As will Apple when Jony is telling us how a 5" phone is exactly the right size and can be comfortably used it with one hand.
1) So in your mind Apple was a big ol'liar and hypocrite when they made the 4" iPhone?
2) I know the mockup a AI uses have the 4.94" iPhone increasing all parts of the device equally but I would have thought you were smart enough to realize that just like with the iPhone 5 over the 4S that you can use a larger display without making the device larger, heavier, too difficult to use one handed, and without sacrificing battery life.
It's not feasible to go after Google for patent infringement on Android. That's what Jobs really wanted to do. Since they give it away and hide any revenue stream there is no basis for law suites.
That wasn't any more true the first time someone used that as a rationale for Apple not suing Google. Sure didn't stop Oracle who expected to get a $billion+ from Google for patent infringement with several billion more for copyrights.
Android is an open system and Google doesn't patent a lot of features.
No and no. Android may be open source but Google Android is not. Google files hundreds of patents each year, many specific to Google Android and still others related to mobile in general, owns thousands more than Apple and was awarded more last year too. Google may not use their patents offensively, and the last thing Apple has to worry about is being the target of an infringement lawsuit from them, but they still belong to Google.
I've heard what Tim Cook said and none of it makes much sense to me. I just read on CNET that DisplayMate said the GS5 has the best display they've ever seen in a phone. There are larger screen phones that have just as good of battery life as the iPhone. And as long as Apple keeps the physical home button it will be difficult to make the screen bigger without making the overall device bigger. So when we get a bigger iPhone this year (which I'm 99.9% certain we will) what will the reason be? Did Ive find some magical way to make a 4.7" or 5" phone comfortable to use one handed? Or does Apple have some radical change to iOS that we don't know about? Or a display that will blow away the competition?
Basically it seems like you're saying Apple hasn't made a larger screen iPhone (until presumably this year) because it wasn't profitable enough to do so. Which is fine, but it goes against what Ive (and Cook) have said about Apple's North Star being about making the best products, not about money.
Nope.
"What we've said is that until the technology is ready, we don't want to cross that line. That doesn't say we'll never do it. We want to give our customers what's right in all respects – not just the size but in the resolution, in the clarity, in the contrast, in the reliability. There are many different parameters to measure a display and we care about all those, because we know that's the window to the software." Tim Cook, Feb 2014
Implied is that the current crop of larger smartphones make too many compromises. This fall, we will find out what compromises Apple made, but as usual, Apple will stick to the same basic battery life as the iPhone 5s, and give a much more svelte device than the competition.
It was, after all, the inability of the competition to build an iPhone competitor in a minimal form factor that drove the larger smartphone to be created. Android was too inefficient at the time, and required a substantially larger battery to give anywhere near the battery life of the iPhone and the increased battery volume required a larger form factor.
To this day, there has not been an equivalent form factor from a competitor that can compete with an iPhone.
Regardless of whether Apple wins or not, I think that the drawn-out nature of the proceedings has exposed a severe weakness in American justice.
The fact that Apple have to go to court for multiple cases because there are too many patents infringed is patently absurd.
This part makes sense to me. The case would be far too complicated and too long if Apple used more patents (say 20). Trials involving serial killers often break the cases down into smaller, more manageable trials instead of presenting ALL the evidence at a single trial.
The real problem isn't limiting patents - it's the time it takes to get to trial. A much better idea (IMO), would be to fast-track patent cases due to how fast the technology industry changes. It's ludicrous that Samsung can use IP for years before it gets to trial. If they had a fast-track system in place, Apple could have already completed several trials by now, with each one quickly deciding a few patents.
There's also much less of a chance of a mistrial with a smaller case. In a large, complex trial there's a greater possibility that one (or more) mistakes could happen which cumulatively could be enough to cause a mistrial. Look at Quinn last trial. They blabbed information about one of Koh's decisions to the press after she ruled they wouldn't let some POS Samsung phone that was nothing like an iPhone as evidence. In a long trial, how many more opportunities would Quinn have to introduce something they could use later to get a mistrial?
Is it just me, or does anyone else get confused between 5s and S5?
Nope. One was a significant upgrade to a previous device, with the world's most advanced ARM processor, double the performance, 64bit OS and excellent implementation of fingerprint technology while the other is minor upgrade with a crappy fingerprint system added on and a processor that's barely 10% faster than last year..
Nope. One was a significant upgrade to a previous device, with the world's most advanced ARM processor, double the performance, 64bit OS and excellent implementation of fingerprint technology while the other is minor upgrade with a crappy fingerprint system added on and a processor that's barely 10% faster than last year..
I meant the names, especially since you have no way of knowing whether or not it was a typo.
It was, after all, the inability of the competition to build an iPhone competitor in a minimal form factor that drove the larger smartphone to be created. Android was too inefficient at the time, and required a substantially larger battery to give anywhere near the battery life of the iPhone and the increased battery volume required a larger form factor.
To this day, there has not been an equivalent form factor from a competitor that can compete with an iPhone.
This is an interesting point. While there have been phones like the GS3/4 Mini they have been junk. They weren't a smaller version of the flagship - they were also crippled in terms of features, performance and quality. I have never seen a compact Android phone with a top-end processor or screen quality of a flagship.
I'm wondering, do Android venders assume that nobody would buy a smaller premium device? Apple sells them by the gazillions, so why aren't they attacking Apple in this market?
This is an interesting point. While there have been phones like the GS3/4 Mini they have been junk. They weren't a smaller version of the flagship - they were also crippled in terms of features, performance and quality. I have never seen a compact Android phone with a top-end processor or screen quality of a flagship.
I'm wondering, do Android venders assume that nobody would buy a smaller premium device? Apple sells them by the gazillions, so why aren't they attacking Apple in this market?
I think Android OEM's are locked into a battle of Phat phones and since nobody but Samsung is making any money, it probably doesn't make sense to create a device that the OEM's no longer have the ability to market anyway. I do believe that there is demand for a premium "mini" though.
It's amazing that Samsung and Apple can maintain a relationship at the component manufacturing level. I think Samsung even started production the A7 64 bit processor. There must be very good firewalls between the Samsung divisions.
Given Samsung's modus operandi, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Samsung deliberately maintains a favorable component supply relationship partly for the purpose of gaining insights into Apple's future plans. As the supplier of the A7 chip, Samsung was not likely among those caught completely off guard by this development, for example.
All these stupid patent cases are getting in the way of innovation and productivity. Can't we all agree that "imitation is the best form of flattery" and move on?
That wasn't any more true the first time someone used that as a rationale for Apple not suing Google. Sure didn't stop Oracle who expected to get a $billion+ from Google for patent infringement with several billion more for copyrights.
Paying royalties to Apple? Hardly. The only one I can think of is HTC.
No and no. Android may be open source but Google Android is not. Google files hundreds of patents each year, many specific to Google Android and still others related to mobile in general, owns thousands more than Apple and was awarded more last year too. Google may not use their patents offensively, and the last thing Apple has to worry about is being the target of an infringement lawsuit from them, but they still belong to Google.
The Oracle suite was different because Google used the copyrighted Java compiler code as the means to create and compile Android but attempted to claim it as their own without licensing it. Sun was so lax that they didn't pay attention to this or most other violators. When Oracle bought them they started going after licensing fees. Examination of Google's code showed exact duplication of the original Sun code. It wasn't really about Android OS itself but the way it was developed. A big difference.
HTC is the largest and well known that pays royalties to Apple because of the lawsuit Apple filed against them. Although I couldn't find the article that I had read shortly after the HTC settlement (and if apologize that I can't provide the link here) it reported that Apple was approaching smaller makers and offering agreements. Since these were not large IMO they didn't attract much attention.
Every tech company files hundreds of patents every year. Large players like Apple and Google probably thousands. How many are actually granted I don't know. Google files many related to Android and owns thousands either created in house or acquired through purchase or acquisition. These are granted to be used through the open source if I understand it. In some cases Google has left the handset makers exposed to licensing. For example each Android handset pays a royalty to Microsoft. Microsoft makes more money from that than they do from their own Windows Phone business at least in past history.
A company's patent portfolio is an interesting thing. Companies can innovate internally and design and innovate patentable technology and design. It seems to be more the case where large tech is instead acquiring patents through acquisitions. Sometimes it's solely to keep the tech out of the reach of the competition.
In my reading I've come across multiple articles about Google abusing copyright and patent infringement not for product development but for use in systems use and development. It's usually a very small company that owns the rights (except Sun). One example is the Linux core that's used for their storage systems. The question is: does Google not know they are using technology that requires licensing? Do they use it knowingly thinking the the license holder doesn't have the resources to enforce it? Even in the case of Sun they were in the early stages of bankruptcy. In the Linux case the little guy took them on and won.
I don't really mean to bash Google. They changed the way we all used the internet. My concerns are that they have too much private information on all of us. They don't seem to respect patent licensing. They find new and innovative ways to work around data privacy, revenue streams, etc. to legally do dubious business practices. I no longer use Google search, gmail, calendar, maps, and I have no interest in an Android device of any kind. I do respect the right to make a choice and respect the handsets that come from some makers. Samsung makes some cool stuff recently although the initial reviews of the S5 are pretty mixed. Their product line can be a little confusing as well.
Competition is good for the consumer but it needs to also lead to innovation and value. Some will argue that Apple fails there but if that's the case why is Apple so profitable? Some will argue that argue that Apple loses market share. Apple sells high end devices. The market is mature but Apple continues to increase sales year over year and continues to do it with record profits. Apple's market share in the US has increased. Even the iPhone 5c which the media likes table a failure is estimated to have outsold the Samsung S4 and LG G2 combined in the winter quarter. No one seems to think they're a flop.
I've heard what Tim Cook said and none of it makes much sense to me. I just read on CNET that DisplayMate said the GS5 has the best display they've ever seen in a phone. There are larger screen phones that have just as good of battery life as the iPhone. And as long as Apple keeps the physical home button it will be difficult to make the screen bigger without making the overall device bigger. So when we get a bigger iPhone this year (which I'm 99.9% certain we will) what will the reason be? Did Ive find some magical way to make a 4.7" or 5" phone comfortable to use one handed? Or does Apple have some radical change to iOS that we don't know about? Or a display that will blow away the competition?
Basically it seems like you're saying Apple hasn't made a larger screen iPhone (until presumably this year) because it wasn't profitable enough to do so. Which is fine, but it goes against what Ive (and Cook) have said about Apple's North Star being about making the best products, not about money.
Actually, a spreadsheet and some basic math skills can yield remarkable insights. For example, the current iPhone is 2.31" wide, but the display is 1.94" wide. If Apple were to extend the screen to the edges, using software numbing to ignore touch input at the edges, thus creating a virtual bezel (easily accomplished) and maintaining the display's current 16:9 aspect ratio, the screen could grow to 4.3" diagonal measurement without increasing the width of the handset. The top bezel could be shrunk to accommodate the greater height of this 4.3" display (perhaps this is why Apple moved the headset jack to the bottom back with the iPhone 5 in anticipation of decreasing the top bezel). With these changes you could have a 4.3" display in a handset the exact same dimensions as the iPhone 5 series handsets.
What's more, going side edge to side edge with a 4.85" 16:9 display would require Apple to widen the handset less than 1/5th of an inch. This iPhone would be slightly taller too, but at only about 1/5th inch wider it would still easily qualify for one handed use. So perhaps there is a reason Apple has waited; they didn't want to compromise on an edge to edge display being covered by gorilla glass, which falls at about a 6.5 on the MOHs hardness scale, versus 9 on that same scale for sapphire (diamond, by comparison, is a 10, the hardest substance known).
All these stupid patent cases are getting in the way of innovation and productivity. Can't we all agree that "imitation is the best form of flattery" and move on?
If you worked at Apple and spent a great deal of your time and energy coming up with innovative ways to solve a problem, like the problem of accidental unlocking of a touch screen phone, how would you feel about your efforts and job if you knew the competition were going to copy that innovation without fear of retribution? How hard would you work on the next set of innovations? How much would your Apple incentive stock options act to motivate you? This is just one of the reasons Apple, or any company, should defend its intellectual property.
If you worked at Apple and spent a great deal of your time and energy coming up with innovative ways to solve a problem, like the problem of accidental unlocking of a touch screen phone, how would you feel about your efforts and job if you knew the competition were going to copy that innovation without fear of retribution? How hard would you work on the next set of innovations? How much would your Apple incentive stock options act to motivate you? This is just one of the reasons Apple, or any company, should defend its intellectual property.
And therein you have the problem. Apple -and it's fans- have waaaay too much pride.
Where do think the modern industry would be if whoever invented ABS sued everyone who used it? Or if architects sued over a particular building method?
How do you think all these huge furniture designers feel about IKEA?
I've heard what Tim Cook said and none of it makes much sense to me. I just read on CNET that DisplayMate said the GS5 has the best display they've ever seen in a phone. There are larger screen phones that have just as good of battery life as the iPhone. And as long as Apple keeps the physical home button it will be difficult to make the screen bigger without making the overall device bigger. So when we get a bigger iPhone this year (which I'm 99.9% certain we will) what will the reason be? Did Ive find some magical way to make a 4.7" or 5" phone comfortable to use one handed? Or does Apple have some radical change to iOS that we don't know about? Or a display that will blow away the competition?
Basically it seems like you're saying Apple hasn't made a larger screen iPhone (until presumably this year) because it wasn't profitable enough to do so. Which is fine, but it goes against what Ive (and Cook) have said about Apple's North Star being about making the best products, not about money.
So is the old Rogifan being treated well? Have you spoken with his family? Or did you just pay him off and he left for the Cayman Islands? You can tell us, really.
Comments
1) So in your mind Apple was a big ol'liar and hypocrite when they made the 4" iPhone?
2) I know the mockup a AI uses have the 4.94" iPhone increasing all parts of the device equally but I would have thought you were smart enough to realize that just like with the iPhone 5 over the 4S that you can use a larger display without making the device larger, heavier, too difficult to use one handed, and without sacrificing battery life.
She's not Ms. Pac-Man.
I've heard what Tim Cook said and none of it makes much sense to me. I just read on CNET that DisplayMate said the GS5 has the best display they've ever seen in a phone. There are larger screen phones that have just as good of battery life as the iPhone. And as long as Apple keeps the physical home button it will be difficult to make the screen bigger without making the overall device bigger. So when we get a bigger iPhone this year (which I'm 99.9% certain we will) what will the reason be? Did Ive find some magical way to make a 4.7" or 5" phone comfortable to use one handed? Or does Apple have some radical change to iOS that we don't know about? Or a display that will blow away the competition?
Basically it seems like you're saying Apple hasn't made a larger screen iPhone (until presumably this year) because it wasn't profitable enough to do so. Which is fine, but it goes against what Ive (and Cook) have said about Apple's North Star being about making the best products, not about money.
Nope.
"What we've said is that until the technology is ready, we don't want to cross that line. That doesn't say we'll never do it. We want to give our customers what's right in all respects – not just the size but in the resolution, in the clarity, in the contrast, in the reliability. There are many different parameters to measure a display and we care about all those, because we know that's the window to the software." Tim Cook, Feb 2014
Implied is that the current crop of larger smartphones make too many compromises. This fall, we will find out what compromises Apple made, but as usual, Apple will stick to the same basic battery life as the iPhone 5s, and give a much more svelte device than the competition.
It was, after all, the inability of the competition to build an iPhone competitor in a minimal form factor that drove the larger smartphone to be created. Android was too inefficient at the time, and required a substantially larger battery to give anywhere near the battery life of the iPhone and the increased battery volume required a larger form factor.
To this day, there has not been an equivalent form factor from a competitor that can compete with an iPhone.
Is it just me, or does anyone else get confused between 5s and S5?
This part makes sense to me. The case would be far too complicated and too long if Apple used more patents (say 20). Trials involving serial killers often break the cases down into smaller, more manageable trials instead of presenting ALL the evidence at a single trial.
The real problem isn't limiting patents - it's the time it takes to get to trial. A much better idea (IMO), would be to fast-track patent cases due to how fast the technology industry changes. It's ludicrous that Samsung can use IP for years before it gets to trial. If they had a fast-track system in place, Apple could have already completed several trials by now, with each one quickly deciding a few patents.
There's also much less of a chance of a mistrial with a smaller case. In a large, complex trial there's a greater possibility that one (or more) mistakes could happen which cumulatively could be enough to cause a mistrial. Look at Quinn last trial. They blabbed information about one of Koh's decisions to the press after she ruled they wouldn't let some POS Samsung phone that was nothing like an iPhone as evidence. In a long trial, how many more opportunities would Quinn have to introduce something they could use later to get a mistrial?
Nope. One was a significant upgrade to a previous device, with the world's most advanced ARM processor, double the performance, 64bit OS and excellent implementation of fingerprint technology while the other is minor upgrade with a crappy fingerprint system added on and a processor that's barely 10% faster than last year..
I meant the names, especially since you have no way of knowing whether or not it was a typo.
I'm wondering, do Android venders assume that nobody would buy a smaller premium device? Apple sells them by the gazillions, so why aren't they attacking Apple in this market?
If you see the word “Samsung” and “creates” in the same sentence, that’s a typo.
If you see the word “Samsung” and “creates” in the same sentence, that’s a typo.
Or "Google" and "benevolent"
This is an interesting point. While there have been phones like the GS3/4 Mini they have been junk. They weren't a smaller version of the flagship - they were also crippled in terms of features, performance and quality. I have never seen a compact Android phone with a top-end processor or screen quality of a flagship.
I'm wondering, do Android venders assume that nobody would buy a smaller premium device? Apple sells them by the gazillions, so why aren't they attacking Apple in this market?
I think Android OEM's are locked into a battle of Phat phones and since nobody but Samsung is making any money, it probably doesn't make sense to create a device that the OEM's no longer have the ability to market anyway. I do believe that there is demand for a premium "mini" though.
Given Samsung's modus operandi, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Samsung deliberately maintains a favorable component supply relationship partly for the purpose of gaining insights into Apple's future plans. As the supplier of the A7 chip, Samsung was not likely among those caught completely off guard by this development, for example.
All these stupid patent cases are getting in the way of innovation and productivity. Can't we all agree that "imitation is the best form of flattery" and move on?
The Oracle suite was different because Google used the copyrighted Java compiler code as the means to create and compile Android but attempted to claim it as their own without licensing it. Sun was so lax that they didn't pay attention to this or most other violators. When Oracle bought them they started going after licensing fees. Examination of Google's code showed exact duplication of the original Sun code. It wasn't really about Android OS itself but the way it was developed. A big difference.
HTC is the largest and well known that pays royalties to Apple because of the lawsuit Apple filed against them. Although I couldn't find the article that I had read shortly after the HTC settlement (and if apologize that I can't provide the link here) it reported that Apple was approaching smaller makers and offering agreements. Since these were not large IMO they didn't attract much attention.
Every tech company files hundreds of patents every year. Large players like Apple and Google probably thousands. How many are actually granted I don't know. Google files many related to Android and owns thousands either created in house or acquired through purchase or acquisition. These are granted to be used through the open source if I understand it. In some cases Google has left the handset makers exposed to licensing. For example each Android handset pays a royalty to Microsoft. Microsoft makes more money from that than they do from their own Windows Phone business at least in past history.
A company's patent portfolio is an interesting thing. Companies can innovate internally and design and innovate patentable technology and design. It seems to be more the case where large tech is instead acquiring patents through acquisitions. Sometimes it's solely to keep the tech out of the reach of the competition.
In my reading I've come across multiple articles about Google abusing copyright and patent infringement not for product development but for use in systems use and development. It's usually a very small company that owns the rights (except Sun). One example is the Linux core that's used for their storage systems. The question is: does Google not know they are using technology that requires licensing? Do they use it knowingly thinking the the license holder doesn't have the resources to enforce it? Even in the case of Sun they were in the early stages of bankruptcy. In the Linux case the little guy took them on and won.
I don't really mean to bash Google. They changed the way we all used the internet. My concerns are that they have too much private information on all of us. They don't seem to respect patent licensing. They find new and innovative ways to work around data privacy, revenue streams, etc. to legally do dubious business practices. I no longer use Google search, gmail, calendar, maps, and I have no interest in an Android device of any kind. I do respect the right to make a choice and respect the handsets that come from some makers. Samsung makes some cool stuff recently although the initial reviews of the S5 are pretty mixed. Their product line can be a little confusing as well.
Competition is good for the consumer but it needs to also lead to innovation and value. Some will argue that Apple fails there but if that's the case why is Apple so profitable? Some will argue that argue that Apple loses market share. Apple sells high end devices. The market is mature but Apple continues to increase sales year over year and continues to do it with record profits. Apple's market share in the US has increased. Even the iPhone 5c which the media likes table a failure is estimated to have outsold the Samsung S4 and LG G2 combined in the winter quarter. No one seems to think they're a flop.
Actually, a spreadsheet and some basic math skills can yield remarkable insights. For example, the current iPhone is 2.31" wide, but the display is 1.94" wide. If Apple were to extend the screen to the edges, using software numbing to ignore touch input at the edges, thus creating a virtual bezel (easily accomplished) and maintaining the display's current 16:9 aspect ratio, the screen could grow to 4.3" diagonal measurement without increasing the width of the handset. The top bezel could be shrunk to accommodate the greater height of this 4.3" display (perhaps this is why Apple moved the headset jack to the bottom back with the iPhone 5 in anticipation of decreasing the top bezel). With these changes you could have a 4.3" display in a handset the exact same dimensions as the iPhone 5 series handsets.
What's more, going side edge to side edge with a 4.85" 16:9 display would require Apple to widen the handset less than 1/5th of an inch. This iPhone would be slightly taller too, but at only about 1/5th inch wider it would still easily qualify for one handed use. So perhaps there is a reason Apple has waited; they didn't want to compromise on an edge to edge display being covered by gorilla glass, which falls at about a 6.5 on the MOHs hardness scale, versus 9 on that same scale for sapphire (diamond, by comparison, is a 10, the hardest substance known).
My comment #197 might just wipe that smile off your smug face.
If you worked at Apple and spent a great deal of your time and energy coming up with innovative ways to solve a problem, like the problem of accidental unlocking of a touch screen phone, how would you feel about your efforts and job if you knew the competition were going to copy that innovation without fear of retribution? How hard would you work on the next set of innovations? How much would your Apple incentive stock options act to motivate you? This is just one of the reasons Apple, or any company, should defend its intellectual property.
If you worked at Apple and spent a great deal of your time and energy coming up with innovative ways to solve a problem, like the problem of accidental unlocking of a touch screen phone, how would you feel about your efforts and job if you knew the competition were going to copy that innovation without fear of retribution? How hard would you work on the next set of innovations? How much would your Apple incentive stock options act to motivate you? This is just one of the reasons Apple, or any company, should defend its intellectual property.
And therein you have the problem. Apple -and it's fans- have waaaay too much pride.
Where do think the modern industry would be if whoever invented ABS sued everyone who used it? Or if architects sued over a particular building method?
How do you think all these huge furniture designers feel about IKEA?
So is the old Rogifan being treated well? Have you spoken with his family? Or did you just pay him off and he left for the Cayman Islands? You can tell us, really.