You're not seeing what? Did anyone claim that THAT phone was a copy of the iPhone?
I don't think that ANYONE has claimed that EVERY phone that came out after the iPhone was a copy. But the fact that one phone is different doesn't mean that none of the phones are copies. It does, however, prove that it IS possible to make a phone that looks different than the iPhone - which effectively negates the "but there's only one way to make a phone" argument.
You're not seeing what? Did anyone claim that THAT phone was a copy of the iPhone?
I don't think that ANYONE has claimed that EVERY phone that came out after the iPhone was a copy. But the fact that one phone is different doesn't mean that none of the phones are copies. It does, however, prove that it IS possible to make a phone that looks different than the iPhone - which effectively negates the "but there's only one way to make a phone" argument.
What are you and hill on about?
He was just saying it reminds him of it (that's allowed right?) More than the iPhone.
Also I don't give a damn of the iPhone was the first icon based os phone (it wasn't) no one should have a monopoly on icon grids.
However Samsung touchwhiz is too inspired by iOS. No real Android fan with a brain disputes that.
The "only one way" strawman you alluded to pertains to the tab and the injunction due to it's similarity to a drawing of a non existent product that shares a form factor with many pre iPad tablets.
First of all google did not copy iOS it is really sad some people are to ignorant to understand that. First of all the way the two OSs operate is totally different. Google uses a virtual machine called Dalvic very similar to java in order to interact with the soft ware and the hardware. iOS does not use a virtual machine to interact with software and hardware it is more direct on soft ware communicates with the machine language.
The next thing that is completely different about the OSs is the user interface. iOS goes the way of have no home screen and having the user doing everything directly from the app drawl. Android however does it a differently. Android does it similar to how Blackberry OS and Windows mobile have done it for years. Android has an App drawl that all the apps are placed in. Then it has a seperate homescreen that the user interacts with. this home screen contains the shortcut to applications and widgets this is similar to those previous OSs.
What happened was Android was being developed to compete with the then current heavy weights of the industry and was taking the best things from those OSs and makign android with it. At that time smartphones where keyboard based. Then the iPhone was Released and the demand for smartphones shifted. People did not want the keyboard based any more so as demand shifted so did did the androids offerings. Instead of offering an OS that would not even be desirable to consumers android was made touch orientated and DID COPY MULTITOUCH AND PINCH TO ZOOM however most of the things in the Os where virtually the same. Android being touch based does not make it an iOS copy. Having the grid of Icons is not because that was around far before iOS. If you use them both you will see the differences are vast.
Uh, what's an "App drawl"?
You are the ignorant one because you cannot see the difference between patents and trade dress.
Besides, the court cases involve the similarities rather than the differences.
The case is more than just about comparing photographs. But ... I was in a store today with the Samsung Galaxy SII in between a HTC and a LG Android phone. The three of them, when turned off, are indiscernible from 5 ft away (even though the sizes are slightly different).
It's fascinating how this shakes out. At the same time, it's silly to debate it so passionately here since no one is qualified to argue intelligently.
Forsaking Firewire, discontinuing Xserve may well be sound business decisions, despite incurring some customer wrath. One of Apple's tenets is that the customer does not know best. They have been proven right on this again and again.
You are the ignorant one because you cannot see the difference between patents and trade dress.
With all due respect, design patents and trade dress are in fact highly related. Consequently, emphasizing the *difference* between patents and trade dress as a means to attack someone does not make sense.
Apple realizes that the future is not in hardware. While there is growth and opportunity, the real future is in software, the cloud, apps, subscriptions, streaming data, Apple TV. So fast forward for a minute.......Apple wins their bans on the Asian hardware manufacturers running Android. They have few choices - 1)stop selling; not a viable option 2) dramatically redesign their smartphones to something very different to an iPhone look-a-like. this will take time, even years and they may never be able to get back into the game 3) agree to run iOS on all their phones and become part of the Apple ecosystem and abandon Google.
Could this be the main reason Google bought Motorola; did they see this in the cards???
What if all those Android phones became "iPhones" buying iTunes and 100MM's of apps from the Apple store, storing their data on iCloud and paying every year to do this.
Yeah that's a bit Orwellian. Keep your hands of my Droid, thanks. It can do tons of stuff even iPhone 4S with iOS can NOT do. Stuff I like. Like Flash. I can do things you are not allowed to do because Apple said so. Freedom of the market..what? How is yanking an open source OS from the market freedom of the market?
The flash debate is over ... haven't you heard? Flash is dead on mobile devices. That's funny that you still consider Flash a desireable "feature". I just returned from vacation. But, unless things have changed dramatically while I was away, Flash on a mobile device is not a feature nor desirable on ANY mobile platform.
Apple realizes that the future is not in hardware. While there is growth and opportunity, the real future is in software, the cloud, apps, subscriptions, streaming data, Apple TV..
Says who?
Apple is selling an ecosystem - hardware, software, and content combined. All three are important, but most of their REVENUE comes from hardware. Software and content serve to get people to spend their money on hardware.
Apple realizes that the future is not in hardware. While there is growth and opportunity, the real future is in software, the cloud, apps, subscriptions, streaming data, Apple TV. So fast forward for a minute.......Apple wins their bans on the Asian hardware manufacturers running Android. They have few choices - 1)stop selling; not a viable option 2) dramatically redesign their smartphones to something very different to an iPhone look-a-like. this will take time, even years and they may never be able to get back into the game 3) agree to run iOS on all their phones and become part of the Apple ecosystem and abandon Google.
Could this be the main reason Google bought Motorola; did they see this in the cards???
What if all those Android phones became "iPhones" buying iTunes and 100MM's of apps from the Apple store, storing their data on iCloud and paying every year to do this.
Watch out Google!!! Apple's got your number.
You don't pay attention to whats going on do you. Apple is just as likely to license out iOS as they are to license out MacOs Apple is a HARDWARE company. They make no money off of iOS. They make money off of people buying the iPhone for iOS. Think of iOS as the cheese on the string. No one is really interested in a string but put some good cheese on it and they will be grabbing on that string.
Second WTF is a iPhone look a like is this one
or maybe this one ...
Now that I look at it I could never tell the difference between those and this
The flash debate is over ... haven't you heard? Flash is dead on mobile devices. That's funny that you still consider Flash a desireable "feature". I just returned from vacation. But, unless things have changed dramatically while I was away, Flash on a mobile device is not a feature nor desirable on ANY mobile platform.
Everytime time I go to a flashy pron, it redirects me. In fact, half of the websites I got to redirect me to their mobile version. Flash is worthless if I can't get to a site that uses it.
Guess they should have thought about all of this before they ripped off Apple's IP.
Maybe Google should drop Android, buy WebOS and get back to work (keep the Android name, but change the guts).
Amazingly enough, it looks like WP7 is an example that it's possible to come up with a mobile OS without ripping off someone else's patents.
I know the devil is in the details, but overall, it appears that iOS, WebOS, whatever Blackberry has, and WP7 are all unique, and Android is the only one involved in theft.
Guess they should have thought about all of this before they ripped off Apple's IP.
Maybe Google should drop Android, buy WebOS and get back to work (keep the Android name, but change the guts).
Amazingly enough, it looks like WP7 is an example that it's possible to come up with a mobile OS without ripping off someone else's patents.
I know the devil is in the details, but overall, it appears that iOS, WebOS, whatever Blackberry has, and WP7 are all unique, and Android is the only one involved in theft.
Then again look at the sales of Windows Phone 7. PAPAPAPOW!
First of all google did not copy iOS it is really sad some people are to ignorant to understand that. First of all the way the two OSs operate is totally different. Google uses a virtual machine called Dalvic very similar to java in order to interact with the soft ware and the hardware. iOS does not use a virtual machine to interact with software and hardware it is more direct on soft ware communicates with the machine language.
The next thing that is completely different about the OSs is the user interface. iOS goes the way of have no home screen and having the user doing everything directly from the app drawl. Android however does it a differently. Android does it similar to how Blackberry OS and Windows mobile have done it for years. Android has an App drawl that all the apps are placed in. Then it has a seperate homescreen that the user interacts with. this home screen contains the shortcut to applications and widgets this is similar to those previous OSs.
What happened was Android was being developed to compete with the then current heavy weights of the industry and was taking the best things from those OSs and makign android with it. At that time smartphones where keyboard based. Then the iPhone was Released and the demand for smartphones shifted. People did not want the keyboard based any more so as demand shifted so did did the androids offerings. Instead of offering an OS that would not even be desirable to consumers android was made touch orientated and DID COPY MULTITOUCH AND PINCH TO ZOOM however most of the things in the Os where virtually the same. Android being touch based does not make it an iOS copy. Having the grid of Icons is not because that was around far before iOS. If you use them both you will see the differences are vast.
You do realize the lawsuits are not about how different Android is from iOS, the lawsuits are about the parts of iOS that HTC, Samsung, et. al. did steal from Apple. If the infringing parts were removed, the lawsuits would go away.
You do realize the lawsuits are not about how different Android is from iOS, the lawsuits are about the parts of iOS that HTC, Samsung, et. al. did steal from Apple. If the infringing parts were removed, the lawsuits would go away.
so then you retract your post above this one then?
Guess they should have thought about all of this before they ripped off Apple's IP.
Maybe Google should drop Android, buy WebOS and get back to work (keep the Android name, but change the guts).
Amazingly enough, it looks like WP7 is an example that it's possible to come up with a mobile OS without ripping off someone else's patents.
I know the devil is in the details, but overall, it appears that iOS, WebOS, whatever Blackberry has, and WP7 are all unique, and Android is the only one involved in theft.
The flash debate is over ... haven't you heard? Flash is dead on mobile devices. That's funny that you still consider Flash a desireable "feature". I just returned from vacation. But, unless things have changed dramatically while I was away, Flash on a mobile device is not a feature nor desirable on ANY mobile platform.
It's more about having the option to view it.
Flash is far from dead. Whether anyone likes it or not. I myself prefer HTML5 over flash, but look at most web application and web video that isn't currently on youtube. It's still in flash.
On my Android devices I just set flash to load on demand, rather than all flash on all websites all the time. This way I can keep super fast page loading while still having the option to access anything I want. To most people, this is a desirable feature. If flash support gets added to ios via Apple, people would be ecstatic. BUT....
A fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it.
Cognitive Dissonance. It affects everyone that brushes off Flash as if they don't want the ability to use it if they wanted to. The hardware is more than capable of running it
Comments
Really?
The one released AFTER the iPhone.
I'm not seeing it.
Chalk and cheese.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...=IQFRRS#x0y594
You're not seeing what? Did anyone claim that THAT phone was a copy of the iPhone?
I don't think that ANYONE has claimed that EVERY phone that came out after the iPhone was a copy. But the fact that one phone is different doesn't mean that none of the phones are copies. It does, however, prove that it IS possible to make a phone that looks different than the iPhone - which effectively negates the "but there's only one way to make a phone" argument.
You're not seeing what? Did anyone claim that THAT phone was a copy of the iPhone?
I don't think that ANYONE has claimed that EVERY phone that came out after the iPhone was a copy. But the fact that one phone is different doesn't mean that none of the phones are copies. It does, however, prove that it IS possible to make a phone that looks different than the iPhone - which effectively negates the "but there's only one way to make a phone" argument.
What are you and hill on about?
He was just saying it reminds him of it (that's allowed right?) More than the iPhone.
Also I don't give a damn of the iPhone was the first icon based os phone (it wasn't) no one should have a monopoly on icon grids.
However Samsung touchwhiz is too inspired by iOS. No real Android fan with a brain disputes that.
The "only one way" strawman you alluded to pertains to the tab and the injunction due to it's similarity to a drawing of a non existent product that shares a form factor with many pre iPad tablets.
First of all google did not copy iOS it is really sad some people are to ignorant to understand that. First of all the way the two OSs operate is totally different. Google uses a virtual machine called Dalvic very similar to java in order to interact with the soft ware and the hardware. iOS does not use a virtual machine to interact with software and hardware it is more direct on soft ware communicates with the machine language.
The next thing that is completely different about the OSs is the user interface. iOS goes the way of have no home screen and having the user doing everything directly from the app drawl. Android however does it a differently. Android does it similar to how Blackberry OS and Windows mobile have done it for years. Android has an App drawl that all the apps are placed in. Then it has a seperate homescreen that the user interacts with. this home screen contains the shortcut to applications and widgets this is similar to those previous OSs.
What happened was Android was being developed to compete with the then current heavy weights of the industry and was taking the best things from those OSs and makign android with it. At that time smartphones where keyboard based. Then the iPhone was Released and the demand for smartphones shifted. People did not want the keyboard based any more so as demand shifted so did did the androids offerings. Instead of offering an OS that would not even be desirable to consumers android was made touch orientated and DID COPY MULTITOUCH AND PINCH TO ZOOM however most of the things in the Os where virtually the same. Android being touch based does not make it an iOS copy. Having the grid of Icons is not because that was around far before iOS. If you use them both you will see the differences are vast.
Uh, what's an "App drawl"?
You are the ignorant one because you cannot see the difference between patents and trade dress.
Here's a link to a picture on Samsung's site:-
Besides, the court cases involve the similarities rather than the differences.
The case is more than just about comparing photographs. But ... I was in a store today with the Samsung Galaxy SII in between a HTC and a LG Android phone. The three of them, when turned off, are indiscernible from 5 ft away (even though the sizes are slightly different).
It's fascinating how this shakes out. At the same time, it's silly to debate it so passionately here since no one is qualified to argue intelligently.
hmmm, that was a stupid question in retrospect considering I knew people had issues with those three things. lol.
Not necessarily my opinion, but people didn't like:
1. The removal of FireWire on the MacBook in 2008 (resulting in a 1600+ user reply thread):
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._firewire.html
2. Discontinuation of the Xserve
(http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...n_31_2011.html
3. FCPX
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...essionals.html
Forsaking Firewire, discontinuing Xserve may well be sound business decisions, despite incurring some customer wrath. One of Apple's tenets is that the customer does not know best. They have been proven right on this again and again.
FCPX may be a different story. As is Ping.
Uh, what's an "App drawl"?
You are the ignorant one because you cannot see the difference between patents and trade dress.
With all due respect, design patents and trade dress are in fact highly related. Consequently, emphasizing the *difference* between patents and trade dress as a means to attack someone does not make sense.
Uh, what's an "App drawl"?
I believe it's a reference to how Tim Cook talks about apps.
Apple realizes that the future is not in hardware. While there is growth and opportunity, the real future is in software, the cloud, apps, subscriptions, streaming data, Apple TV. So fast forward for a minute.......Apple wins their bans on the Asian hardware manufacturers running Android. They have few choices - 1)stop selling; not a viable option 2) dramatically redesign their smartphones to something very different to an iPhone look-a-like. this will take time, even years and they may never be able to get back into the game 3) agree to run iOS on all their phones and become part of the Apple ecosystem and abandon Google.
Could this be the main reason Google bought Motorola; did they see this in the cards???
What if all those Android phones became "iPhones" buying iTunes and 100MM's of apps from the Apple store, storing their data on iCloud and paying every year to do this.
Watch out Google!!! Apple's got your number.
Yeah that's a bit Orwellian. Keep your hands of my Droid, thanks. It can do tons of stuff even iPhone 4S with iOS can NOT do. Stuff I like. Like Flash. I can do things you are not allowed to do because Apple said so. Freedom of the market..what? How is yanking an open source OS from the market freedom of the market?
The flash debate is over ... haven't you heard? Flash is dead on mobile devices. That's funny that you still consider Flash a desireable "feature". I just returned from vacation. But, unless things have changed dramatically while I was away, Flash on a mobile device is not a feature nor desirable on ANY mobile platform.
Here's a thought.
Apple realizes that the future is not in hardware. While there is growth and opportunity, the real future is in software, the cloud, apps, subscriptions, streaming data, Apple TV..
Says who?
Apple is selling an ecosystem - hardware, software, and content combined. All three are important, but most of their REVENUE comes from hardware. Software and content serve to get people to spend their money on hardware.
Here's a thought.
Apple realizes that the future is not in hardware. While there is growth and opportunity, the real future is in software, the cloud, apps, subscriptions, streaming data, Apple TV. So fast forward for a minute.......Apple wins their bans on the Asian hardware manufacturers running Android. They have few choices - 1)stop selling; not a viable option 2) dramatically redesign their smartphones to something very different to an iPhone look-a-like. this will take time, even years and they may never be able to get back into the game 3) agree to run iOS on all their phones and become part of the Apple ecosystem and abandon Google.
Could this be the main reason Google bought Motorola; did they see this in the cards???
What if all those Android phones became "iPhones" buying iTunes and 100MM's of apps from the Apple store, storing their data on iCloud and paying every year to do this.
Watch out Google!!! Apple's got your number.
You don't pay attention to whats going on do you. Apple is just as likely to license out iOS as they are to license out MacOs Apple is a HARDWARE company. They make no money off of iOS. They make money off of people buying the iPhone for iOS. Think of iOS as the cheese on the string. No one is really interested in a string but put some good cheese on it and they will be grabbing on that string.
Second WTF is a iPhone look a like is this one
or maybe this one ...
Now that I look at it I could never tell the difference between those and this
The flash debate is over ... haven't you heard? Flash is dead on mobile devices. That's funny that you still consider Flash a desireable "feature". I just returned from vacation. But, unless things have changed dramatically while I was away, Flash on a mobile device is not a feature nor desirable on ANY mobile platform.
Everytime time I go to a flashy pron, it redirects me. In fact, half of the websites I got to redirect me to their mobile version. Flash is worthless if I can't get to a site that uses it.
Maybe Google should drop Android, buy WebOS and get back to work (keep the Android name, but change the guts).
Amazingly enough, it looks like WP7 is an example that it's possible to come up with a mobile OS without ripping off someone else's patents.
I know the devil is in the details, but overall, it appears that iOS, WebOS, whatever Blackberry has, and WP7 are all unique, and Android is the only one involved in theft.
Guess they should have thought about all of this before they ripped off Apple's IP.
Maybe Google should drop Android, buy WebOS and get back to work (keep the Android name, but change the guts).
Amazingly enough, it looks like WP7 is an example that it's possible to come up with a mobile OS without ripping off someone else's patents.
I know the devil is in the details, but overall, it appears that iOS, WebOS, whatever Blackberry has, and WP7 are all unique, and Android is the only one involved in theft.
Then again look at the sales of Windows Phone 7. PAPAPAPOW!
First of all google did not copy iOS it is really sad some people are to ignorant to understand that. First of all the way the two OSs operate is totally different. Google uses a virtual machine called Dalvic very similar to java in order to interact with the soft ware and the hardware. iOS does not use a virtual machine to interact with software and hardware it is more direct on soft ware communicates with the machine language.
The next thing that is completely different about the OSs is the user interface. iOS goes the way of have no home screen and having the user doing everything directly from the app drawl. Android however does it a differently. Android does it similar to how Blackberry OS and Windows mobile have done it for years. Android has an App drawl that all the apps are placed in. Then it has a seperate homescreen that the user interacts with. this home screen contains the shortcut to applications and widgets this is similar to those previous OSs.
What happened was Android was being developed to compete with the then current heavy weights of the industry and was taking the best things from those OSs and makign android with it. At that time smartphones where keyboard based. Then the iPhone was Released and the demand for smartphones shifted. People did not want the keyboard based any more so as demand shifted so did did the androids offerings. Instead of offering an OS that would not even be desirable to consumers android was made touch orientated and DID COPY MULTITOUCH AND PINCH TO ZOOM however most of the things in the Os where virtually the same. Android being touch based does not make it an iOS copy. Having the grid of Icons is not because that was around far before iOS. If you use them both you will see the differences are vast.
You do realize the lawsuits are not about how different Android is from iOS, the lawsuits are about the parts of iOS that HTC, Samsung, et. al. did steal from Apple. If the infringing parts were removed, the lawsuits would go away.
You do realize the lawsuits are not about how different Android is from iOS, the lawsuits are about the parts of iOS that HTC, Samsung, et. al. did steal from Apple. If the infringing parts were removed, the lawsuits would go away.
so then you retract your post above this one then?
Guess they should have thought about all of this before they ripped off Apple's IP.
Maybe Google should drop Android, buy WebOS and get back to work (keep the Android name, but change the guts).
Amazingly enough, it looks like WP7 is an example that it's possible to come up with a mobile OS without ripping off someone else's patents.
I know the devil is in the details, but overall, it appears that iOS, WebOS, whatever Blackberry has, and WP7 are all unique, and Android is the only one involved in theft.
and IP infringement isn't theft.
The flash debate is over ... haven't you heard? Flash is dead on mobile devices. That's funny that you still consider Flash a desireable "feature". I just returned from vacation. But, unless things have changed dramatically while I was away, Flash on a mobile device is not a feature nor desirable on ANY mobile platform.
It's more about having the option to view it.
Flash is far from dead. Whether anyone likes it or not. I myself prefer HTML5 over flash, but look at most web application and web video that isn't currently on youtube. It's still in flash.
On my Android devices I just set flash to load on demand, rather than all flash on all websites all the time. This way I can keep super fast page loading while still having the option to access anything I want. To most people, this is a desirable feature. If flash support gets added to ios via Apple, people would be ecstatic. BUT....
- A fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it.
Cognitive Dissonance. It affects everyone that brushes off Flash as if they don't want the ability to use it if they wanted to. The hardware is more than capable of running it