Android docs reveal before iPhone, Google's plan was a Java button phone

2456789

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 175
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    What happens if we get a 5" iPhone from Apple this fall? Or how about actionable notifications, better inter-app communications, 3rd party support for Siri and Touch ID? Won't the anti-Apple crowd claim Apple is lifting that from the competition?
  • Reply 22 of 175
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    hill60 wrote: »
    The Prada wasn't "full touch screen", it had three buttons, call end and send and a home button, it also wasn't multitouch.

    Apple was working on the iPhone years before the Prada was launched or do you think Apple "magic pixie dust" made it possible to come up with the iPhone in a matter of weeks?
    Apparently it's Samsung that has the magic pixie dust. :lol:

    Anyway I think some of these copying claims are a little ridiculous. Especially the ones that claim Samsung is copying something Apple doesn't even make. What we know about Samsung is they throw tons of shit against the wall to see what sticks. And while in one sense they're the perfect example of a "fast follower" they also are obsessed with bringing things to market before they're ready for prime time so they can claim "first!" before Apple, Google, etc. we know that was the case with their smartwatch as less than 6 months before it was released there was a new generation and it was running different software.
  • Reply 23 of 175
    philotechphilotech Posts: 106member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by prokip View Post

     

    Philo,

     

    Very good response.  I won't waste your time and our dear fellow readers with a wise cracking retort.  Also my 'nick' is Procopios.  Look that up.  (My german isn't too bad either.)

     

    But we are all Apple fan boys in one way or the other, at least if we use their products.  And after years of using just about every other 'smart' phone out there, including the first non-smart bricks of yesteryear,  I am particularly grateful for the device that currently resides in my pocket most days.


    I did, but that leaves a few that it could refer to, even after ruling our Red Dick, the Californian bandit. Seeing you argue here, it may refer to the sophist Procopios of Gaza, but Procopius of Ceasarea would not be too far-fetched either.

    Oh yes, and I do love my Apple products, but also have an Android phone (no iPhone) and I'm heavily invested in the Google eco system. So no preoccupation either way.

  • Reply 24 of 175
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Philotech View Post

     

    Don't even get me started on this one... It's because in the US you can get a patent for everything if you must make up a story around it so it appears to be more than just trivia or an idea or business method.

    You can be granted a patent for using a software program for subtracting, for using mouse clicks to buy, for scanning, placing ads, just everything. You may take any concept from the real, physical world and make a patentable technical application from it by just adding the words "by using a computer-based algorithm".


     

    Yeah, because Europe doesn't allow stupid patents. :)

     

    Oops, just infringed.

  • Reply 25 of 175
    philotechphilotech Posts: 106member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Philotech View Post

     

    Good decyphyering of my nick :) and I'm also (apart from being a technophile) a lawyer, albeit no patent lawyer.

    ...

     


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mwhiteco View Post

     



    If you are who you say your are a lawyer scan your degree and put it up here if you don't then we know you are lying!!!!!


    ???

    Trolling? The lawyer statement is rather irrelevant in this context, and I don't care the slightest if you believe me or not.

  • Reply 26 of 175
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    While everyone talks about how they copied- ill say- wouldn't you have?

    Blackberry didn't. Android did. Who's smarter?
  • Reply 27 of 175
    philotechphilotech Posts: 106member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     

     

    Yeah, because Europe doesn't allow stupid patents. :)

     

    Oops, just infringed.


    Yeah, should have added a disclaimer to my posts admitting that similar stupidities happen in Europe too these days... makes me cry...

  • Reply 28 of 175
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,522member
    mwhiteco wrote: »

    If you are who you say your are a lawyer scan your degree and put it up here if you don't then we know you are lying!!!!!
    To prove you're not a bot could you scan your drivers license and post it here please? :rolleyes:
  • Reply 29 of 175
    mwhitecomwhiteco Posts: 112member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    To prove you're not a bot could you scan your drivers license and post it here please? image



    I am not a bot but I think you are  for Samscrum<img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> the guy said he was a lawyer and I think he is full of s***

  • Reply 30 of 175
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    philotech wrote: »
    Getting sick again... Of course this invention of the iPhone using a full-screen phone with no keyboard was a great idea. Maybe there were phones (existing or under construction) before it, but totally obviously it was only Apple who made this concept fashionable and provied that it was a viable concept of a phone.
    But still, this is an IDEA, and alleging that such an idea can be "stolen" (in a legal rather than just business ethics sense) has got it WRONG!

    It happens quite a lot in tech. Did you scream bloody murder when TV manufacturers copied Philips flat panel, and wide-screen format? I could make up a slide showing TVs before Philips and after. Was it WRONG for everyone to copy that idea? There's always going to be a leader, and then followers in a paradigm shift. In this case it was Apple, but it's all happened before, and will continue to do so.
  • Reply 31 of 175
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 345member
    Wasn't googles original patent just for the idea of ranking based on link popularity?
  • Reply 32 of 175
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,522member
    customtb wrote: »
    Wasn't googles original patent just for the idea of ranking based on link popularity?

    This is the patent and it's claims:
    https://www.google.com/patents/US6285999
    In any event it's not Google's patent nor is it an exclusive license to them alone. Apple is free to negotiate a license from Stanford as is Microsoft or anyone else for that matter. In addition it's not any particular patent that led to Google's success. It was Larry Page and Sergey Brin's studied understanding of search, what people want to know, how to implement solutions to meet those wants, and how to find the revenue to pay for it. They weren't the first to market, but like Apple just became the best. It didn't happen by accident or due to some patent anymore than Apple's success depends on a patent.

    Personally I don't think something like that should have been patent-worthy anyway but that's another topic I've been consistent on.
  • Reply 33 of 175
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    andysol wrote: »
    While everyone talks about how they copied- ill say- wouldn't you have?

    Blackberry didn't. Android did. Who's smarter?

    Exactly. Genius isn't always recognized immediately. Google was at least smart enough to realize the future of smartphones when they saw it. Those that reacted too slow are dead or dying.

    While Samsung is the only successful Android manufacturer the others are at least surviving, and that gives them a fighting chance to turn things around. Whereas BB is dying a slow death, and unless there's some sort of smartphone zombie apocalypse Palm isn't coming back.
  • Reply 34 of 175
    chipsychipsy Posts: 287member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    It happens quite a lot in tech. Did you scream bloody murder when TV manufacturers copied Philips flat panel, and wide-screen format? I could make up a slide showing TVs before Philips and after. Was it WRONG for everyone to copy that idea? There's always going to be a leader, and then followers in a paradigm shift. In this case it was Apple, but it's all happened before, and will continue to do so.



    The flat screen TV is actually a very good analogy and you're right. The iPhone was an evolution (in some points, a step backwards in other areas) in the smartphone market. This evolution ended up becoming hugely popular so of course it will be picked up by others. But does that mean that Apple is the only one who can make a mulittouch capacitive display smartphone? Other examples, because iRobot made the first Roomba does that mean no other manufacturers can enter that market? And so on...

    When it comes to Android, anyone who has actually used Android (and I mean vanilla Android not Touchwiz), and definitely the early versions, will know that Android is anything but a direct iOS copy. So because Apple made a touchscreen OS no one else can anymore? Touchwiz on the other hand was clearly meant to be as much a iOS look-a-like as possible.

  • Reply 35 of 175
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,882moderator
    prokip wrote: »
    Daniel,

    Are you the only one who can see this blatant theft, or is the rest of the world blind ??
    I never understood the premise that the LG Prada had ANYTHING to do with the development of the iPhone. But people keep bringing it up.

    The reason people want to try and revise history is that it hurts them too much to acknowledge Apple as the innovator behind the devices they currently use. No matter the facts that come to light, there's a bubble that people live in and they cycle the same phrases out every time. Their perception is that Apple just lucked into using a capacitive multi-touch display first along with all the supporting gestures and the LG Prada was evidence that phones would have ended up the same way without them. The LG Prada was a decent attempt at a touch phone vs what was available but it used some Flash UI operating system (Flash layered on top of Symbian or something) and the touch screen wasn't responsive. One of the big things the iPhone did was make the internet finally usable on the go, the Prada wasn't even close:

    http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_ke850_prada-review-145p4.php

    "The web browser that the Prada phone is equipped with offers some really basic features but it's able to open full HTML pages. It doesn't feature zoom and landscape mode. When browsing web pages the touchscreen functionality doesn't work over the pages themselves and you have to use the arrows in the bottom of the screen for navigation. As you can see from the screenshot, only half of the screen is actually used to display the web page."

    It was announced on the 12th December 2006, the iPhone was announced January 9th 2007 and a working model was shown off. The Prada didn't ship until May 2007 so we don't know what software functionality it had before.

    People take the approach of 'anything but Apple' too. LG and Samsung are competitors but people who own a Samsung are happy to acknowledge LG as the innovator behind what they have in their Samsung, just as long as it's not Apple. It can be Microsoft, Blackberry, Palm, HP, anyone but Apple.

    I think a large part of it comes down to price. Apple doesn't play the game of low margins like everyone else and I think that annoys consumers - there's always a price barrier. The Mac didn't help as it was expensive, incompatible, geared towards creatives and for 2 decades, IT guys have hated on Apple. The iPod fell into the hate cycle first - there had been MP3 players before, they said there was nothing special about the iPod, too expensive etc but it gained mass adoption and so there was some acknowledgement of a shift there. The iPhone fell into the same cycle but there had only been this LG Prada replacing buttons entirely with touch to phones and it came out around the same time so the only way to go here is to revise history and minimize the achievement, same with the iPad.

    The more that time goes on, the hope is that people will simply forget what happened and Apple won't get the credit for it. They cling to '80% marketshare' (misconstruing recent quarterly marketshare with overall marketshare) as if it somehow takes away Apple's relevance.

    What I'd rather see as an outcome of the lawsuits is not any financial exchange but for Google to be forced to put a message somewhere inside Android that says 'inspired by Apple' and it would be somewhere Android users would have to see it frequently.
  • Reply 36 of 175
    kerrybkerryb Posts: 270member

    I remember a moment from last year's Apple vs Samsung when the judge held up an iPad and a Galaxy tab(?) and asked the Samsung lawyers if they could tell which tablet was their client's. They responded that they could not. There is a point to designing a product that takes inspiration from another but a line is crossed when your product is a direct copy or close enough to blur any distinction between the two in regards to consumers. When an artist creates a fake Andy Warhol image by offsetting colors over a photograph image it is not necessarily a copy unless that image was used by Warhol such as the iconic Marylyn Monroe image. Samsung for all purposes has copied Monroe's image and stuck a Samsung label on it. 

  • Reply 37 of 175
    I am a Doctor, Lawyer, and Indian Chief
    besides being pope.

    Let me see now
    Where did the iPod,iPhone,iPad
    Products that generated billions of dollars of trade
    Shoot, copies of these items generate billions of dollars in trade
    come from?

    Europe - land of the freetards
    Or
    USA - land where the daring innovator gets protection for a short period of time
    (as stipulated in the Constitution)
    ?

    Times up.
    Pencils down!
  • Reply 38 of 175
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Exactly. Genius isn't always recognized immediately. Google was at least smart enough to realize the future of smartphones when they saw it. Those that reacted too slow are dead or dying.

    While Samsung is the only successful Android manufacturer the others are at least surviving, and that gives them a fighting chance to turn things around. Whereas BB is dying a slow death, and unless there's some sort of smartphone zombie apocalypse Palm isn't coming back.

    I've made a similar argument before (not a popular thing to say here :\). If the penalty in business for stealing Apple's tech is a potential slap on the wrist then, from a business standpoint, Samsung made the best choice and others made some of the worst choices. We can say that Samsung has no ethics and assume others did but all we really know is that Samsung is to the Android-based market as Apple is to the handset market. Right or wrong they are kicking everyone else's ass who sells an Android-based devices.
  • Reply 39 of 175
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    mwhiteco wrote: »
    If you are who you say your are a lawyer scan your degree and put it up here if you don't then we know you are lying!!!!!

    -1
  • Reply 40 of 175
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    Marvin wrote: »
    One of the big things the iPhone did was make the internet finally usable on the go, the Prada wasn't even close:

    http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_ke850_prada-review-145p4.php

    Thanks for that link. That phone had one fugly interface:

    700 700 700 700
Sign In or Register to comment.