This is an interesting idea that, yes, will probably get copied by other companies in some shape or form. I remember seeing that Kinect video a few years ago, same basic idea except you had to wear glasses with IR lights on either side for it to track you.
erm.... except the existing Kinect does these things, and has done them for several years now, with no glasses with IR lights required.... even AI which is usually somewhat Apple biased couldn't release an article showing these patents without mentioning that other companies already have products out that are doing these things.
I don't really view Apple as a 'copycat' for following others into the space, just as I won't look at anyone else who enters the market as 'copying' Apple. I hope many do enter and they all compete with each other and drive some great products.
I always read the articles before I link'em. Google is doing the same thing Apple and IBM does. Flood the USPTO with patent applications, file for everything and anything, try to stake some claim to anything you think might be of value to your future business, understanding that a significant portion of whatever ends up issued will be invalidated if challenged. Quality isn't as important as quantity.
Since you always provide a link in your posts I must say you are either a fast reader or have quite a lot of time on your hands to keep up with so much tech news.
The amount of patents Apple files is also ridiculous, guess they need to in order to prevent stuff rather than seeing all these products coming to life. With the widespread area Google is in it doesn't surprise me they file for so many patents.
Since you always provide a link in your posts I must say you are either a fast reader or have quite a lot of time on your hands to keep up with so much tech news.
The amount of patents Apple files is also ridiculous, guess they need to in order to prevent stuff rather than seeing all these products coming to life. With the widespread area Google is in it doesn't surprise me they file for so many patents.
I've always been a very fast reader. It helps that I've always enjoyed it since I was a kid, and I'll read almost anything. I remember walking to the library a couple times a week when still in grade school. It was one of those old Carnegie libraries, still there too just as it was. Really cool classic design
This post of yours Mel, would be perfect for sites such as CNet or ZDNet, where Apple never did anything of significance. I'm very surprised to see it here.
Keep in mind that between 2001 (iPod) and 2007 (iPhone) there's a 6 year gap. Ground breaking, trend setting innovation takes time. But it also has to be released at the right time, when the technology supporting it is ripe. Case in point, tablet computers. Wasn't Microsoft and partners trying to get them in people's hands way before there ever was an iPad?
Just because Apple won't release a beta product (Google Glass) it doesn't mean that Jony Ive, Craig Federighi, Eddy Cue and company are sitting around downing brewskies and high fiving each other.
1) Not necessarily from melgross but I see a lot of people ignore the yearly innovations Apple not only releases but also talks up during their events. For some reason, since the iPhone launched the only innovations that have become meaningful to some are brand new product categories.
2) I would love for Apple to events every month showing a brand new product category but that's only because my perception of Apple releasing a new product category is that it's been thoughtfully considered and is ready to be released. If that changes then my desire for Apple to release new product categories will also change. I don't think what Google is doing is healthy for the long term.
This post of yours Mel, would be perfect for sites such as CNet or ZDNet, where Apple never did anything of significance. I'm very surprised to see it here.
Keep in mind that between 2001 (iPod) and 2007 (iPhone) there's a 6 year gap. Ground breaking, trend setting innovation takes time. But it also has to be released at the right time, when the technology supporting it is ripe. Case in point, tablet computers. Wasn't Microsoft and partners trying to get them in people's hands way before there ever was an iPad?
Just because Apple won't release a beta product (Google Glass) it doesn't mean that Jony Ive, Craig Federighi, Eddy Cue and company are sitting around downing brewskies and high fiving each other.
I've been heavily involved with Apple since 1988. I'm not writing a post for c/net. I'm writing a post to people who, for the most part here, are interested in knowing what the rest of the people on the site think, as many of us have known each other for years. No one here would think that I deliberately diss Apple. Some think I defend them too much. Just ask Garorguy, with whom I have a friendly (I hope!) adversarial relationship. I suppose that's a good middle ground.
My complaint here is that, it's true, Apple does a lot of research, but more often that not, we don't get to use the results of that. I've never said that Apple does nothing of significance. If you think I did, then you had better read my post again. Obviously, Apple does things of significance. More than most companies in the business.
But, and it's a real but, often, Apple does some wonderful things in their R&D, but it never materializes as a product, even as something for us to try out. The aTv is an interesting product, but I wish they did more with it already.
The problem is that Apple has been unwilling to have any product that isn't a halo product. So in,es it's an accessory for so e other product, we just don't see so ethi g that won't sell in high numbers, but is interesting in its own right.
When Apple was a small company, this could be expected, but today, they can do anything they want. But they are very careful to think long on what they are going to do. I don't believe they need to do that. If they've got so ethi g interesting in the lab, and this is particularly true for software, let it out. Tell us it's an experiment. Tell us it may never become a real product. But give us something interesting to see and handle.
Yes, I know that seems far out to you. After all, why should they? But why not? A lot of companies do that. It would make Apple more interesting again. So give us another experimental UI, and let us play with it. It doesn't have to be the real UI, just something we can download and install on top of the OS to feel and comment on. The point I'm making, and it's partly facetious, I admit, is that they're falling behind in the spin area. Just having something interesting would help to end that.
Oh, and Apple does release beta products, and hobby products. Let's not pretend otherwise.
I always read the articles before I link'em. Google is doing the same thing Apple and IBM does. Flood the USPTO with patent applications, file for everything and anything, try to stake some claim to anything you think might be of value to your future business, understanding that a significant portion of whatever ends up issued will be invalidated if challenged. Quality isn't as important as quantity.
Well, not really. Google has always been weak in R&D. That's not something to really argue about. Until they bought up many patents, they had a small number they came up with on their own, or ended up with after buying companies that had their own. Google has relied in taking IP from other companies, using it, then complaining when caught, that they were "innovating". The companies they stole that from don't agree. So now they are busily buying up patents. Most seem to have no direct value to them, though they don't appear to be good at evaluating that beforehand. Such as with Motorola.
While Apple, Microsoft and others are also buying up patents, both Apple and Microsoft actually do far more real research than does Google. Even Glass has little that's new about it.
Apple Inc. is looking for mechanical engineers to design new input device products, subsystems, and modules to support the Mac and iOS product lines. The candidate will primarily work on ground up designs in partnership with electrical engineering and firmware cross functional teams. Their responsibilities will span from technology development and concept generation to detailed design, analysis and testing through mass production ramp. There is an emphasis on optimizing and enhancing the ergonomic interaction between the user and the product.
Yeah. I'm getting a little tired of Apple as of late. While they seem to do a lot of interesting research, they also seem to rarely do much with it. They appear to be to afraid to actually take a chance. And for those who think that's Cook's problem, it's not. SJ wasn't any better.
I'd like to see a product (or several) from them that incorporates a number of these inventions, even if they're not entirely ready for prime time. Apple could state that they are "hobbies", or experimental' or whatever. Just DO something! I understand Apple's penchant for only releasing products that they think are perfected (though often we find they are not). But Google has no problem with releasing things that aren't, and doing well with them.
Apple has lost the belief that they are innovating. Whether true or not, it's one reason the stock is where it is. So it takes them years to come out with a watch. Maybe it will be great, and maybe it will bomb. But meanwhile, give us SOMETHING! There's no reason it took so many years before we got API's for handheld controllers, for example. Why weren't they out in 2008? Think of how things could have been different.
We're talking about saphirre screens and Liquidmetal on Seeking Alpha. I'm wary of either. While both sound nice, the costs will be significant, and what real benefit will there be? Yes, saphirre is less scratchable. But Gorilla Glass is already pretty hard to scratch. Less breakable? Yes, but better design would go a long way there too. As it is, the 5, 5S and 5C are all much better than the 4 and 4S in that regard. Liquidmetal? What real benefit will that give us, other than bragging rights?
I'd rather see some of these innovative UI inventions come out, even if Apple makes them optional. And how about finally doing something with Siri? What have they don't with it these past few years? Hardly anything!
So basically your bored with Apple and want them to do something, anything to cure your boredom. I get the frustration, and I'm frustrated that Apple has chosen product cycles that leave large gaps where they've gone quiet and the vacuum gets filled up with FUD and D&G. But the day Apple does something just for the sake of the DO SOMETHING crowd is the day it stops being Apple. For people that need a constant fix of SOMETHING, there's Samsung.
Your use of Google for comparison gives you away. You have forgotten Apple doesn't do Beta hardware, ever.
Focus, thousands of noes, product and user-oriented technology, many ways to look at what Apple is doing rather than the impatient and market-focused way you are looking at them.
I'm surprised at you too.
That's totally incorrect. SIRi was beta for two YEARS! Apple stated that. They say aTv is a hobby. They've stated that as well. They've had other beta software over the years.
People who think Apple isn't market oriented are fooling themselves. Of course they are. Every company is. They have to be. Apple responds to the market. If they do come up with a bigger phone this year, that will be entirely in response to market movement. Please don't think that they came up with it all by themselves.
That's totally incorrect. SIRi was beta for two YEARS! Apple stated that. They say aTv is a hobby. They've stated that as well. They've had other beta software over the years.
People who think Apple isn't market oriented are fooling themselves. Of course they are. Every company is. They have to be. Apple responds to the market. If they do come up with a bigger phone this year, that will be entirely in response to market movement. Please don't think that they came up with it all by themselves.
but if it was just a response to the market we would have has a larger iPhone well before 2014.
Since you always provide a link in your posts I must say you are either a fast reader or have quite a lot of time on your hands to keep up with so much tech news.
The amount of patents Apple files is also ridiculous, guess they need to in order to prevent stuff rather than seeing all these products coming to life. With the widespread area Google is in it doesn't surprise me they file for so many patents.
I think that Apple is truly interested in the things they patent. But that doesn't mean that it will result in anything for any number of reasons.
But before they lost that famous lawsuit with Microsoft all those years ago, they began to patent more of what they did. Getting ripped off will test anyone.
Google has relied in taking IP from other companies, using it, then complaining when caught, that they were "innovating". The companies they stole that from don't agree. So now they are busily buying up patents. Most seem to have no direct value to them, though they don't appear to be good at evaluating that beforehand. Such as with Motorola.t.
Mel I really don't know what stolen IP you're referring to. There's been a lot of claims of patent thievery. I guess Google's been sued nearly as often as Apple for "patent theft". Not he same as being guilty of it anymore than when Apple is accused tho is it?
Search? Not that I'm aware of. Maps? Microsoft's lawsuit was tossed today and the patent ruled invalid. Oracle,? Nope, not yet anyway. Apple? Dunno, they've never accused Google of stealing anything, rumors to that effect be damned. Books? Nope again, scanning was perfectly legal. Adwords? Infamous troll Vringo did ding'em on that one and MS is now in their crosshairs.
So have you got a collection of legal cites to demonstrate this widespread IP theft you think you've seen from Google? Based on your tone there must be a lot of 'em.
Apple Inc. is looking for mechanical engineers to design new input device products, subsystems, and modules to support the Mac and iOS product lines. The candidate will primarily work on ground up designs in partnership with electrical engineering and firmware cross functional teams. Their responsibilities will span from technology development and concept generation to detailed design, analysis and testing through mass production ramp. There is an emphasis on optimizing and enhancing the ergonomic interaction between the user and the product.
So basically your bored with Apple and want them to do something, anything to cure your boredom. I get the frustration, and I'm frustrated that Apple has chosen product cycles that leave large gaps where they've gone quiet and the vacuum gets filled up with FUD and D&G. But the day Apple does something just for the sake of the DO SOMETHING crowd is the day it stops being Apple. For people that need a constant fix of SOMETHING, there's Samsung.
To a certain extent, yes. Product cycles are something that bothers me as well as it does you. I understand that things come out at certain times. But I also remember Jobs saying, as a reason why they stopped going to MacWorld, and a couple of other conventions, is that they were restrained by those conventions, because they needed to have something new, or updated at particular times of the year, and they wanted to come out with products when they were ready, no matter when that would be.
I don't see that. Do you see that?
Unless they're having a problem, they come out with something at the same time, usually once a year. Why did the 5C and 5S have to come out at the same time? Just throwing that out there. I don't mean anything special about those two products, but still... Maybe that was a bad idea for several reasons.
They used to update their computers four times a year, often just for a cpu speed bump. When have they done that last?
I don't think they should do something just to do something. Sorry if I gave that impression. But they do have a lot of interesting stuff. I remember when Apple did release experimental software all the time. One interesting thing was a 3D UI for OS X. It never became a product, but it got a lot of people talking about real 3D UI.
And it's not like they're hiding any of this stuff, as anyone can read the patents, and do.
but if it was just a response to the market we would have has a larger iPhone well before 2014.
Not necessarily. It does take time to come up with a new product, and two years ago, large phones weren't selling well yet. That only became apparent in 2013. So some months for Apple to decide they needed to respond, and a year for the new product to come out. Sounds about right.
Now, we'll have to see how they handle it, assuming that large phone, or two does make it. The biggest question is the resolution. Do they break their contention that around 325ppi is enough for a phone, or the one in which they double resolution with four times as many pixels? One or the other is gotta go.
And Apple has also stated that being first isn't what counts. It's doing it better as they did with the iPod, the iPhone, and even with the iPad. That will be true for the iWatch, if it comes out, and a Tv, if that comes out.
Not first, but better.
Mel I really don't know what stolen IP you're referring to. There's been a lot of claims of patent thievery. I guess Google's been sued nearly as often as Apple for "patent theft". Not he same as being guilty of it anymore than when Apple is accused tho is it?
Search? Not that I'm aware of. Maps? Microsoft's lawsuit was tossed today and the patent ruled invalid. Oracle,? Nope, not yet anyway. Apple? Dunno, they've never accused Google of stealing anything, rumors to that effect be damned. Books? Nope again, scanning was perfectly legal. Adwords? Infamous troll Vringo did ding'em on that one and MS is now in their crosshairs.
So have you got a collection of legal cites to demonstrate this widespread IP theft you think you've seen from Google? Based on your tone there must be a lot of 'em.
There's enough. We're all aware that a large number of patents that Apple has sued over with third parties were Google software. This is common. You sue the party who is easier. Google makes no products, so it's hard to sue them. So they don't get sued for software that their OEM's use. The OEM's get sued. This has been discussed plenty.
Unless Google has been doing a vast amount if R&D that they don't patent. Which they don't, up until they gegan massing patents from companies and patents they bought, they only had about 300 patents. That was far less than any other major competitor. And everybody patents. Everybody.
I've read that Google does a lot of R&D, but if you look at those numbers very closely, you will see that it's not mainly R&D, but software development costs. That's very different.
Unless Google has been doing a vast amount if R&D that they don't patent. Which they don't, up until they gegan massing patents from companies and patents they bought, they only had about 300 patents. That was far less than any other major competitor. And everybody patents. Everybody.
I've read that Google does a lot of R&D, but if you look at those numbers very closely, you will see that it's not mainly R&D, but software development costs. That's very different.
Ah, keepin' it vague I see. So in other words you don't really know much about either Apple or Google areas of research and where they stand. FWIW once upon a time Google was like Apple in the early years. They just didn't consider patenting all that important instead relying more on trade secrets for their competitive edge. Like Apple tho they've now learned the value of patenting it all.
By the way I had no idea Apple and Google break down their R&D numbers for investors and/or public into categories like software development, new products, etc. Where can I see those numbers you've referred to? Gotta link to offer?
EDIT: In answer to your earlier comment yes I've always considered us to be friendly adversaries. :smokey:
Got to love these filings. R&D for Google and Scamsung for free.
Johnny works for Google. At least the last time we exchanged email. Dude is seriously smart. Wish I had kept more in touch, maybe I'd have scored a free Kinect.
Comments
This is an interesting idea that, yes, will probably get copied by other companies in some shape or form. I remember seeing that Kinect video a few years ago, same basic idea except you had to wear glasses with IR lights on either side for it to track you.
erm.... except the existing Kinect does these things, and has done them for several years now, with no glasses with IR lights required.... even AI which is usually somewhat Apple biased couldn't release an article showing these patents without mentioning that other companies already have products out that are doing these things.
I don't really view Apple as a 'copycat' for following others into the space, just as I won't look at anyone else who enters the market as 'copying' Apple. I hope many do enter and they all compete with each other and drive some great products.
Since you always provide a link in your posts I must say you are either a fast reader or have quite a lot of time on your hands to keep up with so much tech news.
The amount of patents Apple files is also ridiculous, guess they need to in order to prevent stuff rather than seeing all these products coming to life. With the widespread area Google is in it doesn't surprise me they file for so many patents.
I've always been a very fast reader. It helps that I've always enjoyed it since I was a kid, and I'll read almost anything. I remember walking to the library a couple times a week when still in grade school. It was one of those old Carnegie libraries, still there too just as it was. Really cool classic design
1) Not necessarily from melgross but I see a lot of people ignore the yearly innovations Apple not only releases but also talks up during their events. For some reason, since the iPhone launched the only innovations that have become meaningful to some are brand new product categories.
2) I would love for Apple to events every month showing a brand new product category but that's only because my perception of Apple releasing a new product category is that it's been thoughtfully considered and is ready to be released. If that changes then my desire for Apple to release new product categories will also change. I don't think what Google is doing is healthy for the long term.
I've been heavily involved with Apple since 1988. I'm not writing a post for c/net. I'm writing a post to people who, for the most part here, are interested in knowing what the rest of the people on the site think, as many of us have known each other for years. No one here would think that I deliberately diss Apple. Some think I defend them too much. Just ask Garorguy, with whom I have a friendly (I hope!) adversarial relationship. I suppose that's a good middle ground.
My complaint here is that, it's true, Apple does a lot of research, but more often that not, we don't get to use the results of that. I've never said that Apple does nothing of significance. If you think I did, then you had better read my post again. Obviously, Apple does things of significance. More than most companies in the business.
But, and it's a real but, often, Apple does some wonderful things in their R&D, but it never materializes as a product, even as something for us to try out. The aTv is an interesting product, but I wish they did more with it already.
The problem is that Apple has been unwilling to have any product that isn't a halo product. So in,es it's an accessory for so e other product, we just don't see so ethi g that won't sell in high numbers, but is interesting in its own right.
When Apple was a small company, this could be expected, but today, they can do anything they want. But they are very careful to think long on what they are going to do. I don't believe they need to do that. If they've got so ethi g interesting in the lab, and this is particularly true for software, let it out. Tell us it's an experiment. Tell us it may never become a real product. But give us something interesting to see and handle.
Yes, I know that seems far out to you. After all, why should they? But why not? A lot of companies do that. It would make Apple more interesting again. So give us another experimental UI, and let us play with it. It doesn't have to be the real UI, just something we can download and install on top of the OS to feel and comment on. The point I'm making, and it's partly facetious, I admit, is that they're falling behind in the spin area. Just having something interesting would help to end that.
Oh, and Apple does release beta products, and hobby products. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Well, not really. Google has always been weak in R&D. That's not something to really argue about. Until they bought up many patents, they had a small number they came up with on their own, or ended up with after buying companies that had their own. Google has relied in taking IP from other companies, using it, then complaining when caught, that they were "innovating". The companies they stole that from don't agree. So now they are busily buying up patents. Most seem to have no direct value to them, though they don't appear to be good at evaluating that beforehand. Such as with Motorola.
While Apple, Microsoft and others are also buying up patents, both Apple and Microsoft actually do far more real research than does Google. Even Glass has little that's new about it.
https://jobs.apple.com/us/search#&t=1&sb=req_open_dt&so=1&lo=0*USA&pN=0&openJobId=32239816
Input Devices Product Design
Apple Inc. is looking for mechanical engineers to design new input device products, subsystems, and modules to support the Mac and iOS product lines. The candidate will primarily work on ground up designs in partnership with electrical engineering and firmware cross functional teams. Their responsibilities will span from technology development and concept generation to detailed design, analysis and testing through mass production ramp. There is an emphasis on optimizing and enhancing the ergonomic interaction between the user and the product.
That's totally incorrect. SIRi was beta for two YEARS! Apple stated that. They say aTv is a hobby. They've stated that as well. They've had other beta software over the years.
People who think Apple isn't market oriented are fooling themselves. Of course they are. Every company is. They have to be. Apple responds to the market. If they do come up with a bigger phone this year, that will be entirely in response to market movement. Please don't think that they came up with it all by themselves.
I think that Apple is truly interested in the things they patent. But that doesn't mean that it will result in anything for any number of reasons.
But before they lost that famous lawsuit with Microsoft all those years ago, they began to patent more of what they did. Getting ripped off will test anyone.
Mel I really don't know what stolen IP you're referring to. There's been a lot of claims of patent thievery. I guess Google's been sued nearly as often as Apple for "patent theft". Not he same as being guilty of it anymore than when Apple is accused tho is it?
Search? Not that I'm aware of. Maps? Microsoft's lawsuit was tossed today and the patent ruled invalid. Oracle,? Nope, not yet anyway. Apple? Dunno, they've never accused Google of stealing anything, rumors to that effect be damned. Books? Nope again, scanning was perfectly legal. Adwords? Infamous troll Vringo did ding'em on that one and MS is now in their crosshairs.
So have you got a collection of legal cites to demonstrate this widespread IP theft you think you've seen from Google? Based on your tone there must be a lot of 'em.
Weird, but it sounds like a controller.
What are you using for a measuring stick Mel?
To a certain extent, yes. Product cycles are something that bothers me as well as it does you. I understand that things come out at certain times. But I also remember Jobs saying, as a reason why they stopped going to MacWorld, and a couple of other conventions, is that they were restrained by those conventions, because they needed to have something new, or updated at particular times of the year, and they wanted to come out with products when they were ready, no matter when that would be.
I don't see that. Do you see that?
Unless they're having a problem, they come out with something at the same time, usually once a year. Why did the 5C and 5S have to come out at the same time? Just throwing that out there. I don't mean anything special about those two products, but still... Maybe that was a bad idea for several reasons.
They used to update their computers four times a year, often just for a cpu speed bump. When have they done that last?
I don't think they should do something just to do something. Sorry if I gave that impression. But they do have a lot of interesting stuff. I remember when Apple did release experimental software all the time. One interesting thing was a 3D UI for OS X. It never became a product, but it got a lot of people talking about real 3D UI.
And it's not like they're hiding any of this stuff, as anyone can read the patents, and do.
Not necessarily. It does take time to come up with a new product, and two years ago, large phones weren't selling well yet. That only became apparent in 2013. So some months for Apple to decide they needed to respond, and a year for the new product to come out. Sounds about right.
Now, we'll have to see how they handle it, assuming that large phone, or two does make it. The biggest question is the resolution. Do they break their contention that around 325ppi is enough for a phone, or the one in which they double resolution with four times as many pixels? One or the other is gotta go.
And Apple has also stated that being first isn't what counts. It's doing it better as they did with the iPod, the iPhone, and even with the iPad. That will be true for the iWatch, if it comes out, and a Tv, if that comes out.
Not first, but better.
There's enough. We're all aware that a large number of patents that Apple has sued over with third parties were Google software. This is common. You sue the party who is easier. Google makes no products, so it's hard to sue them. So they don't get sued for software that their OEM's use. The OEM's get sued. This has been discussed plenty.
Unless Google has been doing a vast amount if R&D that they don't patent. Which they don't, up until they gegan massing patents from companies and patents they bought, they only had about 300 patents. That was far less than any other major competitor. And everybody patents. Everybody.
I've read that Google does a lot of R&D, but if you look at those numbers very closely, you will see that it's not mainly R&D, but software development costs. That's very different.
Ah, keepin' it vague I see. So in other words you don't really know much about either Apple or Google areas of research and where they stand. FWIW once upon a time Google was like Apple in the early years. They just didn't consider patenting all that important instead relying more on trade secrets for their competitive edge. Like Apple tho they've now learned the value of patenting it all.
By the way I had no idea Apple and Google break down their R&D numbers for investors and/or public into categories like software development, new products, etc. Where can I see those numbers you've referred to? Gotta link to offer?
EDIT: In answer to your earlier comment yes I've always considered us to be friendly adversaries. :smokey:
Got to love these filings. R&D for Google and Scamsung for free.
Johnny works for Google. At least the last time we exchanged email. Dude is seriously smart. Wish I had kept more in touch, maybe I'd have scored a free Kinect.