The lack of brand loyalty is what is pathetic. People who love Apple products love their attention to detail and the investment that make in delivering features the public doesn't know they want but will actually enhance their experience. When companies are allowed to steal that innovation, and compete with Apple using their own designs and investments, it hurts Apple's real customers. The more Apple is distracted by trying to insure customers are not confused thinking they are getting the same features elsewhere, the less they can focus on pushing our platform forward. The Windows theft nearly killed Apple, because they were having to compete with their own tech while the thief sold poor replicas on the cheap.
We are loyal to Apple because they consistently put the end user experience first. The more successful they are the more they can focus on making more great stuff
Brand loyalty is great for a company. It's an insult to the consumer. Brand loyalty means your purchasing products based on who is putting it on the market - not because it's the best item for you. I have no brand loyalty. I do my research and buy products which fit my need the most, not because of a symbol etched on the exterior. Whoever has the best product gets my money.
Samsung's defense is like a carjacker stealing a car and after getting busted claiming that they should be let off the hook because they think it was an inexpensive car, "it was only a Ford and not a Mercedes." So the thief gets to assert the value of what they steal? I think a four year old cookie jar thief could come up with a better defense than this. Very pathetic, but with a jury trial you never know how lame of a defense will play to the emotions of the jury members.
Also, if all those Apple patented features have "no value" then Samsung should have no problem at all and not suffer any business losses by promptly removing all those "non valuable" features from all of their infringing products. That seems like a reasonable and equitable remedy. Oh, by the way that's exactly what Apple has been asking them and the Android community to do all along, "quit copying our stuff." Only after most of them collectively thumbed their noses and flipped off Apple did the lawyers have to get called in. Now it's all ugly and messy and stupid.
I wouldn't lump Samsung's sleazeball business practices and customer contempt (Apple was their biggest customer) with the ethics and morality of an entire nation of incredibly hard working, highly moral, and extremely dedicated people. The USA has had more than it's fair share of sleazeballs (e.g. Enron, most of the companies involved in the subprime mortgage crisis/crash of 2008) so no nation has exclusivity on morality or immorality. It's individuals and individual organizations like Samsung in its dealings with Apple that make you think that the whole system is broken, but it's not. Most people and most organizations play by the rules and respect their customers.
I'm still in shock that the greater Samsung organization would jeopardize its global reputation, public image,business relationships, and trustworthiness as a business partner by publicly violating their biggest customer. Being defiant and resorting to further denigration of their business partner and customer, not to mention their customer's customers, is not a way to save face. I hope that Samsung can rescue themselves from this moral crisis and get someone in the chief leadership position who can restore their reputation as a trusted business partner. Even if Samsung "wins" some of these tiny battles in court due to clueless and befuddled juries they'll never be able to get rid of the stink that they've attached to themselves as a trusted business partner. If Apple didn't have so many supply channel dependencies on Samsung they would have jettisoned them at the onset of this situation. No doubt that Apple is trying to exorcise the Samsung dependencies as quickly as they can. This should be a big red flag for all other product vendors looking to source components from Samsung. If you think you're dealing with a trusted business partner or even just a reliable supplier: think again - and watch your back.
Excellent post. I can only think that Samsung have too much pride. They really need to fall on their sword; they will gain more honour from that than from misplaced defiance.
Ok, saying brand loyalty is pathetic is harsh, I get annoyed when that brand loyalty causes you to bash and hate on the competition. Being a fan is great, being a fanboy isn't. In my opinion Apple is stalling innovation with these idiotic patent trials. They're trying to kill the competition in the courtroom instead of the marketplace.
Brand loyalty is great for a company. It's an insult to the consumer. Brand loyalty means your purchasing products based on who is putting it on the market - not because it's the best item for you. I have no brand loyalty. I do my research and buy products which fit my need the most, not because of a symbol etched on the exterior. Whoever has the best product gets my money.
In my opinion Apple is stalling innovation with these idiotic patent trials. They're trying to kill the competition in the courtroom instead of the marketplace.
The most idiotic post yet. Three lies that clueless posters always repeat about lawsuits: 1) lawsuits hurt innovation, 2) lawsuits cause higher prices, 3) lawsuits give consumers fewer choices. And you posted 2 out of 3. I guess you can't be perfect.
Stalling innovation? Outright lie. Patent lawsuits in the tech world have been around forever. Has innovation stalled the last 30 years? Not one bit. Look at any part of computer tech (processors, memory, displays, storage, cameras....). We have seen considerable advances in technology at a steady pace that hasn't let up. Ever. So much for stalling innovation.
Kill the competition? Another lie. At the end of this trial (like the last one) Samsung will have to pay Apple some money. Samsung isn't going out of business over a lawsuit and neither is anyone else. Even HTC (a much weaker company than Samsung) survived a major Apple lawsuit (and temporary sales ban) without any difficulty.
Now.....let's reverse Apple and Samsung.
Is Samsung or Google stalling innovation? More than Apple, that's for sure. Samsung and Google both have two things in common: 1) they steal IP without permision and 2) they try to minimize the value of others IP. If they are allowed to get away with IP theft, then they are hurting innovation. If companies aren't allowed to protect their IP then they will no longer invest billions in R&D. Patent lawsuits keep thieves in line and let others know IP theft is not tolerated.
Then we have Samsung who are trying to minimize the value of Apples IP. Another direct attack on innovation, and related to theft. If the value can be lowered, then the penalty for theft is also lowered. Nothing like saying those billions of R&D dollars only generated millions in "real world" value. Again, what company is going to invest in R&D without the ability to recoup their investment?
Google is also trying to create a "de-facto standard" to apply to patents. What this means is if I invent something, and it becomes popular, then I lose control of my IP. It will become a "standard" even if I don't want to declare it as part of a standard. Suddenly everyone can use my IP and I have no say over who uses it. And since it's like an SEP I'll get a fraction of licensing fees I could have received had the patent remained under my control.
It's not Apple that's hurting the industry - it's thieves like Samsung and Google.
The most idiotic post yet. Three lies that clueless posters always repeat about lawsuits: 1) lawsuits hurt innovation, 2) lawsuits cause higher prices, 3) lawsuits give consumers fewer choices. And you posted 2 out of 3. I guess you can't be perfect.
Stalling innovation? Outright lie. Patent lawsuits in the tech world have been around forever. Has innovation stalled the last 30 years? Not one bit. Look at any part of computer tech (processors, memory, displays, storage, cameras....). We have seen considerable advances in technology at a steady pace that hasn't let up. Ever. So much for stalling innovation.
Kill the competition? Another lie. At the end of this trial (like the last one) Samsung will have to pay Apple some money. Samsung isn't going out of business over a lawsuit and neither is anyone else. Even HTC (a much weaker company than Samsung) survived a major Apple lawsuit (and temporary sales ban) without any difficulty.
Now.....let's reverse Apple and Samsung.
Is Samsung or Google stalling innovation? More than Apple, that's for sure. Samsung and Google both have two things in common: 1) they steal IP without permision and 2) they try to minimize the value of others IP. If they are allowed to get away with IP theft, then they are hurting innovation. If companies aren't allowed to protect their IP then they will no longer invest billions in R&D. Patent lawsuits keep thieves in line and let others know IP theft is not tolerated.
Then we have Samsung who are trying to minimize the value of Apples IP. Another direct attack on innovation, and related to theft. If the value can be lowered, then the penalty for theft is also lowered. Nothing like saying those billions of R&D dollars only generated millions in "real world" value. Again, what company is going to invest in R&D without the ability to recoup their investment?
Google is also trying to create a "de-facto standard" to apply to patents. What this means is if I invent something, and it becomes popular, then I lose control of my IP. It will become a "standard" even if I don't want to declare it as part of a standard. Suddenly everyone can use my IP and I have no say over who uses it. And since it's like an SEP I'll get a fraction of licensing fees I could have received had the patent remained under my control.
No, since I don't consider a company and my family in the same group and as such how I evaluate a company has no bearings on how I treat my family. But apparently you consider Apple part of your family.
The most idiotic post yet. Three lies that clueless posters always repeat about lawsuits: 1) lawsuits hurt innovation, 2) lawsuits cause higher prices, 3) lawsuits give consumers fewer choices. And you posted 2 out of 3. I guess you can't be perfect.
Stalling innovation? Outright lie. Patent lawsuits in the tech world have been around forever. Has innovation stalled the last 30 years? Not one bit. Look at any part of computer tech (processors, memory, displays, storage, cameras....). We have seen considerable advances in technology at a steady pace that hasn't let up. Ever. So much for stalling innovation.
Kill the competition? Another lie. At the end of this trial (like the last one) Samsung will have to pay Apple some money. Samsung isn't going out of business over a lawsuit and neither is anyone else. Even HTC (a much weaker company than Samsung) survived a major Apple lawsuit (and temporary sales ban) without any difficulty.
Not so much a lie as a difference of opinion and supported by whatever stats suit your fancy. Here are some on the other side supported by evidence that patent litigation, particularly but not exclusively by PAE's, can cause economic and social harm, demand resources better spent on building businesses, and potentially hinder the pace of innovation.
What's important to note is that some with these opinions actually have the power to change at least a few of the rules.
Brand loyalty is great for a company. It's an insult to the consumer. Brand loyalty means your purchasing products based on who is putting it on the market - not because it's the best item for you. I have no brand loyalty. I do my research and buy products which fit my need the most, not because of a symbol etched on the exterior. Whoever has the best product gets my money.
Brand loyalty comes from the best research of all. It can't be manipulated or influenced by cash or fear (losing an ad money provided by the company), this brand loyalty is trust that comes from companies actually making products that consistently satisfy you needs and makes your experience better. They continue to give more value than the competitors and with Apple it shows in the fact that if android is really selling so many more devices, then Apple customers actually use their phones a magnitude more. There are a great number of simple features that still don't work seamlessly on other platforms, like opening PDF or word files from an email. Simple moves that they do but don't tell you because they are too numerous to list them all. One that has been there since day one is turning the iPhone into a hands free phone by plugging an aux cable into you car and phone, it automatically turns on the mic and sends the sound to the car speakers.
If Apple stops providing the service we expect and the products that make our lives better we would change. If they were to switch to a model that scanned my emails, voice messages, and data in my phone to sell for profit I would jump ship immediately. I don't see that happening. Apple also resists the market's attempt to go back to a world where phones really don't get updates, forcing you to buy a new phone for any new features. While Apple releases new phones each year with a couple of features exclusive to them, usually because of hardware requirements, at least the last 3 generations get a slew of new capabilities. Because of this many can skip two cycles but still feel like they got a new phone each year. No other platform can claim this.
Okay I'll keep in mind that you're just another troll. The line goes back to S. S, S2, S3, S4.... What's after 4 Mr. Troll?
Siri was acquired by Apple in April 28, 2010 and rumors about iPhone 4S name was announced before Samsung Galaxy S was released not mention the iPhone 3G "S".. so who's trolling who?
Ok, saying brand loyalty is pathetic is harsh, I get annoyed when that brand loyalty causes you to bash and hate on the competition. Being a fan is great, being a fanboy isn't. In my opinion Apple is stalling innovation with these idiotic patent trials. They're trying to kill the competition in the courtroom instead of the marketplace.
What a load! Apple giving up their fight against the theft of their OS by Micro$haft demonstrably stalled innovation for ten freakin' years! Once something is "good enough" and cheaper innovation is going to stall right there. What you're saying is Apple's protection of their innovation from theft is stalling the process of creating "carrier friendly good enough" products—which is apparently the outcome you want to see.
Siri was acquired by Apple in April 28, 2010 and rumors about iPhone 4S name was announced before Samsung Galaxy S was released not mention the iPhone 3G "S".. so who's trolling who?
There's about a year a half between the two events (Galaxy S in May/10 and iPhone 4S in October/2011) so I doubt there was already much in the way of rumor on the naming of 4S 18 months ahead of time. So I don't really think the Galaxy S was so named in anticipation of the 4S either.
Apple also resists the market's attempt to go back to a world where phones really don't get updates, forcing you to buy a new phone for any new features. While Apple releases new phones each year with a couple of features exclusive to them, usually because of hardware requirements, at least the last 3 generations get a slew of new capabilities. Because of this many can skip two cycles but still feel like they got a new phone each year. No other platform can claim this.
Quite the opposite. Most versions feature minor incremental updates save for the 1 feature which is exclusive to the item, i.e. 3G, Siri, TouchID for the purpose of making you purchase a new phone. And let's not forget about the iPad where the iPad 3 was released and then 6 months later the iPad 4 with retina came out.
Fundamentally the problem is Samsung smartphones aren't valuable. Until Samsung starts making better devices and stops wasting billions on advertising, the company won't have anything to pay Apple.
There's about a year a half between the two events (Galaxy S in May/10 and iPhone 4S in October/2011) so I doubt there was already much in the way of rumor on the naming of 4S 18 months ahead of time. So I don't really think the Galaxy S was so named in anticipation of the 4S either.
The link shows that Apple had acquired Siri and with iPhone 3G -"S".. -Shamesung has done the math- with all the terrible things i said about Shamesung i never said they are terrible at copying in fact i think they are the best in the world at copying!
I'm sure if i search more i will find the link with iPhone 4S name before Samsung S was released
Quite the opposite. Most versions feature minor incremental updates save for the 1 feature which is exclusive to the item, i.e. 3G, Siri, TouchID for the purpose of making you purchase a new phone. And let's not forget about the iPad where the iPad 3 was released and then 6 months later the iPad 4 with retina came out.
Ahem... TouchID arrived along with the 64-bit A7 processor and M7 coprocessor--that was a huge deal just by itself. And TouchID was a big enough deal for Samsung to (try to) provide a similar feature 6 months later. Every new model of iPhone has had some new feature(s) as well as a faster processor (often twice as fast).
The iPad 4 arrived with a 2X faster processor and the Lightning port. Apple was forced to bite the bullet on an early release of the iPad 4 because of the need to unify all iOS devices across its current product line on Lightning. The original 30-pin iPod connector was already about 10 years old. The double-speed processor was a super bonus. And this frequency of updates is uncharacteristic of Apple, so don't try to make it sound commonplace or like something Apple did without a lot of serious consideration of how people (like you) might try to "make hay" from it.
Ahem... TouchID arrived along with the 64-bit A7 processor and M7 coprocessor--that was a huge deal just by itself. And TouchID was a big enough deal for Samsung to (try to) provide a similar feature 6 months later. Every new model of iPhone has had some new feature(s) as well as a faster processor (often twice as fast).
The iPad 4 arrived with a 2X faster processor and the Lightning port. Apple was forced to bite the bullet on an early release of the iPad 4 because of the need to unify all iOS devices across its current product line on Lightning. The original 30-pin iPod connector was already about 10 years old. The double-speed processor was a super bonus. And this frequency of updates is uncharacteristic of Apple, so don't try to make it sound commonplace or like something Apple did without a lot of serious consideration of how people (like you) might try to "make hay" from it.
Agreed!, Also no one in the world has ever done what Apple did by introducing the revolutionary iPhone and 3 years later the revolutionary iPhone 4..when did Shamesung has ever done something like this lol!
Comments
The lack of brand loyalty is what is pathetic. People who love Apple products love their attention to detail and the investment that make in delivering features the public doesn't know they want but will actually enhance their experience. When companies are allowed to steal that innovation, and compete with Apple using their own designs and investments, it hurts Apple's real customers. The more Apple is distracted by trying to insure customers are not confused thinking they are getting the same features elsewhere, the less they can focus on pushing our platform forward. The Windows theft nearly killed Apple, because they were having to compete with their own tech while the thief sold poor replicas on the cheap.
We are loyal to Apple because they consistently put the end user experience first. The more successful they are the more they can focus on making more great stuff
Brand loyalty is great for a company. It's an insult to the consumer. Brand loyalty means your purchasing products based on who is putting it on the market - not because it's the best item for you. I have no brand loyalty. I do my research and buy products which fit my need the most, not because of a symbol etched on the exterior. Whoever has the best product gets my money.
Brand loyalty means your purchasing products based on who is putting it on the market - not because it's the best item for you.
Not quite…
Samsung's defense is like a carjacker stealing a car and after getting busted claiming that they should be let off the hook because they think it was an inexpensive car, "it was only a Ford and not a Mercedes." So the thief gets to assert the value of what they steal? I think a four year old cookie jar thief could come up with a better defense than this. Very pathetic, but with a jury trial you never know how lame of a defense will play to the emotions of the jury members.
Also, if all those Apple patented features have "no value" then Samsung should have no problem at all and not suffer any business losses by promptly removing all those "non valuable" features from all of their infringing products. That seems like a reasonable and equitable remedy. Oh, by the way that's exactly what Apple has been asking them and the Android community to do all along, "quit copying our stuff." Only after most of them collectively thumbed their noses and flipped off Apple did the lawyers have to get called in. Now it's all ugly and messy and stupid.
I wouldn't lump Samsung's sleazeball business practices and customer contempt (Apple was their biggest customer) with the ethics and morality of an entire nation of incredibly hard working, highly moral, and extremely dedicated people. The USA has had more than it's fair share of sleazeballs (e.g. Enron, most of the companies involved in the subprime mortgage crisis/crash of 2008) so no nation has exclusivity on morality or immorality. It's individuals and individual organizations like Samsung in its dealings with Apple that make you think that the whole system is broken, but it's not. Most people and most organizations play by the rules and respect their customers.
I'm still in shock that the greater Samsung organization would jeopardize its global reputation, public image,business relationships, and trustworthiness as a business partner by publicly violating their biggest customer. Being defiant and resorting to further denigration of their business partner and customer, not to mention their customer's customers, is not a way to save face. I hope that Samsung can rescue themselves from this moral crisis and get someone in the chief leadership position who can restore their reputation as a trusted business partner. Even if Samsung "wins" some of these tiny battles in court due to clueless and befuddled juries they'll never be able to get rid of the stink that they've attached to themselves as a trusted business partner. If Apple didn't have so many supply channel dependencies on Samsung they would have jettisoned them at the onset of this situation. No doubt that Apple is trying to exorcise the Samsung dependencies as quickly as they can. This should be a big red flag for all other product vendors looking to source components from Samsung. If you think you're dealing with a trusted business partner or even just a reliable supplier: think again - and watch your back.
Excellent post. I can only think that Samsung have too much pride. They really need to fall on their sword; they will gain more honour from that than from misplaced defiance.
Ok, saying brand loyalty is pathetic is harsh, I get annoyed when that brand loyalty causes you to bash and hate on the competition. Being a fan is great, being a fanboy isn't. In my opinion Apple is stalling innovation with these idiotic patent trials. They're trying to kill the competition in the courtroom instead of the marketplace.
Go away.
No we don't.
Oh yes we...doh!
Brand loyalty is great for a company. It's an insult to the consumer. Brand loyalty means your purchasing products based on who is putting it on the market - not because it's the best item for you. I have no brand loyalty. I do my research and buy products which fit my need the most, not because of a symbol etched on the exterior. Whoever has the best product gets my money.
I guess you show the same loyalty to your family.
Stalling innovation? Outright lie. Patent lawsuits in the tech world have been around forever. Has innovation stalled the last 30 years? Not one bit. Look at any part of computer tech (processors, memory, displays, storage, cameras....). We have seen considerable advances in technology at a steady pace that hasn't let up. Ever. So much for stalling innovation.
Kill the competition? Another lie. At the end of this trial (like the last one) Samsung will have to pay Apple some money. Samsung isn't going out of business over a lawsuit and neither is anyone else. Even HTC (a much weaker company than Samsung) survived a major Apple lawsuit (and temporary sales ban) without any difficulty.
Now.....let's reverse Apple and Samsung.
Is Samsung or Google stalling innovation? More than Apple, that's for sure. Samsung and Google both have two things in common: 1) they steal IP without permision and 2) they try to minimize the value of others IP. If they are allowed to get away with IP theft, then they are hurting innovation. If companies aren't allowed to protect their IP then they will no longer invest billions in R&D. Patent lawsuits keep thieves in line and let others know IP theft is not tolerated.
Then we have Samsung who are trying to minimize the value of Apples IP. Another direct attack on innovation, and related to theft. If the value can be lowered, then the penalty for theft is also lowered. Nothing like saying those billions of R&D dollars only generated millions in "real world" value. Again, what company is going to invest in R&D without the ability to recoup their investment?
Google is also trying to create a "de-facto standard" to apply to patents. What this means is if I invent something, and it becomes popular, then I lose control of my IP. It will become a "standard" even if I don't want to declare it as part of a standard. Suddenly everyone can use my IP and I have no say over who uses it. And since it's like an SEP I'll get a fraction of licensing fees I could have received had the patent remained under my control.
It's not Apple that's hurting the industry - it's thieves like Samsung and Google.
The most idiotic post yet. Three lies that clueless posters always repeat about lawsuits: 1) lawsuits hurt innovation, 2) lawsuits cause higher prices, 3) lawsuits give consumers fewer choices. And you posted 2 out of 3. I guess you can't be perfect.
Stalling innovation? Outright lie. Patent lawsuits in the tech world have been around forever. Has innovation stalled the last 30 years? Not one bit. Look at any part of computer tech (processors, memory, displays, storage, cameras....). We have seen considerable advances in technology at a steady pace that hasn't let up. Ever. So much for stalling innovation.
Kill the competition? Another lie. At the end of this trial (like the last one) Samsung will have to pay Apple some money. Samsung isn't going out of business over a lawsuit and neither is anyone else. Even HTC (a much weaker company than Samsung) survived a major Apple lawsuit (and temporary sales ban) without any difficulty.
Now.....let's reverse Apple and Samsung.
Is Samsung or Google stalling innovation? More than Apple, that's for sure. Samsung and Google both have two things in common: 1) they steal IP without permision and 2) they try to minimize the value of others IP. If they are allowed to get away with IP theft, then they are hurting innovation. If companies aren't allowed to protect their IP then they will no longer invest billions in R&D. Patent lawsuits keep thieves in line and let others know IP theft is not tolerated.
Then we have Samsung who are trying to minimize the value of Apples IP. Another direct attack on innovation, and related to theft. If the value can be lowered, then the penalty for theft is also lowered. Nothing like saying those billions of R&D dollars only generated millions in "real world" value. Again, what company is going to invest in R&D without the ability to recoup their investment?
Google is also trying to create a "de-facto standard" to apply to patents. What this means is if I invent something, and it becomes popular, then I lose control of my IP. It will become a "standard" even if I don't want to declare it as part of a standard. Suddenly everyone can use my IP and I have no say over who uses it. And since it's like an SEP I'll get a fraction of licensing fees I could have received had the patent remained under my control.
So much truth; a pleasure to read.
I guess you show the same loyalty to your family.
No, since I don't consider a company and my family in the same group and as such how I evaluate a company has no bearings on how I treat my family. But apparently you consider Apple part of your family.
What's important to note is that some with these opinions actually have the power to change at least a few of the rules.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2012/5/v34n4-1.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf
http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/numbers-dont-lie-patent-trolls-are-plague-205192
http://www.svb.com/uploadedFiles/Blogs/10097/innovation-economy-outlook-patent-reform-0314.pdf
If Apple stops providing the service we expect and the products that make our lives better we would change. If they were to switch to a model that scanned my emails, voice messages, and data in my phone to sell for profit I would jump ship immediately. I don't see that happening. Apple also resists the market's attempt to go back to a world where phones really don't get updates, forcing you to buy a new phone for any new features. While Apple releases new phones each year with a couple of features exclusive to them, usually because of hardware requirements, at least the last 3 generations get a slew of new capabilities. Because of this many can skip two cycles but still feel like they got a new phone each year. No other platform can claim this.
Okay I'll keep in mind that you're just another troll. The line goes back to S. S, S2, S3, S4.... What's after 4 Mr. Troll?
Siri was acquired by Apple in April 28, 2010 and rumors about iPhone 4S name was announced before Samsung Galaxy S was released not mention the iPhone 3G "S".. so who's trolling who?
What a load! Apple giving up their fight against the theft of their OS by Micro$haft demonstrably stalled innovation for ten freakin' years! Once something is "good enough" and cheaper innovation is going to stall right there. What you're saying is Apple's protection of their innovation from theft is stalling the process of creating "carrier friendly good enough" products—which is apparently the outcome you want to see.
There's about a year a half between the two events (Galaxy S in May/10 and iPhone 4S in October/2011) so I doubt there was already much in the way of rumor on the naming of 4S 18 months ahead of time. So I don't really think the Galaxy S was so named in anticipation of the 4S either.
You do know that separate motion sensor, slo Mo video at 720p and Camera on lock screen etc came on Motorola X before iPhones correct?
Nobody remembers who tried to cure cancer!
-The Way
The Slow Mo before iPhone was joke -only 0.1% from Android and iOS used that Gimmick
Jaibroken iOS was the first to add camera on Lock screen before android -(inclunding Widgets) but Apple done it a better job the right way
http://www.cultofmac.com/156692/how-to-get-ios-5-1-lock-screen-camera-shortcut-on-ios-5-0-1-right-now-jailbreak/
Do i need to continue....?
Apple also resists the market's attempt to go back to a world where phones really don't get updates, forcing you to buy a new phone for any new features. While Apple releases new phones each year with a couple of features exclusive to them, usually because of hardware requirements, at least the last 3 generations get a slew of new capabilities. Because of this many can skip two cycles but still feel like they got a new phone each year. No other platform can claim this.
Quite the opposite. Most versions feature minor incremental updates save for the 1 feature which is exclusive to the item, i.e. 3G, Siri, TouchID for the purpose of making you purchase a new phone. And let's not forget about the iPad where the iPad 3 was released and then 6 months later the iPad 4 with retina came out.
Fundamentally the problem is Samsung smartphones aren't valuable. Until Samsung starts making better devices and stops wasting billions on advertising, the company won't have anything to pay Apple.
There's about a year a half between the two events (Galaxy S in May/10 and iPhone 4S in October/2011) so I doubt there was already much in the way of rumor on the naming of 4S 18 months ahead of time. So I don't really think the Galaxy S was so named in anticipation of the 4S either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/technology/29apple.html?_r=0
The link shows that Apple had acquired Siri and with iPhone 3G -"S".. -Shamesung has done the math- with all the terrible things i said about Shamesung i never said they are terrible at copying in fact i think they are the best in the world at copying!
I'm sure if i search more i will find the link with iPhone 4S name before Samsung S was released
Quite the opposite. Most versions feature minor incremental updates save for the 1 feature which is exclusive to the item, i.e. 3G, Siri, TouchID for the purpose of making you purchase a new phone. And let's not forget about the iPad where the iPad 3 was released and then 6 months later the iPad 4 with retina came out.
Ahem... TouchID arrived along with the 64-bit A7 processor and M7 coprocessor--that was a huge deal just by itself. And TouchID was a big enough deal for Samsung to (try to) provide a similar feature 6 months later. Every new model of iPhone has had some new feature(s) as well as a faster processor (often twice as fast).
The iPad 4 arrived with a 2X faster processor and the Lightning port. Apple was forced to bite the bullet on an early release of the iPad 4 because of the need to unify all iOS devices across its current product line on Lightning. The original 30-pin iPod connector was already about 10 years old. The double-speed processor was a super bonus. And this frequency of updates is uncharacteristic of Apple, so don't try to make it sound commonplace or like something Apple did without a lot of serious consideration of how people (like you) might try to "make hay" from it.
Ahem... TouchID arrived along with the 64-bit A7 processor and M7 coprocessor--that was a huge deal just by itself. And TouchID was a big enough deal for Samsung to (try to) provide a similar feature 6 months later. Every new model of iPhone has had some new feature(s) as well as a faster processor (often twice as fast).
The iPad 4 arrived with a 2X faster processor and the Lightning port. Apple was forced to bite the bullet on an early release of the iPad 4 because of the need to unify all iOS devices across its current product line on Lightning. The original 30-pin iPod connector was already about 10 years old. The double-speed processor was a super bonus. And this frequency of updates is uncharacteristic of Apple, so don't try to make it sound commonplace or like something Apple did without a lot of serious consideration of how people (like you) might try to "make hay" from it.
Agreed!, Also no one in the world has ever done what Apple did by introducing the revolutionary iPhone and 3 years later the revolutionary iPhone 4..when did Shamesung has ever done something like this lol!