hate the patents that Apple has filed to so-called protect its property. This is similar to way Disney protects its property. These corporations need to stop wasting money on lawyers to take care of this. As someone astutely mentioned earlier, the market will take of Samsung in its own way.
Second of all, let's not play this game of calling other companies copiers. Apple copies so much from other OS'es and yet no one on this forums has called it out. Look at the so-called new function that Apple added to Lion, "Reopen Windows on Login." Yea, straight from Microsoft's Hibernation but Steve Jobs says it's a magical new function so all fanboys jump in jubilation.
Ok Apple fan boys. Calm down. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan but
We JUST had this conversation. Only trolls start their crap this way. Did you miss the memo?
Quote:
First of all, I completely hate the patents that Apple has filed to so-called protect its property.
You might want to think about rewriting that sentence, or at the very least, moving some words around. Unless you can come up with a way to explain how something that Apple conceived, designed, built, and sold is somehow their "so-called" property.
Quote:
These corporations need to stop wasting money on lawyers to take care of this.
Then other corporations should start wasting their money on R&D.
Quote:
Second of all, let's not play this game of calling other companies copiers.
It's a slam on Xerox, you're right.
Quote:
Look at the so-called new function that Apple added to Lion, "Reopen Windows on Login." Yea, straight from Microsoft's Hibernation but Steve Jobs says it's a magical new function so all fanboys jump in jubilation.
You seriously just made a "Apple copied from Microsoft" statement, didn't you?
Never mind that Apple has had hibernation in OS X for longer than I can remember and that Windows wouldn't exist in its present form if they hadn't directly copied System 1.
Never mind that Apple has had hibernation in OS X for longer than I can remember and that Windows wouldn't exist in its present form if they hadn't directly copied System 1.
Besides his other silly comments he comparing Hibernate in Windows to restarting a Mac, not simply having the RAM saved to disk, which has been a part of Apple's Safe Sleep for many years.
PS: Those wish to regain their drive space (for instance if you install Mac OS X on a USB drive) can disable Safe Sleep. The OS will designate as much space for hibernation as you have RAM, so those with 8GB or more could easily find their sap space severely compromised thus making their system run slower than it should.
So Apple will somehow invent a successor OS to iOS from scratch in less than a year?
Who knows what Apple will come up with in the foreseeable future? Did you foresee the iPhone? Did you foresee the runaway success that the iPad is?
My point is that nobody knows, save for the guys running Apple. But it's been a fun ride, for me at least, at the beginning with my Mac Plus and getting off the Apple train for awhile and then jumping back on with the iPhone.
Apple has consistently shown they will take chances and try to turn things on their head. Copying is not the Apple way. For that I give them huge props. More than I would ever give to any other lame ass company that thinks they can copy Apple and move ahead. It's a losing game. Ask RIM, ask Microsoft lately.
No one intelligent holds this position. I posit that therefore, no one here holds that position.
We want Android to have its own, unique interface. We want OEMs to make hardware that is differentiated the iPad.
We absolutely want as many competitors as possible. But we don't have competitors right now. We have CLONES. DIRECT CLONES. [...]
You can't TELL me that Android isn't a direct copy of iOS. You can't TELL anyone that there's no other way to do a tablet or phone OS.
[...]
Apparently, the Android fans who come here feel that the iPad and iOS are so perfect that they want Android tablets to be just like it. That at least explains why they spend so much time on an Apple focused site.
Apparently, the Android fans who come here feel that the iPad and iOS are so perfect that they want Android tablets to be just like it. That at least explains why they spend so much time on an Apple focused site.
If you have something to say to me, say it directly. Thanks.
Look at the other markets: computers, OSs, cars, speakers, spoons, you name it.
What's left to be invented in the very near future? Teleporting apps ?! Let them compete with whatever they can design or copy (at some degree).
Do you know that the French Academy declared sometime in the 17th Century that nothing new is left to be invented?
That's the problem with ordinary thinking people. They cant see beyond the existing products/services. You have to think radically to invent products or services or ways to do things. The iPad was not a true invention (tablets were available before) but it allows people to do things in a more convenient way through an new intuitive interface and allowing people to add functionality through Apps.
And it is not true that we do not have inventions in those categories you mentioned -
OSs: OSX Lion is radical, Win7 may not be radical but have many good under the hood innovations,
Cars: Do you realize that Hybrid cars (runs on Gas & Electricity) are an invention? Have you heard about Google unmanned self driven cars? Isn't that innovation?
Off course products can look similar but when you start with a picture of a competing product and ends with the same product from the assembly line, you have some serious problem.
Comments
What would be great is if they changed the aspect ratio of the iPhone to be the same as on the iPad. It is a lot better.
The iPad is already more square than the iPhone. That would severely limit the short width to something you can hold in your hand and result in an even more stubby iPhone. While I doubt they will, going with an aspect ratio that is often used in Android phones would make a lot more sense. that. That would make it taller while holding in your hand for even more display area.
What would be great is if they changed the aspect ratio of the iPhone to be the same as on the iPad. It is a lot better.
4:3 isn't suitable for a phone, though. It's too squat in your hand (unless you scale it up, and then it's too large).
Why not just use Bluetooth?
And iPhone Hotspot, then connect the other iPhone, theres your direct transfer of data.
One chip less + no license fee to pay the creator of Bluetooth (Ericsson).
Such a shame. I thought the original German injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was based on its similarity in terms of size and appearance to the iPad.
Well you thought wrong. The trade dress infraction is based on a LOT more than just the shape of the rectangle.
Thompson
Well you thought wrong. The trade dress infraction is based on a LOT more than just the shape of the rectangle.
Thompson
Actually, it's not. And it's not trade dress they're accused of in the EU, it's Community Design. This design does not consider software, and is based on the premise that an INFORMED consumer would be confused by the similarity of the devices (before software is taken into account). That claim was questionable with the Tab 10.1, it makes absolutely NO sense with the Tab 7.7
Ultimately, I believe Samsung should be allowed to sell their products, at a fee. There is demand for their stuff, so let all the Apple-haters pay Apple to allow Samsung to compete. Perhaps giving a new meaning to the phrase 'Apple Tax'.
A rational person wouldn't see paid posters all around them.
I assume you don't really believe it, instead using that claim as your way of derailing differences of opinion when you're in danger of coming out on the short end. You don't come off as irrational in most posts you make. Just when your opponent is making sense.
I think you and some others here are paid. I think there are a bunch of other people here who are driven to state of irrationality by either their rabid Google/Android fanaticism or their curiously misguided hate of Apple. And, there are a bunch more who just don't have a clue what they are even talking about.
However, in this thread, there are certain posters, such as Menno who are knowingly making an argument that is completely beside the point, that is, as I said, an exercise in sophistry. When you have to focus exclusively on the legalistic aspects of the question in this forum to try to force your point, you know you're being dishonest in addressing the issue of whether Samsung is simply ripping off other people's work, and it's telling that you didn't defend his position, but attacked the person pointing out that his argument is bullshit.
And, yes, I think he is likely a paid representative of someone. I can't prove it, but I trust my instinct.
Exactly how much compensation should Apple get from Samsung, Motorola, etc.? Will we all be satisfied when the iPad is the only tablet on the market without any alternative.
No one intelligent holds this position. I posit that therefore, no one here holds that position.
We want Android to have its own, unique interface. We want OEMs to make hardware that is differentiated the iPad.
We absolutely want as many competitors as possible. But we don't have competitors right now. We have CLONES. DIRECT CLONES.
Or should these companies simply license the patents and pay Apple a fee (a la Microsoft charging fees to HTC et al.).
That might be a solution. Make them pay out the ear if they're going to copy instead of innovate.
You can't TELL me that Android isn't a direct copy of iOS. You can't TELL anyone that there's no other way to do a tablet or phone OS.
I mean, look at this right here. THIS IS AWESOME. It needs to be made a reality. It's the perfect thing for Android to try as a means of differentiation. It's a great interface idea.
But no. Square icons in a grid on home screens. That's the ONLY way it can be done, so Apple can't have a patent on it.
No one intelligent holds this position. I posit that therefore, no one here holds that position.
We want Android to have its own, unique interface. We want OEMs to make hardware that is differentiated the iPad.
How? An iPad is pretty minimal. I'd argue hardware wise, if you want to make an ergonomic tablet there isn't much you can do to differentiate from the iPad, hardware-wise. You'll not see me argue about the software, there's no point.
We absolutely want as many competitors as possible. But we don't have competitors right now. We have CLONES. DIRECT CLONES.
How different can you make a tablet from an iPad without making a different device altogether. This new tablet market is in its infancy, so it's understandable what constitutes a clone or not is in dispute. Hopefully the courts can come to a solution which will benefit all players in the long term.
That might be a solution. Make them pay out the ear if they're going to copy instead of innovate.
You can't TELL me that Android isn't a direct copy of iOS. You can't TELL anyone that there's no other way to do a tablet or phone OS.
Or, instead of paying out the ear, pay a fair and reasonable fee. You know, like Apple pays Nokia. I have not and will not deny that Android has copied iOS. That's not my argument.
I mean, look at this right here. THIS IS AWESOME. It needs to be made a reality. It's the perfect thing for Android to try as a means of differentiation. It's a great interface idea.
But no. Square icons in a grid on home screens. That's the ONLY way it can be done, so Apple can't have a patent on it.
Apple wasn't the first to have icons on a grid as a home screen. Kinda weakens your argument. That video looks horrendous btw - reminds me of the ELSE First OS. Which was innovative, but of course there's a reason that didn't take off. Learned behaviours and expectations etc. have resulted in desktop OS's seem to utilise such similar metaphors. Why would this not be the same for tablets?
No one intelligent holds this position. I posit that therefore, no one here holds that position.
We want Android to have its own, unique interface. We want OEMs to make hardware that is differentiated the iPad.
We absolutely want as many competitors as possible. But we don't have competitors right now. We have CLONES. DIRECT CLONES.
That might be a solution. Make them pay out the ear if they're going to copy instead of innovate.
You can't TELL me that Android isn't a direct copy of iOS. You can't TELL anyone that there's no other way to do a tablet or phone OS.
I mean, look at this right here. THIS IS AWESOME. It needs to be made a reality. It's the perfect thing for Android to try as a means of differentiation. It's a great interface idea.
But no. Square icons in a grid on home screens. That's the ONLY way it can be done, so Apple can't have a patent on it.
That video is awesome, but it's also a UI that has a much higher learning curve. Look at all of the people who complain that Honeycomb is "too hard to understand". They'd be downright confused if you gave them something like that.
Heck, there's a company trying a new take on a tablet UI: http://youtu.be/h9qP02DVOOY
And people won't buy it because it's confusing (compared to what they already know). And that UI is still easier to understand than the neat one you posted. Companies don't just make cool products, they have to make cool products they think will sell well.
you can make an interface that will only respond to Klingon if you want to, and it would totally unique, but the question becomes "will it sell." I'd buy a tablet with a UI like the one your video shows, but I'm a geek. I'm patient enough to take the time to learn how a new OS does something. Most people won't be.
Heck, there's a company trying a new take on a tablet UI: http://youtu.be/h9qP02DVOOY
I like that. I like that a lot.
The only obstacle they have to people getting to use that is how the UI hides unseen information.
With home screens, it's implied that to find anything on the device you can't see, you just flick in one direction or another and there it'll be.
With an open grid like this, you have to manually search for it (unless you have a dock with quick icons always visible. Like a CD for your music grid-group that you tap and the UI flies across the grid to that group, etc.) or be able to search for it quickly through a typed system like Spotlight.
I'd buy a tablet with a UI like the one your video shows, but I'm a geek. I'm patient enough to take the time to learn how a new OS does something. Most people won't be.
Agreed. Also agreed that I wouldn't pin my video's interface as anything more fleshed out than an early alpha stage of the UI. It's just not polished enough to be a real interface, but it's a nice little peek at something brand new.
I like that. I like that a lot.
The only obstacle they have to people getting to use that is how the UI hides unseen information.
With home screens, it's implied that to find anything on the device you can't see, you just flick in one direction or another and there it'll be.
With an open grid like this, you have to manually search for it (unless you have a dock with quick icons always visible. Like a CD for your music grid-group that you tap and the UI flies across the grid to that group, etc.) or be able to search for it quickly through a typed system like Spotlight.
Agreed. Also agreed that I wouldn't pin my video's interface as anything more fleshed out than an early alpha stage of the UI. It's just not polished enough to be a real interface, but it's a nice little peek at something brand new.
The Grid10 (the tablet in the video) actually has a "minimap" that you can toggle in the upper right corner so you can jump to specific apps. I think the idea is that you group apps by common themes. It should be interesting.
What I REALLY want to try though is their Grid4, which is a phone that will supposedly work on ATT and Tmobile, and be sold unlocked for $399. At that price, it's Really tempting to pick one up.
http://www.fusiongarage.com/grid-4/features
It also reminds me of the BenQ Blackbox a little, like, the Blackbox's grandfather or something.
First of all, I completely hate the patents that Apple has filed to so-called protect its property. This is similar to way Disney protects its property. These corporations need to stop wasting money on lawyers to take care of this. As someone astutely mentioned earlier, the market will take of Samsung in its own way.
Second of all, let's not play this game of calling other companies copiers. Apple copies so much from other OS'es and yet no one on this forums has called it out. Look at the so-called new function that Apple added to Lion, "Reopen Windows on Login." Yea, straight from Microsoft's Hibernation but Steve Jobs says it's a magical new function so all fanboys jump in jubilation.
Ok Apple fan boys. Calm down. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan but
We JUST had this conversation. Only trolls start their crap this way. Did you miss the memo?
First of all, I completely hate the patents that Apple has filed to so-called protect its property.
You might want to think about rewriting that sentence, or at the very least, moving some words around. Unless you can come up with a way to explain how something that Apple conceived, designed, built, and sold is somehow their "so-called" property.
These corporations need to stop wasting money on lawyers to take care of this.
Then other corporations should start wasting their money on R&D.
Second of all, let's not play this game of calling other companies copiers.
It's a slam on Xerox, you're right.
Look at the so-called new function that Apple added to Lion, "Reopen Windows on Login." Yea, straight from Microsoft's Hibernation but Steve Jobs says it's a magical new function so all fanboys jump in jubilation.
You seriously just made a "Apple copied from Microsoft" statement, didn't you?
Never mind that Apple has had hibernation in OS X for longer than I can remember and that Windows wouldn't exist in its present form if they hadn't directly copied System 1.
Never mind that Apple has had hibernation in OS X for longer than I can remember and that Windows wouldn't exist in its present form if they hadn't directly copied System 1.
Besides his other silly comments he comparing Hibernate in Windows to restarting a Mac, not simply having the RAM saved to disk, which has been a part of Apple's Safe Sleep for many years.
PS: Those wish to regain their drive space (for instance if you install Mac OS X on a USB drive) can disable Safe Sleep. The OS will designate as much space for hibernation as you have RAM, so those with 8GB or more could easily find their sap space severely compromised thus making their system run slower than it should.
We want Android to have its own, unique interface. We want OEMs to make hardware that is differentiated the iPad.
We absolutely want as many competitors as possible. But we don't have competitors right now. We have CLONES. DIRECT CLONES.
There lies your problem - "We want OEMs to make hardware that is differentiated the iPad."
Again and again. The iPad hardware design wasn't the first "looking like that" (Not Necessarily) tablet design.
Solved.
So Apple will somehow invent a successor OS to iOS from scratch in less than a year?
Who knows what Apple will come up with in the foreseeable future? Did you foresee the iPhone? Did you foresee the runaway success that the iPad is?
My point is that nobody knows, save for the guys running Apple. But it's been a fun ride, for me at least, at the beginning with my Mac Plus and getting off the Apple train for awhile and then jumping back on with the iPhone.
Apple has consistently shown they will take chances and try to turn things on their head. Copying is not the Apple way. For that I give them huge props. More than I would ever give to any other lame ass company that thinks they can copy Apple and move ahead. It's a losing game. Ask RIM, ask Microsoft lately.
No one intelligent holds this position. I posit that therefore, no one here holds that position.
We want Android to have its own, unique interface. We want OEMs to make hardware that is differentiated the iPad.
We absolutely want as many competitors as possible. But we don't have competitors right now. We have CLONES. DIRECT CLONES. [...]
You can't TELL me that Android isn't a direct copy of iOS. You can't TELL anyone that there's no other way to do a tablet or phone OS.
[...]
Apparently, the Android fans who come here feel that the iPad and iOS are so perfect that they want Android tablets to be just like it. That at least explains why they spend so much time on an Apple focused site.
Apparently, the Android fans who come here feel that the iPad and iOS are so perfect that they want Android tablets to be just like it. That at least explains why they spend so much time on an Apple focused site.
If you have something to say to me, say it directly. Thanks.
Look at the other markets: computers, OSs, cars, speakers, spoons, you name it.
What's left to be invented in the very near future? Teleporting apps ?! Let them compete with whatever they can design or copy (at some degree).
Do you know that the French Academy declared sometime in the 17th Century that nothing new is left to be invented?
That's the problem with ordinary thinking people. They cant see beyond the existing products/services. You have to think radically to invent products or services or ways to do things. The iPad was not a true invention (tablets were available before) but it allows people to do things in a more convenient way through an new intuitive interface and allowing people to add functionality through Apps.
And it is not true that we do not have inventions in those categories you mentioned -
OSs: OSX Lion is radical, Win7 may not be radical but have many good under the hood innovations,
Cars: Do you realize that Hybrid cars (runs on Gas & Electricity) are an invention? Have you heard about Google unmanned self driven cars? Isn't that innovation?
Off course products can look similar but when you start with a picture of a competing product and ends with the same product from the assembly line, you have some serious problem.