Come on guys - step away from the Kool-aid stand...
Apple's entire original OS was "inspired" by Xerox's UI- everyone knows that. But you don't see Xerox suing Apple today.
The "widget" interface, though used by Apple, is pretty much everywhere now - even without Google.
And REALLY now, would you REALLY want Steve to spend all $45B of (then) Apple's war chest on going after Google? As successful as Steve was, the board would fire him (AGAIN) over that.
Tim's management is beginning to impress me personally - he is addressing issues Steve largely ignored (dividends, worker conditions, cop orate dividends).
Steve was a great product visionary, but I have a feeling, Cook is a better managing CEO.
Well, Apple took the idea, hired the ORIGINAL engineers and re-invented it to make it a REAL product for the average consumer, which Xerox wasn't interested in doing and THEN Microsoft and everyone and their mother did. Tim has actually been running the company on a day to day basis for years as the COO, it is just that they get media attention on issues that got to the point because of Foxconn's management. Corporate Dividends is NOT Tim's idea, it comes from the Board of DIrectors. If they weren't ready to issue dividends, then that comes down from the Board of Directors.
You have to also understand that a lot of problems that are of legal nature have to have it go through the Legal Counsel's entire digestive tract a few times before they act on it. You know Corporate Attorneys are.
Anyone with a properly working frontal lobe knows Android is an blatant rip-off of the iPhone. I have no interest, and and am not the least bit convinced, by the trolls here that try to argue otherwise.
So why hasn't Apple sued Google to the ground for such obvious copy-catting and IP theft? There are no simple answers because the situation is quite complex.
What made the first iPhone so groundbreaking and game-changing was how it combined an exhaustive suite of Apple-owned inventions, patents, and UI breakthroughs, with existing licensed technologies into an industry disrupting device. It set the mobile industry scrambling for a competitive response.
But the iPhone's brilliance can be ascribed to the sum of its various technological parts, and that sum is not patentable. So what Apple did was patent the hundreds of inventions that went into the whole. That should have been enough to prevent a copycat like Android from happening. But it wasn't. Why?
First, let's take a look at Google and Apple's business models:
Apple's product: Consumer electronics
Apple's customer: You (consumer)
Google's product: You (your personal information)
Google's customer: Advertisers
Google doesn't care about consumers, and is not directly interested in making great products for people. That's why Google's customer service is non-existent. It doesn't care about you. It only wants your personal, and preferable private, information. That is why its services are 'free'. The real price you pay is your privacy.
So Google wants as much personal information from as many people as possible, and a huge part of this strategy is mobile. That is why it bought Android, which was a Blackberry clone. When iPhone was announced, Google rightfully changed course and started reworking Android to be an iPhone competitor. However Google didn't have anything close to Apple's levels of originality and innovation. So it copied, which was a calculated gamble. And ultimately a smart business move.
Google played its part brilliantly at making an iPhone clone. For example Google made enough minor modifications to each of its me-too features that would hopefully limit potential patent violation.
Meanwhile Apple licensed certain Google services such as Google Maps, so a direct lawsuit between the two giants would endanger those agreements and hurt Apple more than Google.
Also, there are anti-trust issues with Apple trying to take down a competitor, especially if the iPhone concept as a whole can't be defended.
Finally, Apple obviously did the math and realized that going head-to-head with Goggle would cause significant damage to both companies. So it went after third party hardware licensees instead.
As we've known for a while, Google is officially evil. It is not a company in the market of selling great technology but a company in the business of selling your personal information to advertisers. And having a dominant mobile platform is crucial to advancing that MO.
What I find most amusing are Google fanboys who are duped into the buying Android's "open" philosophy. Android is only open because Google is incapable of making Apple-like hardware (so far), and only desires to amass as much personal information as possible. If Google were able to copy Apple's end-to-end ecosystem, it would do so in a heartbeat.
I don't think Apple can take down Android. What it can and will do is continue to innovate while better protecting itself against copycats and clones. Hopefully that will lead to competitors that offer true alternatives and their own innovation (Windows Phone 7, although problematic, is on the right track).
As for Android. I actually had a Droid X for a year as a company phone. It was not very good mostly due to a sluggish UI, intermittently unresponsive keyboard, malware, inability to run OS updates, app incompatibility, terrible Flash performance, and poor half-day battery life. This is what I got when I chose a company that didn't care about consumers, and chose to copy instead of innovate.
What the hell is the deal with these disgusting Fandroid trolls?
They should immediately be banned, in my humble opinion. I'm not a mod of course, so that's just my personal view.
I don't come to Appleinsider to read lame, tasteless, immature jokes about a dead Steve Jobs, and I refuse to participate in the same thread where human vermin is also allowed to post. That's all that I have to say about this topic.
I tried to get them banned but somehow the admin people are sleeping. These Trolls you mention stepped over some serious border lines. These postes are far beyond anything acceptable and they push this forum deliberately into a s@@t pit.
I do, he gets credit but coming from a dead beat dad and having two step kids with a dead beat dad I can not over look it, will not over look it and will quickly point it out when people think this guy walked on water.
Ahhhhh, so this is the source of your misplaced anger. I mentioned setting a bad example earlier, I really hope you try to not speak poorly of their father around your step children. Even if he's terrible, and I'll take your word for it that he is, kids try to be like their parents naturally. Telling a child their parent is bad doesn't help the child avoid the same mistakes, it just ruins their self esteem.
Sometimes calling a spade a spade is a bad choice and not nearly as brave as people think. Sometimes it's destructive. In this case, to children.
There have been touch screen cell phones, apps on phones, and multitouch for decades. Do some reading if you were born too late to have seen any of this.
Wow. Ok, my first computer, I built from scratch. I laid out the PCB, etched it, populated it, etc. It was from my own design. This was because in the 1980s it was pretty expensive to buy a computer and I wanted to learn anyway. I've been around technology for those decades in question, and am well aware of the state of the art in UI over that period.
When you tell a blatant lie like you did above, and you act smug about it, you really just embarrass yourself.
The sad thing is, I think you lack the self awareness sufficient to be embarrassed about it.
And that, I am kinda shocked at.
I am starting to think these android scum are 18 years old... which means they were 13 when the iPhone came out, which means as long as they've been "conscious" touch screen phones have been standard.
They project their own ignorance onto us and think they we can't just point to the history books.
So, not only shameless and uneducated and dishonest, but stupid too.
Ahhhhh, so this is the source of your misplaced anger. I mentioned setting a bad example earlier, I really hope you try to not speak poorly of their father around your step children. Even if he's terrible, and I'll take your word for it that he is, kids try to be like their parents naturally. Telling a child their parent is bad doesn't help the child avoid the same mistakes, it just ruins their self esteem.
Sometimes calling a spade a spade is a bad choice and not nearly as brave as people think. Sometimes it's destructive. In this case, to children.
Misplaced? Anger? Everything I said he did, he did, you can not dispute it so misplaced I am not, angered, again I am not. I just like to point out to the Steve'o worshipers that the guy is a horrible human being and there is nothing they can do to counter it. He sucked as a person. Bottom line the truth is the truth and teaching kids not to hold themselves and people accountable will cause them to occupy wallstreet with their hands out.
Here is my take. There is a very large amount of fragmentation with Android. They don't have a very good way of creating THEIR own egosystem. Apple is just flat out better at it. Google is seen as a search company that bought YouTube. Google's whole way of doing business is EVERYTHING IS FREE except ad clicks, which they want people to do. Personally, I think some things with Open Source is good, but sometimes it creates a FREE FOR ALL and that creates chaos and uncertainty of the direction. Corporations, many individuals, other institutions don't want chaos. Chaos isn't good.
Judging from Google's corporate culture and surroundings, it looks like a playground for tech children with no structure. They don't have what I see as any real taste in their GUI, their web site design, their marketing, etc. They obviously have a sense of humor that is cute, but sometimes it is kind of immature for a company of their size. The name alone is something synonymous with a company not to be taken seriously. Would you buy a car from a company named Google? It sounds like they make high tech toy doll.. Hey, it's a Google. That's my first impression with them when I first heard the name. And they still haven't made me take them seriously. Hey, I have a Samsung Galaxy with Google Android version Ice Cream Sandwhich. WTF!! That sound like a problem not a business or communication tool.
I think settlement could be good for Apple, provide they're the one who get financial benefit of course. How is it not good for Apple if they could add cost into Android? Destroying Android just isn't a reality.
I have to say I do think Android is currently on it's way to oblivion. The fault lines that exist now among manufacturers and Google are pretty obvious. Not all of them will break out their own version, but just enough will to make the current mess that is the Android market look organized. Apple's real strength is in their ability to play the cell companies off against each other. If ATT and Verizon have enough clout they will force the manufacturers to cut them in on the revenue stream and this will create chaos with each country having it's own couple of versions of Android.
The real question about any settlement is how much money will Apple get and how crippled will the version that works around all of the Apple patents they are unwilling to license. If Apple gets 10 times Googles current take or $17.50 a handset and don't have to give all Android access to all their IP, then it will only be a matter of time until Android dies.
The children of Android are another question. What will some one do with the current source code after they have forked it? Will Microsoft and Nokia claw their way back from the graveyard? Can Samsung learn to innovate rather than copy?
The children of Android are another question. What will some one do with the current source code after they have forked it?
Well, if they fork the android source, they're still going to be in violation of the patents, which means either they can't' do business for 20 years, or they have to pay Apple licensing fees.
There have been touch screen cell phones, apps on phones, and multitouch for decades. Do some reading if you were born too late to have seen any of this.
Ok, name this touch screen cell phone, with apps, and multi-touch that existed in 1992.
The cellphone industry barely existed, let along smartphones.
But if you're right, you should be able to name one.
So name it.
Quote:
Frankly, I don't care what the average dimwit thinks based on some rants on the internet.
You think there was an iPhone in 1992 and I'm the "dimwit". All you have are insults and lies, which tells us everything we could want to know about you,.
If google's intent was to copy iOS verbatim, they could've done a much better job.
Wow. This really is a lost cause. You point out their lies are lies and they just make up more lies.
I think they're pathological. Its like a religion. They'll never see because they're incapable of seeing anything other than their ideological perspective.
This is why they don't care about the facts or history, or any of it.
Wow. Ok, my first computer, I built from scratch. I laid out the PCB, etched it, populated it, etc. It was from my own design. This was because in the 1980s it was pretty expensive to buy a computer and I wanted to learn anyway. I've been around technology for those decades in question, and am well aware of the state of the art in UI over that period.
I reported your post for breaking forum rules. Try having an argument without insulting, it only reflects back on you anyway.
If you're so savvy about technology, then you should know about the technology preceding the iPhone. Symbian had apps and app stores; resistive, infrared, and capacitive touch phones had been made; and multitouch was demoed by Microsoft among others years before the iPhone. So your original post was wrong. I may have been wrong about "decades", it certainly feels like that now, but even a couple of years before is still before the iPhone.
Ok, name this touch screen cell phone, with apps, and multi-touch that existed in 1992.
The cellphone industry barely existed, let along smartphones.
But if you're right, you should be able to name one.
So name it.
You think there was an iPhone in 1992 and I'm the "dimwit". All you have are insults and lies, which tells us everything we could want to know about you,.
You started with the insults. 1992? That assumes two decades back from now, which can be inferred from my post where I used the same word as you had; the gist was that those things existed before the iPhone, which is only 5 years old.
Comments
I make a simple post about a guy living in his parent's basement and the mods are all over it.
On the other hand some twit can come on here and disparage Steve Job's death in several posts and the mods just let it continue.
Public figures are fair game for insults. Private posters are not.
That is the difference.
Come on guys - step away from the Kool-aid stand...
Apple's entire original OS was "inspired" by Xerox's UI- everyone knows that. But you don't see Xerox suing Apple today.
The "widget" interface, though used by Apple, is pretty much everywhere now - even without Google.
And REALLY now, would you REALLY want Steve to spend all $45B of (then) Apple's war chest on going after Google? As successful as Steve was, the board would fire him (AGAIN) over that.
Tim's management is beginning to impress me personally - he is addressing issues Steve largely ignored (dividends, worker conditions, cop orate dividends).
Steve was a great product visionary, but I have a feeling, Cook is a better managing CEO.
Well, Apple took the idea, hired the ORIGINAL engineers and re-invented it to make it a REAL product for the average consumer, which Xerox wasn't interested in doing and THEN Microsoft and everyone and their mother did. Tim has actually been running the company on a day to day basis for years as the COO, it is just that they get media attention on issues that got to the point because of Foxconn's management. Corporate Dividends is NOT Tim's idea, it comes from the Board of DIrectors. If they weren't ready to issue dividends, then that comes down from the Board of Directors.
You have to also understand that a lot of problems that are of legal nature have to have it go through the Legal Counsel's entire digestive tract a few times before they act on it. You know Corporate Attorneys are.
So why hasn't Apple sued Google to the ground for such obvious copy-catting and IP theft? There are no simple answers because the situation is quite complex.
What made the first iPhone so groundbreaking and game-changing was how it combined an exhaustive suite of Apple-owned inventions, patents, and UI breakthroughs, with existing licensed technologies into an industry disrupting device. It set the mobile industry scrambling for a competitive response.
But the iPhone's brilliance can be ascribed to the sum of its various technological parts, and that sum is not patentable. So what Apple did was patent the hundreds of inventions that went into the whole. That should have been enough to prevent a copycat like Android from happening. But it wasn't. Why?
First, let's take a look at Google and Apple's business models:
Apple's product: Consumer electronics
Apple's customer: You (consumer)
Google's product: You (your personal information)
Google's customer: Advertisers
Google doesn't care about consumers, and is not directly interested in making great products for people. That's why Google's customer service is non-existent. It doesn't care about you. It only wants your personal, and preferable private, information. That is why its services are 'free'. The real price you pay is your privacy.
So Google wants as much personal information from as many people as possible, and a huge part of this strategy is mobile. That is why it bought Android, which was a Blackberry clone. When iPhone was announced, Google rightfully changed course and started reworking Android to be an iPhone competitor. However Google didn't have anything close to Apple's levels of originality and innovation. So it copied, which was a calculated gamble. And ultimately a smart business move.
Google played its part brilliantly at making an iPhone clone. For example Google made enough minor modifications to each of its me-too features that would hopefully limit potential patent violation.
Meanwhile Apple licensed certain Google services such as Google Maps, so a direct lawsuit between the two giants would endanger those agreements and hurt Apple more than Google.
Also, there are anti-trust issues with Apple trying to take down a competitor, especially if the iPhone concept as a whole can't be defended.
Finally, Apple obviously did the math and realized that going head-to-head with Goggle would cause significant damage to both companies. So it went after third party hardware licensees instead.
As we've known for a while, Google is officially evil. It is not a company in the market of selling great technology but a company in the business of selling your personal information to advertisers. And having a dominant mobile platform is crucial to advancing that MO.
What I find most amusing are Google fanboys who are duped into the buying Android's "open" philosophy. Android is only open because Google is incapable of making Apple-like hardware (so far), and only desires to amass as much personal information as possible. If Google were able to copy Apple's end-to-end ecosystem, it would do so in a heartbeat.
I don't think Apple can take down Android. What it can and will do is continue to innovate while better protecting itself against copycats and clones. Hopefully that will lead to competitors that offer true alternatives and their own innovation (Windows Phone 7, although problematic, is on the right track).
As for Android. I actually had a Droid X for a year as a company phone. It was not very good mostly due to a sluggish UI, intermittently unresponsive keyboard, malware, inability to run OS updates, app incompatibility, terrible Flash performance, and poor half-day battery life. This is what I got when I chose a company that didn't care about consumers, and chose to copy instead of innovate.
Public figures are fair game for insults. Private posters are not.
That is the difference.
Oh, fuck off!
When AI stoops to allowing people to make crude death jokes about dead people, especially Steve Jobs, then it's time to shut the place down.
If it's so ovbious a cut and dry rip-off then why hasn't it been stopped and ordered to cease and desist already?
?To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.--Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd!?
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
Oh, fuck off!
When AI stoops to allowing people to make crude death jokes about dead people, especially Steve Jobs, then it's time to shut the place down.
He is right.
He is right.
Yes I am.
What the hell is the deal with these disgusting Fandroid trolls?
They should immediately be banned, in my humble opinion. I'm not a mod of course, so that's just my personal view.
I don't come to Appleinsider to read lame, tasteless, immature jokes about a dead Steve Jobs, and I refuse to participate in the same thread where human vermin is also allowed to post. That's all that I have to say about this topic.
I tried to get them banned but somehow the admin people are sleeping. These Trolls you mention stepped over some serious border lines. These postes are far beyond anything acceptable and they push this forum deliberately into a s@@t pit.
I do, he gets credit but coming from a dead beat dad and having two step kids with a dead beat dad I can not over look it, will not over look it and will quickly point it out when people think this guy walked on water.
Ahhhhh, so this is the source of your misplaced anger. I mentioned setting a bad example earlier, I really hope you try to not speak poorly of their father around your step children. Even if he's terrible, and I'll take your word for it that he is, kids try to be like their parents naturally. Telling a child their parent is bad doesn't help the child avoid the same mistakes, it just ruins their self esteem.
Sometimes calling a spade a spade is a bad choice and not nearly as brave as people think. Sometimes it's destructive. In this case, to children.
There have been touch screen cell phones, apps on phones, and multitouch for decades. Do some reading if you were born too late to have seen any of this.
Wow. Ok, my first computer, I built from scratch. I laid out the PCB, etched it, populated it, etc. It was from my own design. This was because in the 1980s it was pretty expensive to buy a computer and I wanted to learn anyway. I've been around technology for those decades in question, and am well aware of the state of the art in UI over that period.
When you tell a blatant lie like you did above, and you act smug about it, you really just embarrass yourself.
The sad thing is, I think you lack the self awareness sufficient to be embarrassed about it.
And that, I am kinda shocked at.
I am starting to think these android scum are 18 years old... which means they were 13 when the iPhone came out, which means as long as they've been "conscious" touch screen phones have been standard.
They project their own ignorance onto us and think they we can't just point to the history books.
So, not only shameless and uneducated and dishonest, but stupid too.
Ahhhhh, so this is the source of your misplaced anger. I mentioned setting a bad example earlier, I really hope you try to not speak poorly of their father around your step children. Even if he's terrible, and I'll take your word for it that he is, kids try to be like their parents naturally. Telling a child their parent is bad doesn't help the child avoid the same mistakes, it just ruins their self esteem.
Sometimes calling a spade a spade is a bad choice and not nearly as brave as people think. Sometimes it's destructive. In this case, to children.
Misplaced? Anger? Everything I said he did, he did, you can not dispute it so misplaced I am not, angered, again I am not. I just like to point out to the Steve'o worshipers that the guy is a horrible human being and there is nothing they can do to counter it. He sucked as a person. Bottom line the truth is the truth and teaching kids not to hold themselves and people accountable will cause them to occupy wallstreet with their hands out.
Yes I am.
Wrong person being right. Steve'o is fair game, even if some worship the ground he WALKED on, members of the forum, not so much.
Judging from Google's corporate culture and surroundings, it looks like a playground for tech children with no structure. They don't have what I see as any real taste in their GUI, their web site design, their marketing, etc. They obviously have a sense of humor that is cute, but sometimes it is kind of immature for a company of their size. The name alone is something synonymous with a company not to be taken seriously. Would you buy a car from a company named Google? It sounds like they make high tech toy doll.. Hey, it's a Google. That's my first impression with them when I first heard the name. And they still haven't made me take them seriously. Hey, I have a Samsung Galaxy with Google Android version Ice Cream Sandwhich. WTF!! That sound like a problem not a business or communication tool.
I think settlement could be good for Apple, provide they're the one who get financial benefit of course. How is it not good for Apple if they could add cost into Android? Destroying Android just isn't a reality.
I have to say I do think Android is currently on it's way to oblivion. The fault lines that exist now among manufacturers and Google are pretty obvious. Not all of them will break out their own version, but just enough will to make the current mess that is the Android market look organized. Apple's real strength is in their ability to play the cell companies off against each other. If ATT and Verizon have enough clout they will force the manufacturers to cut them in on the revenue stream and this will create chaos with each country having it's own couple of versions of Android.
The real question about any settlement is how much money will Apple get and how crippled will the version that works around all of the Apple patents they are unwilling to license. If Apple gets 10 times Googles current take or $17.50 a handset and don't have to give all Android access to all their IP, then it will only be a matter of time until Android dies.
The children of Android are another question. What will some one do with the current source code after they have forked it? Will Microsoft and Nokia claw their way back from the graveyard? Can Samsung learn to innovate rather than copy?
The children of Android are another question. What will some one do with the current source code after they have forked it?
Well, if they fork the android source, they're still going to be in violation of the patents, which means either they can't' do business for 20 years, or they have to pay Apple licensing fees.
*cough
Andriod before iPhone; Andriod after iPhone.
I assume that this is the android prototype you're referencing:
Here is the HTC Dream aka G1, widely considered the first android phone, released approx 1 year after the iphone:
So, what drastic changes did google make to android to make it a verbatim copy of iOS?
The notification system remained largely unchanged, and completely different from the one on the iPhone.
The desktop functionality was expanded to include widgets... instead of being reduced to a grid of icons, like the iPhone.
The dock was replaced with a shortcut to the app drawer... unlike the iPhone
The standard android buttons remained the same, and not replaced with a single home button, like the iPhone.
The form factor went from a candybar portrait QWERTY to a landscape slide out QWERTY, instead of the candybar form of the iPhone.
If google's intent was to copy iOS verbatim, they could've done a much better job.
There have been touch screen cell phones, apps on phones, and multitouch for decades. Do some reading if you were born too late to have seen any of this.
Ok, name this touch screen cell phone, with apps, and multi-touch that existed in 1992.
The cellphone industry barely existed, let along smartphones.
But if you're right, you should be able to name one.
So name it.
Frankly, I don't care what the average dimwit thinks based on some rants on the internet.
You think there was an iPhone in 1992 and I'm the "dimwit". All you have are insults and lies, which tells us everything we could want to know about you,.
If google's intent was to copy iOS verbatim, they could've done a much better job.
Wow. This really is a lost cause. You point out their lies are lies and they just make up more lies.
I think they're pathological. Its like a religion. They'll never see because they're incapable of seeing anything other than their ideological perspective.
This is why they don't care about the facts or history, or any of it.
Like mindless zombies.
Wow. Ok, my first computer, I built from scratch. I laid out the PCB, etched it, populated it, etc. It was from my own design. This was because in the 1980s it was pretty expensive to buy a computer and I wanted to learn anyway. I've been around technology for those decades in question, and am well aware of the state of the art in UI over that period.
I reported your post for breaking forum rules. Try having an argument without insulting, it only reflects back on you anyway.
If you're so savvy about technology, then you should know about the technology preceding the iPhone. Symbian had apps and app stores; resistive, infrared, and capacitive touch phones had been made; and multitouch was demoed by Microsoft among others years before the iPhone. So your original post was wrong. I may have been wrong about "decades", it certainly feels like that now, but even a couple of years before is still before the iPhone.
Ok, name this touch screen cell phone, with apps, and multi-touch that existed in 1992.
The cellphone industry barely existed, let along smartphones.
But if you're right, you should be able to name one.
So name it.
You think there was an iPhone in 1992 and I'm the "dimwit". All you have are insults and lies, which tells us everything we could want to know about you,.
You started with the insults. 1992? That assumes two decades back from now, which can be inferred from my post where I used the same word as you had; the gist was that those things existed before the iPhone, which is only 5 years old.