One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.
Copying involves reproducing something wholesale and leaving the original intact.
Stealing involves taking something and making it your own; the original owner is left with nothing.
This was linked to by Gruber, whom I completely detest, but he is right. And Ford is dead on when he says the T.S. Elliot's comment is "the most apt description of the difference between Apple’s vision for iOS and Google’s for Android I’ve ever read." It really is.
Nor a capacitive touch screen, nor multitouch, nor a real browser, nor a decent music/audio playback, nor usable screen for mutimedia, nor built in store to buy music.
This is an early Android prototype from when Google was still ripping off Palm and BlackBerry.
If Eric Schmidt hadn't done his amateur corporate espionage bit, Android phones might still look like this.
A lot of people quote this prototype picture as evidence that google drastically changed android post iphone to copy it. Yet, if you actually look at the OS, it seems that the opposite is true; the core of android remained mostly the same.
This is what google eventually released:
So, show me what has drastically changed, because I don't see it:
The notification system is largely the same as the prototype; they didn't change it to match iOS'.
The desktop was expanded to include widgets; a feature that iOS doesn't have.
The dock was already in place in the prototype, so its not copied from iOS.
The navigation buttons remained the same; they didn't copy iOS' singular home button.
The prototype was already touch capable, so they didn't lift that from iOS either.
The form factor changed from a candybar QWERTY keyboard to a slide out QWERTY keyboard, so even that is not copied from the iPhone.
Now, did the iPhone affected android in ways? Of course, you'll be delusional to think that google didn't consider features in the iPhone prior to releasing Android. However considering how similar the core of the final release of android is to the prototype, you have to be equally as delusional to think that google drastically changed android to be a clone of iOS.
Is your argument that because Apple created the Newton in 1987 (or thereabout), that no designer of mobile technology should be able to use any abstract idea involved in it? Form, function, design, color, input, output, etc.?
This argument is ridiculous. Would you argue that Ford should claim intellectual property on the Model T, and that all other vehicles are stealing from his design?
Is that really your agument? Or do you simply want someone to acknowledge that Android has derived in some way from an Apple Newton?
Are you still droning on about touch screens? The capacitive touch screens are one of the ways Apple set their iPhone apart (unlike that resistive POS you pasted). Were there other phones using capacitive touch? Maybe, but none implemented it in a user-friendly, intuitive, multi-touch manner the way Apple did. No one. You can't say that about Android because there is always the iPhone getting in the way.
Comments
He wanted to stifle competition.
Samsung i330
Circa 2002
He wanted to stifle theft.
Fixed.
Samsung i330
Circa 2002
APPLE OBVIOUSLY COPIED THIS. THIS IMAGE IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
Seriously, stay out of this argument. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Are Apple products 100% original ideas that Jobs pulled out of his ass with no influences?
Hypocrite much?
Didn't Android have wireless synching a couple years before iOS, among other features?
Are Apple products 100% original ideas that Jobs pulled out of his ass with no influences?
Hypocrite much?
Go back and read my last post.
There's a big difference between using an idea and an implementation. Apple does the former. Google thrives on the latter.
There's a big difference between using an idea and an implementation. Apple does the former. Google thrives on the latter.
So what is the difference then? Explain it. Clearly.
Fixed.
APPLE OBVIOUSLY COPIED THIS. THIS IMAGE IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
Seriously, stay out of this argument. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You cant say that Apple was the originator/inventor of a touch screen based PDA + phone.
There is nothing "revolutionary" Apple has done at least on the product side.
What they HAVE "revolutionized" is in the way ordinary people now knew of a technology product.
All of this was thanks to Apple's marketing team, aka the fluff.
Go back and read my last post.
There's a big difference between using an idea and an implementation. Apple does the former. Google thrives on the latter.
what implementations has Android "Stolen" btw?
You cant say that Apple was the originator/inventor of a touch screen based PDA + phone.
Oh, good. Glad we cleared that up. Except no one is saying that, so your argument is meaningless.
What they HAVE "revolutionized" is in the way ordinary people now knew of a technology product.
Define "knew of". What does "knew of" mean to you?
All of this was thanks to Apple's marketing team, aka the fluff.
Except nope. It pretty much entirely hinges on iPhone OS and its ability to do what no other system prior had.
Kettle mean pot
Palm TX from 2005
iPhone
One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.
For those unable to see the distinction:
http://brianericford.tumblr.com/post.../great-artists
This was linked to by Gruber, whom I completely detest, but he is right. And Ford is dead on when he says the T.S. Elliot's comment is "the most apt description of the difference between Apple’s vision for iOS and Google’s for Android I’ve ever read." It really is.
Kettle mean pot
Palm TX from 2005
iPhone
Android is no more "stolen" from iOS than iOS is "stolen" from Windows Mobile, which is to say Windows Mobile is "stolen" from Palm.
Nor a capacitive touch screen, nor multitouch, nor a real browser, nor a decent music/audio playback, nor usable screen for mutimedia, nor built in store to buy music.
This is an early Android prototype from when Google was still ripping off Palm and BlackBerry.
If Eric Schmidt hadn't done his amateur corporate espionage bit, Android phones might still look like this.
A lot of people quote this prototype picture as evidence that google drastically changed android post iphone to copy it. Yet, if you actually look at the OS, it seems that the opposite is true; the core of android remained mostly the same.
This is what google eventually released:
So, show me what has drastically changed, because I don't see it:
The notification system is largely the same as the prototype; they didn't change it to match iOS'.
The desktop was expanded to include widgets; a feature that iOS doesn't have.
The dock was already in place in the prototype, so its not copied from iOS.
The navigation buttons remained the same; they didn't copy iOS' singular home button.
The prototype was already touch capable, so they didn't lift that from iOS either.
The form factor changed from a candybar QWERTY keyboard to a slide out QWERTY keyboard, so even that is not copied from the iPhone.
Now, did the iPhone affected android in ways? Of course, you'll be delusional to think that google didn't consider features in the iPhone prior to releasing Android. However considering how similar the core of the final release of android is to the prototype, you have to be equally as delusional to think that google drastically changed android to be a clone of iOS.
And they all are stolen from Apple's Newton.
Is your argument that because Apple created the Newton in 1987 (or thereabout), that no designer of mobile technology should be able to use any abstract idea involved in it? Form, function, design, color, input, output, etc.?
This argument is ridiculous. Would you argue that Ford should claim intellectual property on the Model T, and that all other vehicles are stealing from his design?
Is that really your agument? Or do you simply want someone to acknowledge that Android has derived in some way from an Apple Newton?
Samsung i330
Circa 2002
Are you still droning on about touch screens? The capacitive touch screens are one of the ways Apple set their iPhone apart (unlike that resistive POS you pasted). Were there other phones using capacitive touch? Maybe, but none implemented it in a user-friendly, intuitive, multi-touch manner the way Apple did. No one. You can't say that about Android because there is always the iPhone getting in the way.
There's a big difference between using an idea and an implementation. Apple does the former. Google thrives on the latter.
So what is the difference then? Explain it. Clearly.
I already did.
Ideas can not be legally protected. It is impossible to get a valid copyright, patent, trademark, or design patent on an ideal.
IMPLEMENTATION can be patented, trademarked, copyrighted, etc - so it is legally protectable.
There is nothing legally wrong with using an idea. It IS wrong to use an implementation which is protected by intellectual property laws.
Example:
Idea: connecting devices wirelessly
Implementation: Using a specific circuitry and specific radio wave communication covered by patent xxxxxxxxx.