i've seen both and they are pretty nice. even thought about trading my 4S for a Galaxy Note. I don't talk that much on it but it would be a lot better for reading than my 4S and i don't feel like buying another ipad
Galaxy Note looks completely ridiculous when you have to talk on it and try putting it in your pocket. Eeek! Its remote control envy all over again smartphone style.
Google's Android software is the mother of all plagiarism. It copies code lines from Oracle's Java and plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS. Before the advent of the iPhone, RIM's hardware was the target of its plagiarism. Even its intention to distribute its software through the web was shelved in favor of copying Apple's move. Of all the mobile phone softwares in existence, Android is 99% mimicry of the iOS software. As all other softwares have proven: there are other ways of creating softwares without infringing on others' IPs, but Google with its proven record of nefarious activities like advocating IP theft, identity theft and taking authors' works for free has this behaviorism built into its DNA. It is because of Google's behavior that has embolden Samsung, HTC and others to believe that there is only one way to produce a smartphone or a table, and that is to copy Apple's designs.
Every designer is given a clean rectangle to work on and it is up for each designer to come up with its own unique rectangle. If the designer cannot think of a better way to design the rectangle and claimed "prior art" as a defense for its plagiarism, then it deserves to be punished hard. Google, your time for retribution is not far off.
Good point. However, Google has done virtually nothing in the way of cooperating with licensors. It's the Android OEMs that have come under increasing pressure. Google's mobile IP portfolio is very thin, hence the Moto purchase. Google is content to watch their partners from the sidelines. They file briefs in defense of their partners now and then, but have so far not committed themselves in particular. Probably because it is in their best interests not to. At least not at the moment.
I don't see how Apple could ever go after Google over Android. It is difficult to calculate damages for a product Google doesn't sell. That is why Apple is going after handset makers.
What it may come down to is Google being sued by handset makers for legal fees and lost earnings. I think Apple is attempting inspire that mutiny. If handset makers feel using Android makes them a target for an Apple lawsuit, they may just wind up ditching Android for something else. There's already Tizen/MeeGo and, of course, Windows Phone. RIM will probably have to start licensing Blackberry OS soon if they have any chance of survival.
I don't think we've reached mutiny yet though. Samsung makes products that look like Apple products and it was shown they set out to imitate Apple. Whether simply having Android on your phone is enough to violate Apple patents is technically undecided. This case certainly doesn't hurt the argument though.
I have to think Microsoft is really pulling for Apple here. Apple suing over Android is probably the best way to inspire Windows Phone adoption by handset makers.
I don't see how Apple could ever go after Google over Android. It is difficult to calculate damages for a product Google doesn't sell. That is why Apple is going after handset makers.
What it may come down to is Google being sued by handset makers for legal fees and lost earnings. I think Apple is attempting inspire that mutiny. If handset makers feel using Android makes them a target for an Apple lawsuit, they may just wind up ditching Android for something else. There's already Tizen/MeeGo and, of course, Windows Phone. RIM will probably have to start licensing Blackberry OS soon if they have any chance of survival. I don't think we're there yet though. Samsung had knock off that looked like Apple products and it was shown they set out to do so. Whether simply having Android on your phone is enough to violate Apple patents is technically undecided. This case certainly doesn't hurt the argument though.
I have to think Microsoft is really pulling for Apple here. Apple suing over Android is probably the best way to inspire Windows Phone adoption by handset makers.
HP should perhaps rethink entering the mobile market with WebOS.
Mind you the argument that Apple can't sue Google as Google makes no money isn't totally convincing to me. Google makes plenty of money indirectly via advertising as a direct result of Android. Also I would be shocked if the law would see it that way anyway. It would still be illegal to forge dollar bills even if you gave them away. Then I am no lawyer so I could be wrong lol.
Well I'm not sure SJ actually gave Bill permission to reverse engineer Mac OS to make Windows in the first place lol. By the time Apple tried to take on the then tiny Microsoft to stop them they were hiding under IBM's apron.
please, microsoft was never small compared to apple in the past. and the osx thing was 20 years ago.
thus, apple made a few minor blunders in order for the microsoft thing to happen.
but, the .mov file format was almost co-opted (for .asf or .avi) because of microsofts disingenuous video editing pledges. (thus apple allegedly received an infusion of cash from that decision and the rest is history).., and in part why 80 percent of real video editting is done on something that isn't a microsoft video format.. IMO
DAMN! Just $10 per Android device would be about 2.5 BIL. extra per year for Apple! That's if the 700,000 activations per day x 365 days per year numbers are true.
Job's "I don't need your money" and Cook, "its about the innovation" seems to be Apple's view. I cannot imagine Apple investing much time or effort in leveraging patents as an income stream, and if they did it would either be itty bit with little value to its customers experience or if they made it a big business it would be to allow cloning - won't happen.
They will license patents that do not directly relate to user experience and my bet on FRAND terms even if they are not SEP. Android's challenge will be to create an experience that is not copying Apple, MS and others are doing this, their success is not guaranteed, but then neither was Apple's success in 2007, in fact, it was widely panned as doomed.
MS does have a business model regarding licensing and does make good income from Android with only Google-Motorola as the remaining big hold out. Although if they Metro takes off, we might see the terms for Android get a lot harder.
HP should perhaps rethink entering the mobile market with WebOS.
Mind you the argument that Apple can't sue Google as Google makes no money isn't totally convincing to me. Google makes plenty of money indirectly via advertising as a direct result of Android. Also I would be shocked if the law would see it that way anyway. It would still be illegal to forge dollar bills even if you gave them away. Then I am no lawyer so I could be wrong lol.
I overstated. They could but it would be much more difficult than going after handset makers. Besides, I don't see why Apple would go after Google directly. Stay strategic and don't let emotions get in the way. If Apple plays its cards right, there can chip away at Android and will have no reason to sue Google. If they scare handset makers away from Android, or at least turn them against Google, it would have a far greater impact than suing Google directly ever would. While I still think destroying Android entirely is highly unlikely, Apple's best chance of doing so is to sue the makers of Android phones until no one wants to touch Android with a 10 foot pole. Smaller companies means easier cases. Even if they settle and pay royalties in the short term, those companies that settle will like consider alternatives to Android to avoid paying large royalties to Apple.
And you're exactly right. Google DOES make money off of Android but proving that to a judge or jury just adds complexity. Apple never has to worry about making that argument when suing handset makers. The simpler the case, the more cut and dry the evidence, the easier it is to win.
Case in point: Samsung had a lot more reaching and stretching of "the truth" to do than Apple, and we see where it got them.
Maybe Apple did Samsung a favor in the long run, I'm sure they will design software and hardware that is even better than anything Apple could produce after all Korea like all Asia counties are a hot bed of creativity and individuality.
I like my funny with sarcasm.... How did you know?
Google's Android software is the mother of all plagiarism. It copies code lines from Oracle's Java and plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS. Before the advent of the iPhone, RIM's hardware was the target of its plagiarism. Even its intention to distribute its software through the web was shelved in favor of copying Apple's move. Of all the mobile phone softwares in existence, Android is 99% mimicry of the iOS software. As all other softwares have proven: there are other ways of creating softwares without infringing on others' IPs, but Google with its proven record of nefarious activities like advocating IP theft, identity theft and taking authors' works for free has this behaviorism built into its DNA. It is because of Google's behavior that has embolden Samsung, HTC and others to believe that there is only one way to produce a smartphone or a table, and that is to copy Apple's designs.
....
While we are listing the things Android stole, you might as well include the name also.
They started using it long before they actually got "permission" from George Lucas and only paid for it when they were called out on the issue. Stolen, the same with everything else they do. They do seem to pay up when caught red-handed though.
The ironic thing is that George Lucas should not have any say in the matter, since the common use of the term "Android" not only predates his stupid movies by decades, he also uses the term incorrectly (to refer to robots not androids), in any case.
Interesting that Android is already a revenue stream for Microsoft. Now it appears it might be a revenue stream for Apple.
So exactly what in Android *isn't* stolen?
Even more interesting:
<span style="color:rgb(44,44,44);font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;line-height:18px;text-align:justify;">“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong” (Steve Jobs, on Android)</span>
Sounds like Jobs knew exactly what he was talking about. It's amazing how so much of what some consider to be his his "crazy talk" turns out to be strangely clear and prescient later on.
i've seen both and they are pretty nice. even thought about trading my 4S for a Galaxy Note. I don't talk that much on it but it would be a lot better for reading than my 4S and i don't feel like buying another ipad
Liar, you just want a bigger screen for your digital subscription of Big 'Uns. Lol
While we are listing the things Android stole, you might as well include the name also.
They started using it long before they actually got "permission" from George Lucas and only paid for it when they were called out on the issue. Stolen, the same with everything else they do. They do seem to pay up when caught red-handed though.
The ironic thing is that George Lucas should not have any say in the matter, since the common use of the term "Android" not only predates his stupid movies by decades, he also uses the term incorrectly (to refer to robots not androids), in any case.
Droid had to be licensed not android. There's a disclaimer on every Droid commercial that the term is being used under license from George Lucas.
I tend to think Steve Jobs would accept that victory, though he'd probably rather Android be gone entirely.
Agree - there is no way Android will disappear and I am sure Apple is comfortable with that. I am also sure that in the end everybody, including the consumer will benefit from this verdict if it stands. Like someone said: surely there are more good designers than Jony Ive out there. So let them get to work and think different. I suspect a hell of a lot of designers, even Samsung ones are happy about this outcome. Maybe now they will be tasked with coming up with something cool. How dispiriting can it be for a design team to be tasked with copying?
I overstated. They could but it would be much more difficult than going after handset makers. Besides, I don't see why Apple would go after Google directly. Stay strategic and don't let emotions get in the way. If Apple plays its cards right, there can chip away at Android and will have no reason to sue Google. If they scare handset makers away from Android, or at least turn them against Google, it would have a far greater impact than suing Google directly ever would. While I still think destroying Android entirely is highly unlikely, Apple's best chance of doing so is to sue the makers of Android phones until no one wants to touch Android with a 10 foot pole. Smaller companies means easier cases. Even if they settle and pay royalties in the short term, those companies that settle will like consider alternatives to Android to avoid paying large royalties to Apple.
And you're exactly right. Google DOES make money off of Android but proving that to a judge or jury just adds complexity. Apple never has to worry about making that argument when suing handset makers. The simpler the case, the more cut and dry the evidence, the easier it is to win.
Case in point: Samsung had a lot more reaching and stretching of "the truth" to do than Apple, and we see where it got them.
Don't be surprised if Google abandons Android. Rumor has it that it's only a stepping stone for a Chrome mobile OS.
please, microsoft was never small compared to apple in the past. and the osx thing was 20 years ago.
thus, apple made a few minor blunders in order for the microsoft thing to happen.
but, the .mov file format was almost co-opted (for .asf or .avi) because of microsofts disingenuous video editing pledges. (thus apple allegedly received an infusion of cash from that decision and the rest is history).., and in part why 80 percent of real video editting is done on something that isn't a microsoft video format.. IMO
Who ever mentioned OS X? I was referring to Mac OS. It was my understanding that when Steve hired Microsoft develop Mac Office in 1983/84, Microsoft were still quite a small company, indeed smaller than the then Apple. I could be wrong, but that was my perception at the time.
Comments
Google will pay. They are the real target.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
And what did exactly prevent them from doing that in the past?
It's hard to be truly creative when they had their thousands of designers copying icons. (their words, not mine)
Google's Android software is the mother of all plagiarism. It copies code lines from Oracle's Java and plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS. Before the advent of the iPhone, RIM's hardware was the target of its plagiarism. Even its intention to distribute its software through the web was shelved in favor of copying Apple's move. Of all the mobile phone softwares in existence, Android is 99% mimicry of the iOS software. As all other softwares have proven: there are other ways of creating softwares without infringing on others' IPs, but Google with its proven record of nefarious activities like advocating IP theft, identity theft and taking authors' works for free has this behaviorism built into its DNA. It is because of Google's behavior that has embolden Samsung, HTC and others to believe that there is only one way to produce a smartphone or a table, and that is to copy Apple's designs.
Every designer is given a clean rectangle to work on and it is up for each designer to come up with its own unique rectangle. If the designer cannot think of a better way to design the rectangle and claimed "prior art" as a defense for its plagiarism, then it deserves to be punished hard. Google, your time for retribution is not far off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Good point. However, Google has done virtually nothing in the way of cooperating with licensors. It's the Android OEMs that have come under increasing pressure. Google's mobile IP portfolio is very thin, hence the Moto purchase. Google is content to watch their partners from the sidelines. They file briefs in defense of their partners now and then, but have so far not committed themselves in particular. Probably because it is in their best interests not to. At least not at the moment.
I don't see how Apple could ever go after Google over Android. It is difficult to calculate damages for a product Google doesn't sell. That is why Apple is going after handset makers.
What it may come down to is Google being sued by handset makers for legal fees and lost earnings. I think Apple is attempting inspire that mutiny. If handset makers feel using Android makes them a target for an Apple lawsuit, they may just wind up ditching Android for something else. There's already Tizen/MeeGo and, of course, Windows Phone. RIM will probably have to start licensing Blackberry OS soon if they have any chance of survival.
I don't think we've reached mutiny yet though. Samsung makes products that look like Apple products and it was shown they set out to imitate Apple. Whether simply having Android on your phone is enough to violate Apple patents is technically undecided. This case certainly doesn't hurt the argument though.
I have to think Microsoft is really pulling for Apple here. Apple suing over Android is probably the best way to inspire Windows Phone adoption by handset makers.
HP should perhaps rethink entering the mobile market with WebOS.
Mind you the argument that Apple can't sue Google as Google makes no money isn't totally convincing to me. Google makes plenty of money indirectly via advertising as a direct result of Android. Also I would be shocked if the law would see it that way anyway. It would still be illegal to forge dollar bills even if you gave them away. Then I am no lawyer so I could be wrong lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
What it may come down to is Google being sued by handset makers for legal fees and lost earnings. I think Apple is attempting inspire that mutiny. l.
Ahh . . . well that's interesting. That point isn't discussed very often. It's food for thought.
please, microsoft was never small compared to apple in the past. and the osx thing was 20 years ago.
thus, apple made a few minor blunders in order for the microsoft thing to happen.
but, the .mov file format was almost co-opted (for .asf or .avi) because of microsofts disingenuous video editing pledges. (thus apple allegedly received an infusion of cash from that decision and the rest is history).., and in part why 80 percent of real video editting is done on something that isn't a microsoft video format.. IMO
DAMN! Just $10 per Android device would be about 2.5 BIL. extra per year for Apple! That's if the 700,000 activations per day x 365 days per year numbers are true.
Job's "I don't need your money" and Cook, "its about the innovation" seems to be Apple's view. I cannot imagine Apple investing much time or effort in leveraging patents as an income stream, and if they did it would either be itty bit with little value to its customers experience or if they made it a big business it would be to allow cloning - won't happen.
They will license patents that do not directly relate to user experience and my bet on FRAND terms even if they are not SEP. Android's challenge will be to create an experience that is not copying Apple, MS and others are doing this, their success is not guaranteed, but then neither was Apple's success in 2007, in fact, it was widely panned as doomed.
MS does have a business model regarding licensing and does make good income from Android with only Google-Motorola as the remaining big hold out. Although if they Metro takes off, we might see the terms for Android get a lot harder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
HP should perhaps rethink entering the mobile market with WebOS.
Mind you the argument that Apple can't sue Google as Google makes no money isn't totally convincing to me. Google makes plenty of money indirectly via advertising as a direct result of Android. Also I would be shocked if the law would see it that way anyway. It would still be illegal to forge dollar bills even if you gave them away. Then I am no lawyer so I could be wrong lol.
I overstated. They could but it would be much more difficult than going after handset makers. Besides, I don't see why Apple would go after Google directly. Stay strategic and don't let emotions get in the way. If Apple plays its cards right, there can chip away at Android and will have no reason to sue Google. If they scare handset makers away from Android, or at least turn them against Google, it would have a far greater impact than suing Google directly ever would. While I still think destroying Android entirely is highly unlikely, Apple's best chance of doing so is to sue the makers of Android phones until no one wants to touch Android with a 10 foot pole. Smaller companies means easier cases. Even if they settle and pay royalties in the short term, those companies that settle will like consider alternatives to Android to avoid paying large royalties to Apple.
And you're exactly right. Google DOES make money off of Android but proving that to a judge or jury just adds complexity. Apple never has to worry about making that argument when suing handset makers. The simpler the case, the more cut and dry the evidence, the easier it is to win.
Case in point: Samsung had a lot more reaching and stretching of "the truth" to do than Apple, and we see where it got them.
I like my funny with sarcasm.... How did you know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsp
Google's Android software is the mother of all plagiarism. It copies code lines from Oracle's Java and plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS. Before the advent of the iPhone, RIM's hardware was the target of its plagiarism. Even its intention to distribute its software through the web was shelved in favor of copying Apple's move. Of all the mobile phone softwares in existence, Android is 99% mimicry of the iOS software. As all other softwares have proven: there are other ways of creating softwares without infringing on others' IPs, but Google with its proven record of nefarious activities like advocating IP theft, identity theft and taking authors' works for free has this behaviorism built into its DNA. It is because of Google's behavior that has embolden Samsung, HTC and others to believe that there is only one way to produce a smartphone or a table, and that is to copy Apple's designs.
....
While we are listing the things Android stole, you might as well include the name also.
They started using it long before they actually got "permission" from George Lucas and only paid for it when they were called out on the issue. Stolen, the same with everything else they do. They do seem to pay up when caught red-handed though.
The ironic thing is that George Lucas should not have any say in the matter, since the common use of the term "Android" not only predates his stupid movies by decades, he also uses the term incorrectly (to refer to robots not androids), in any case.
So true!
Liar, you just want a bigger screen for your digital subscription of Big 'Uns. Lol
Droid had to be licensed not android. There's a disclaimer on every Droid commercial that the term is being used under license from George Lucas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
I tend to think Steve Jobs would accept that victory, though he'd probably rather Android be gone entirely.
Agree - there is no way Android will disappear and I am sure Apple is comfortable with that. I am also sure that in the end everybody, including the consumer will benefit from this verdict if it stands. Like someone said: surely there are more good designers than Jony Ive out there. So let them get to work and think different. I suspect a hell of a lot of designers, even Samsung ones are happy about this outcome. Maybe now they will be tasked with coming up with something cool. How dispiriting can it be for a design team to be tasked with copying?
Don't be surprised if Google abandons Android. Rumor has it that it's only a stepping stone for a Chrome mobile OS.
Who ever mentioned OS X? I was referring to Mac OS. It was my understanding that when Steve hired Microsoft develop Mac Office in 1983/84, Microsoft were still quite a small company, indeed smaller than the then Apple. I could be wrong, but that was my perception at the time.