FYI, the resolution of that thing equaled the iphone, with winmob already having 640x480 screens. The browser in that thing could render webpages just fine - it was much better than the pathetic IE4 in winmob. In fact, it could download prc files from the web browser and install them without a computer either, oh snap.
The point is, the iphone isn't a totally new device, they didn't come up with the multi-touch gestures completely, and as usually, innovated in key areas. If Steve is so upset with someone taking his ideas, what about all the others's ideas he "stole" before him?
What about the color depth of the display, or even that allowed by the OS? Did the browser render a majority of web pages even remotely close to what a desktop browser would (hint: the answer in the case of Palm's Blazer is NO, and I say that from experience)? Since these devices already had what others claim made the iPhone better, what was the adoption rate of Palm and Windows Mobile devices in comparison to all other phones at that time?
The issue is not whether smartphones and PDAs existed prior to the iPhone. The issue is whether or not the competition unethically leveraged the work that Apple put into hitting so many of the right notes with the iPhone. The individual ideas were not entirely new, but the functionality and accessibility of the whole were roundly hailed as a revolution in the mobile industry. Just because the pieces existed before doesn't diminish what it took to put them together.
I don't think Steve Jobs was adamant that nobody else was allowed to make a smartphone. I think he was pissed at what he perceived to be negligible differentiation in aspects of the competition's implementation. His perception was his reality, and he had more knowledge of what conversations took place than any of us do, whether you'd like to admit that or not.
Speaking of Nokia ( I know, I know!), SockRolid posted a timeline of mobile device evolution above, which I think is very incomplete without the NIT 770 from 2005.
Wasn't that a DED image, he likes to rewrite history, there are a lot of devices missing from it
The fact that "people who think Steve jobs is infallible" wasn't used in place of any other argument and then argued against then no, he did not use it correctly.
It absolutely was used in that way.
You can look at the comment to which I responded as evidence.
Believe me: As much respect as I have for Steve Jobs, and it's a lot, I don't think he was infallible. No one is. Real life is more complicated than the comics I love to read. But that person implied that people were saying that Jobs was perfect. NO one was saying that.
What about the color depth of the display, or even that allowed by the OS? Did the browser render a majority of web pages even remotely close to what a desktop browser would (hint: the answer in the case of Palm's Blazer is NO, and I say that from experience)? Since these devices already had what others claim made the iPhone better, what was the adoption rate of Palm and Windows Mobile devices in comparison to all other phones at that time?
Decent screen for the time, but the phone side of things wasn't as big since they wanted to conserve battery life. I hated that but that's life back in 2005 prior. The adaption rate was decent also for Palm devices, though they still needed to get rid of aging garnet.
Quote:
The issue is not whether smartphones and PDAs existed prior to the iPhone. The issue is whether or not the competition unethically leveraged the work that Apple put into hitting so many of the right notes with the iPhone. The individual ideas were not entirely new, but the functionality and accessibility of the whole were roundly hailed as a revolution in the mobile industry. Just because the pieces existed before doesn't diminish what it took to put them together.
Unethical? Wrong to copy ideas, as in "shameless"?
Quote:
I don't think Steve Jobs was adamant that nobody else was allowed to make a smartphone. I think he was pissed at what he perceived to be negligible differentiation in aspects of the competition's implementation. His perception was his reality, and he had more knowledge of what conversations took place than any of us do, whether you'd like to admit that or not.
Negligible? He's pissed over pinch to zoom. So what. What about all the others who came up with pinch gestures before him in the link I posted back on page 3? All those who came up with all the hardware to actually implement his idea vs. his stupid lame attempts at patenting software heuristics long in use before he claimed it?
Let's put this another way: Why isn't he hell bent on destroying webOS, another OS that took all his ideas as well?
Let's put this another way: Why isn't he hell bent on destroying webOS, another OS that took all his ideas as well?
I don't know if it's been mentioned but a few times in this thread alone, but maybe because Palm didn't have their CEO on Apple's board during the production of a device they would eventually compete with. Nobody even knew at that time if Android was going anywhere. If Schmidt used any information gleaned from his time on Apple's board to compete against them, that would be a breach of trust. Are you in a position to know that didn't happen? I don't know that it did, but apparently Jobs felt that way. Even if Google had done it, would you honestly expect them to acknowledge culpability? Only the insiders know what really happened.
At least Jobs could feel comfortable knowing that a Palm employee didn't just waltz into Apple's boardroom prior to the iPhone's release, play with it, see something impressive, and mutter "I think we could do something like this too." It took Palm two years to launch a competing product. In less than a year, Android took a different form factor from what everyone outside of Google knew it to be in 2007. Interpret history however you want, more people are going to read his version (a first hand account from Apple's perspective) than yours (hearsay from either side). Are you going to try to "correct" all that disagree with you when you can't possibly know what the truth is?
I've already explained multiple times the difference between using an idea which is not protectable and copying an implementation which is protected by intellectual property rights. Are you refusing to understand that because you're intellectually incapable of comprehending that simple concept or because you're intentionally trolling?
Actually, he does - and he used the term correctly. You appear to be the one who is babbling about things you don't understand.
Lolz, aren't you the SAME ONE who couldn't respond when I DO provide evidence to you given the premise?
Hold on, I'mma let you finish, but:
Quote:
jragoasta wrote: What's that got to do with anything (and, no, I'm not angry). You claimed that iPhone 4 cases might not work on the iPhone 4S. Yet all the evidence (see above) says that they will.
So where's the evidence to support your claim that iPhone 4 cases might not work? Alternatively, feel free to withdraw your FUD.
Trolling, not likely. At least I can back stuf up.
Lolz, aren't you the SAME ONE who couldn't respond when I DO provide evidence to you given the premise?
Hold on, I'mma let you finish, but:
Trolling, not likely. At least I can back stuf up.
It looks like the CDMA iPhone 4. A lot of GSM iPhone 4 cases still worked with the CDMA iPhone. And many of those that didn't had updated versions released. Most importantly, the 4S and 4 have the exact same dimensions.
Lolz, aren't you the SAME ONE who couldn't respond when I DO provide evidence to you given the premise?
Trolling, not likely. At least I can back stuf up.
So what? The phones have their switches in a slightly different location. Big deal. That doesn't prove that the same cases wouldn't work. Apple specifically states that their bumpers work with both. Every report I've seen says that the minor difference in switch location does not affect how the cases work- and a couple of reviews specifically commented on it. They said that the difference in location did NOT prevent the case from working.
So I'm STILL waiting for you to back up your claim that iPhone 4 cases wouldn't work with the 4S.
FYI, the resolution of that thing equaled the iphone, with winmob already having 640x480 screens. The browser in that thing could render webpages just fine - it was much better than the pathetic IE4 in winmob. In fact, it could download prc files from the web browser and install them without a computer either, oh snap.
The point is, the iphone isn't a totally new device, they didn't come up with the multi-touch gestures completely, and as usually, innovated in key areas. If Steve is so upset with someone taking his ideas, what about all the others's ideas he "stole" before him?
The funny thing is that the IDEA was there. I've an a Palm device (pre palm os). It's quite similar to iPhone on the outside. It has apps too and just realized how similar it was. It had a grid of icons.
The iPhone DID utilize the IDEA but totally revolutionized it.
I'm tired of thse Apple Fanboys defending Apple "Oh, but that's NOT the same. It was a SMALLER SCREEN!" By this logic, if Android largely doesn't violate any patents, then it did NOT copy. At all.
You are correct, the iPhone isn't toally new. It's ignorant to say something like how it's so new. The way it was designed is incredible.
For example, 3D gaming was used on the NES (Active shutter glasses, mind you). The Gensis and N64 had online gaming (DLC). But the Xbox and Dreamcast (more or less) is credited with online gaming today.
So what? The phones have their switches in a slightly different location. Big deal. That doesn't prove that the same cases wouldn't work. Apple specifically states that their bumpers work with both. Every report I've seen says that the minor difference in switch location does not affect how the cases work- and a couple of reviews specifically commented on it. They said that the difference in location did NOT prevent the case from working.
So I'm STILL waiting for you to back up your claim that iPhone 4 cases wouldn't work with the 4S.
Not enough? How about the words out of the spokeperson's mouth?
Quote:
"Existing OtterBox case options designed for the original Apple iPhone 4, with the exception of the Reflex Series, will not accommodate the new iPhone 4S. OtterBox will offer iPhone 4S cases in Impact Series, Commuter Series, Reflex Series and Defender Series beginning Oct. 14, which will also accommodate all versions of the iPhone 4."
Still not enough? I've got plenty of sources.
I never said that all won't work. The ATT iPhone 4 cases probaly won't work, but the Verizon should.
Steve is wrong on so many fronts when it comes to "ideas". Thomas Edison, Henry Ford do NOT control every car/light bulb that exists. However they were able to profit and set the direction. Yet we recognize their genius by how these products/innovations change how we live and experience life. Steve should just take his direction and collect patent fees. Android lovers will whine about this, but Microsoft is doing this to perfection. MS does it from a follower perspective to slow growth, Apple can do it from a leadership perspective to EXPAND their growth. What do you think pays for SURI, ICLOUD. Hell they could offer these for free and use the PATENTS to pay for them. Everyone wants to settle with Apple. Steve is the classic "ARTIST" "UNIQUE". He can't stand someone copying his idea. He would be pissed if a sibling wore the same clothes he did. Life doesn't allow us to have it both ways. If he can get past his narcissism and see HE is changing the world and his influence leads and he is paid for those efforts, what left are you looking for?
I don't know if it's been mentioned but a few times in this thread alone, but maybe because Palm didn't have their CEO on Apple's board during the production of a device they would eventually compete with. Nobody even knew at that time if Android was going anywhere. If Schmidt used any information gleaned from his time on Apple's board to compete against them, that would be a breach of trust. Are you in a position to know that didn't happen? I don't know that it did, but apparently Jobs felt that way. Even if Google had done it, would you honestly expect them to acknowledge culpability? Only the insiders know what really happened.
At least Jobs could feel comfortable knowing that a Palm employee didn't just waltz into Apple's boardroom prior to the iPhone's release, play with it, see something impressive, and mutter "I think we could do something like this too." It took Palm two years to launch a competing product. In less than a year, Android took a different form factor from what everyone outside of Google knew it to be in 2007. Interpret history however you want, more people are going to read his version (a first hand account from Apple's perspective) than yours (hearsay from either side). Are you going to try to "correct" all that disagree with you when you can't possibly know what the truth is?
Actually, there was some friction between Apple and Palm when the Pre came out. It just wasn't about the OS. The CEO (Rubenstein - a former Apple executive) had the bright idea to have the Pre spoof itself as an iPhone when connected to iTunes. They were able to do this because Rubenstein was in charge of the iPod division when at Apple. A bunch of updates killing the function were issued along with statements but no lawsuits that I can remember.
I think Apple never went after WebOS is because Palm has/had a ton of (non-FRAND) mobile patents.
Well, we now finally know why Apple is saving up that enormous pile of cash - $80B+ and probably approaching $100B by June.
Google market cap today: $188B
For a hostile takeover you need what percentage of the total value of your target? About 50%, right, and you finance the rest?
I forgot to include Google's cash position. At the end of September it was $42.6B. Market cap yesterday was $192B. Actual cost to acquire is $150B ($192B - $42B).
Apple already has more than 50% of the acquisition cost in the bank.
And selling Android (which would be required by the FTC) would reduce the cost further.
Remember previous musings as to why Apple never got into search? Well, if they had their own search, and it was successful, they would never be allowed to acquire Google.
Crazy idea, I know, but I bet they are/were thinking about it, given the context: "Steve vowed to destroy Android."
One of the best ways to destroy Android would be to remove Android's Google subsidy and make it survive on its own.
Well, we now finally know why Apple is saving up that enormous pile of cash - $80B+ and probably approaching $100B by June.
Google market cap today: $188B
For a hostile takeover you need what percentage of the total value of your target? About 50%, right, and you finance the rest?
I STILL believe that Apple should have bought Dell, shut it down, and given the money back to the shareholders. It gets easier for them to do that every day; they have more money than of which Dell could ever dream.
I STILL believe that Apple should have bought Dell, shut it down, and given the money back to the shareholders. It gets easier for them to do that every day; they have more money than of which Dell could ever dream.
What's the point of that? Granted I do hate Dell (They used to be SOOO good) , but I can't see the benefit.
Comments
FYI, the resolution of that thing equaled the iphone, with winmob already having 640x480 screens. The browser in that thing could render webpages just fine - it was much better than the pathetic IE4 in winmob. In fact, it could download prc files from the web browser and install them without a computer either, oh snap.
The point is, the iphone isn't a totally new device, they didn't come up with the multi-touch gestures completely, and as usually, innovated in key areas. If Steve is so upset with someone taking his ideas, what about all the others's ideas he "stole" before him?
What about the color depth of the display, or even that allowed by the OS? Did the browser render a majority of web pages even remotely close to what a desktop browser would (hint: the answer in the case of Palm's Blazer is NO, and I say that from experience)? Since these devices already had what others claim made the iPhone better, what was the adoption rate of Palm and Windows Mobile devices in comparison to all other phones at that time?
The issue is not whether smartphones and PDAs existed prior to the iPhone. The issue is whether or not the competition unethically leveraged the work that Apple put into hitting so many of the right notes with the iPhone. The individual ideas were not entirely new, but the functionality and accessibility of the whole were roundly hailed as a revolution in the mobile industry. Just because the pieces existed before doesn't diminish what it took to put them together.
I don't think Steve Jobs was adamant that nobody else was allowed to make a smartphone. I think he was pissed at what he perceived to be negligible differentiation in aspects of the competition's implementation. His perception was his reality, and he had more knowledge of what conversations took place than any of us do, whether you'd like to admit that or not.
To what?
Having a clue. Pretty obvious, really. Then again I suppose it's not surprising your ignorant about that too.
Whatever.
Indeed. Thank goodness the board has an ignore function - quite handy, really.
Speaking of Nokia (
Wasn't that a DED image, he likes to rewrite history, there are a lot of devices missing from it
deleted
The fact that "people who think Steve jobs is infallible" wasn't used in place of any other argument and then argued against then no, he did not use it correctly.
It absolutely was used in that way.
You can look at the comment to which I responded as evidence.
Believe me: As much respect as I have for Steve Jobs, and it's a lot, I don't think he was infallible. No one is. Real life is more complicated than the comics I love to read. But that person implied that people were saying that Jobs was perfect. NO one was saying that.
It's a straw man argument, through and through.
What about the color depth of the display, or even that allowed by the OS? Did the browser render a majority of web pages even remotely close to what a desktop browser would (hint: the answer in the case of Palm's Blazer is NO, and I say that from experience)? Since these devices already had what others claim made the iPhone better, what was the adoption rate of Palm and Windows Mobile devices in comparison to all other phones at that time?
Decent screen for the time, but the phone side of things wasn't as big since they wanted to conserve battery life. I hated that but that's life back in 2005 prior. The adaption rate was decent also for Palm devices, though they still needed to get rid of aging garnet.
The issue is not whether smartphones and PDAs existed prior to the iPhone. The issue is whether or not the competition unethically leveraged the work that Apple put into hitting so many of the right notes with the iPhone. The individual ideas were not entirely new, but the functionality and accessibility of the whole were roundly hailed as a revolution in the mobile industry. Just because the pieces existed before doesn't diminish what it took to put them together.
Unethical? Wrong to copy ideas, as in "shameless"?
I don't think Steve Jobs was adamant that nobody else was allowed to make a smartphone. I think he was pissed at what he perceived to be negligible differentiation in aspects of the competition's implementation. His perception was his reality, and he had more knowledge of what conversations took place than any of us do, whether you'd like to admit that or not.
Negligible? He's pissed over pinch to zoom. So what. What about all the others who came up with pinch gestures before him in the link I posted back on page 3? All those who came up with all the hardware to actually implement his idea vs. his stupid lame attempts at patenting software heuristics long in use before he claimed it?
Let's put this another way: Why isn't he hell bent on destroying webOS, another OS that took all his ideas as well?
Let's put this another way: Why isn't he hell bent on destroying webOS, another OS that took all his ideas as well?
I don't know if it's been mentioned but a few times in this thread alone, but maybe because Palm didn't have their CEO on Apple's board during the production of a device they would eventually compete with. Nobody even knew at that time if Android was going anywhere. If Schmidt used any information gleaned from his time on Apple's board to compete against them, that would be a breach of trust. Are you in a position to know that didn't happen? I don't know that it did, but apparently Jobs felt that way. Even if Google had done it, would you honestly expect them to acknowledge culpability? Only the insiders know what really happened.
At least Jobs could feel comfortable knowing that a Palm employee didn't just waltz into Apple's boardroom prior to the iPhone's release, play with it, see something impressive, and mutter "I think we could do something like this too." It took Palm two years to launch a competing product. In less than a year, Android took a different form factor from what everyone outside of Google knew it to be in 2007. Interpret history however you want, more people are going to read his version (a first hand account from Apple's perspective) than yours (hearsay from either side). Are you going to try to "correct" all that disagree with you when you can't possibly know what the truth is?
None that Apple needs.
Stop posting. Read. Learn. THEN you can post.
I've already explained multiple times the difference between using an idea which is not protectable and copying an implementation which is protected by intellectual property rights. Are you refusing to understand that because you're intellectually incapable of comprehending that simple concept or because you're intentionally trolling?
Actually, he does - and he used the term correctly. You appear to be the one who is babbling about things you don't understand.
Lolz, aren't you the SAME ONE who couldn't respond when I DO provide evidence to you given the premise?
Hold on, I'mma let you finish, but:
jragoasta wrote: What's that got to do with anything (and, no, I'm not angry). You claimed that iPhone 4 cases might not work on the iPhone 4S. Yet all the evidence (see above) says that they will.
So where's the evidence to support your claim that iPhone 4 cases might not work? Alternatively, feel free to withdraw your FUD.
Trolling, not likely. At least I can back stuf up.
Apple designed the processor in the iPhone, Samsung is the manufacturer.
Well, yeah but wouldn't it put them in an akward situation if Samsung just up and left?
Second, it's the wireless 3G (I think?) patents Samsung holds that they could potentially use to hold back Apple.
Lolz, aren't you the SAME ONE who couldn't respond when I DO provide evidence to you given the premise?
Hold on, I'mma let you finish, but:
Trolling, not likely. At least I can back stuf up.
It looks like the CDMA iPhone 4. A lot of GSM iPhone 4 cases still worked with the CDMA iPhone. And many of those that didn't had updated versions released. Most importantly, the 4S and 4 have the exact same dimensions.
Lolz, aren't you the SAME ONE who couldn't respond when I DO provide evidence to you given the premise?
Trolling, not likely. At least I can back stuf up.
So what? The phones have their switches in a slightly different location. Big deal. That doesn't prove that the same cases wouldn't work. Apple specifically states that their bumpers work with both. Every report I've seen says that the minor difference in switch location does not affect how the cases work- and a couple of reviews specifically commented on it. They said that the difference in location did NOT prevent the case from working.
So I'm STILL waiting for you to back up your claim that iPhone 4 cases wouldn't work with the 4S.
FYI, the resolution of that thing equaled the iphone, with winmob already having 640x480 screens. The browser in that thing could render webpages just fine - it was much better than the pathetic IE4 in winmob. In fact, it could download prc files from the web browser and install them without a computer either, oh snap.
The point is, the iphone isn't a totally new device, they didn't come up with the multi-touch gestures completely, and as usually, innovated in key areas. If Steve is so upset with someone taking his ideas, what about all the others's ideas he "stole" before him?
The funny thing is that the IDEA was there. I've an a Palm device (pre palm os). It's quite similar to iPhone on the outside. It has apps too and just realized how similar it was. It had a grid of icons.
The iPhone DID utilize the IDEA but totally revolutionized it.
I'm tired of thse Apple Fanboys defending Apple "Oh, but that's NOT the same. It was a SMALLER SCREEN!" By this logic, if Android largely doesn't violate any patents, then it did NOT copy. At all.
You are correct, the iPhone isn't toally new. It's ignorant to say something like how it's so new. The way it was designed is incredible.
For example, 3D gaming was used on the NES (Active shutter glasses, mind you). The Gensis and N64 had online gaming (DLC). But the Xbox and Dreamcast (more or less) is credited with online gaming today.
So what? The phones have their switches in a slightly different location. Big deal. That doesn't prove that the same cases wouldn't work. Apple specifically states that their bumpers work with both. Every report I've seen says that the minor difference in switch location does not affect how the cases work- and a couple of reviews specifically commented on it. They said that the difference in location did NOT prevent the case from working.
So I'm STILL waiting for you to back up your claim that iPhone 4 cases wouldn't work with the 4S.
Here ya go.
Not enough? How about the words out of the spokeperson's mouth?
"Existing OtterBox case options designed for the original Apple iPhone 4, with the exception of the Reflex Series, will not accommodate the new iPhone 4S. OtterBox will offer iPhone 4S cases in Impact Series, Commuter Series, Reflex Series and Defender Series beginning Oct. 14, which will also accommodate all versions of the iPhone 4."
Still not enough? I've got plenty of sources.
I never said that all won't work. The ATT iPhone 4 cases probaly won't work, but the Verizon should.
I don't know if it's been mentioned but a few times in this thread alone, but maybe because Palm didn't have their CEO on Apple's board during the production of a device they would eventually compete with. Nobody even knew at that time if Android was going anywhere. If Schmidt used any information gleaned from his time on Apple's board to compete against them, that would be a breach of trust. Are you in a position to know that didn't happen? I don't know that it did, but apparently Jobs felt that way. Even if Google had done it, would you honestly expect them to acknowledge culpability? Only the insiders know what really happened.
At least Jobs could feel comfortable knowing that a Palm employee didn't just waltz into Apple's boardroom prior to the iPhone's release, play with it, see something impressive, and mutter "I think we could do something like this too." It took Palm two years to launch a competing product. In less than a year, Android took a different form factor from what everyone outside of Google knew it to be in 2007. Interpret history however you want, more people are going to read his version (a first hand account from Apple's perspective) than yours (hearsay from either side). Are you going to try to "correct" all that disagree with you when you can't possibly know what the truth is?
Actually, there was some friction between Apple and Palm when the Pre came out. It just wasn't about the OS. The CEO (Rubenstein - a former Apple executive) had the bright idea to have the Pre spoof itself as an iPhone when connected to iTunes. They were able to do this because Rubenstein was in charge of the iPod division when at Apple. A bunch of updates killing the function were issued along with statements but no lawsuits that I can remember.
I think Apple never went after WebOS is because Palm has/had a ton of (non-FRAND) mobile patents.
Well, we now finally know why Apple is saving up that enormous pile of cash - $80B+ and probably approaching $100B by June.
Google market cap today: $188B
For a hostile takeover you need what percentage of the total value of your target? About 50%, right, and you finance the rest?
I forgot to include Google's cash position. At the end of September it was $42.6B. Market cap yesterday was $192B. Actual cost to acquire is $150B ($192B - $42B).
Apple already has more than 50% of the acquisition cost in the bank.
And selling Android (which would be required by the FTC) would reduce the cost further.
Remember previous musings as to why Apple never got into search? Well, if they had their own search, and it was successful, they would never be allowed to acquire Google.
Crazy idea, I know, but I bet they are/were thinking about it, given the context: "Steve vowed to destroy Android."
One of the best ways to destroy Android would be to remove Android's Google subsidy and make it survive on its own.
Well, we now finally know why Apple is saving up that enormous pile of cash - $80B+ and probably approaching $100B by June.
Google market cap today: $188B
For a hostile takeover you need what percentage of the total value of your target? About 50%, right, and you finance the rest?
I STILL believe that Apple should have bought Dell, shut it down, and given the money back to the shareholders. It gets easier for them to do that every day; they have more money than of which Dell could ever dream.
I STILL believe that Apple should have bought Dell, shut it down, and given the money back to the shareholders. It gets easier for them to do that every day; they have more money than of which Dell could ever dream.
What's the point of that? Granted I do hate Dell (They used to be SOOO
What's the point of that? Granted I do hate Dell (They used to be SOOO
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-203937.html