And all possible thanks to Google ripping of iOS and calling it Android in the first place. /sigh
Android pre-dates even rumors of an iPhone. You probably mean the multi-touch interface.
Android pre-dated Apple with no multi-touch interface, but physical keyboard oriented OS like Blackberry. Bottom line: physical keyboard oriented OS was out of date and on the verge of death. Suddenly, there's a light in the end of tunnel that helped to revive the (copy) life of Physical Keyboard Oriented OS: iOS (it wasn't called iOS back then btw).
There were actually at least three different initial prototypes for the first Android developer phone, and one of those used a rudimentary touch interface. The one everyone here seems to be familiar with was just one of the three, the HTC-built and very Blackerry-ish Sooner. That's the one that some early developer published pics of a few years ago leading to the claims that Google started out copying Blackberry.
Google didn't create any of the prototypes. They were all done by members of the Open Handset Alliance at Google's behest to see what ideas they might come up with for integrating the Android OS in a usable interface driving smartphone hardware.
If you followed the news closely in 2007, you'd know that Eric Schmidt went back to Google and overhauled the entire Android project at the time because of the iOS UI.
I bet you GatorGuy does, but he doesn't let facts and history-set-in-stone stop him from cherry-picking for the best Pro-Google, Anti-Apple retort he can manufacture and spin around here...
Absolutely said this would happen right after Apple introduced the notch, because it was way to boost sales from people who wanted to act like they had iPhone. Samsung should have been sued out of existence.
And all possible thanks to Google ripping of iOS and calling it Android in the first place. /sigh
Android pre-dates even rumors of an iPhone. You probably mean the multi-touch interface.
Yes it does, it pre-dates it as first being a Point-and-shoot camera OS, then later being turned into a Blackberry rip-off OS, and finally when Eric Schmidt got wind of iPhone, had Google scrap all that and re-do Android in iPhone's image.
It's a copycat, stolen product, pure and simple.
There is a difference between inspired by and stolen. Stolen means it illegally copied the hardware and the source code of the software. While the role of Eric Schmidt is definitely objectionable, Google did not copy iOS in a strict sense, it rebuilt Android on the ideas of iOS.
If you insists that Android is a stolen product, copied from the iPhone, then you'd better take a look at the Alcatel WebTouch that was launched in 2000 (https://cloud10.todocoleccion.online/antiguedades-tecnicas/tc/2016/05/17/10/56887437.jpg). This was a touch screen phone with internet browser, email client, contact list, and other Java based apps. Apart from the fact that the Alcatel WebTouch was a fixed phone, the iPhone also seems to be a copycat and a stolen product.
Apple's goal with the iPhone X was to make a phone that was ALL screen with no bezels. So, some genius says "Hey, since we don't want to make a small bezel above the screen to put the camera and FaceID technology, let's put the bezel IN the screen!!" ...and thus the iPhone X was born. A smartphone maker following that idiotic idea is a kin to how the trend of wearing one's pants with the waits below the butt so the underwear is showing and you have to walk with your legs spread in order to keep the pants up. One person who I guess was considered cool, started that trend and someone said, "Hey, I'm gonna wear my pants that way too!!" ...and thus that idiotic trend was born.
Nope. When you double-tap the screen it goes into full-screen mode BY cropping. Depending on the particular aspect ratio of the film, you will absolutely lose content as the video is cropped to zoom-in on your display. You will lose content from either the left & right sides of the frame, or the top & bottom (which depends on the letterbox aspect ratio). Even were there no notch, this is still true -- data is lost when you zoom-in.
So again, if you're as into the quality of the video content as you suggest, then you should be well aware that double-tapping to enter full-screen mode actually zooms-in and chops off part of your film. Doing so doesnt make sense to me, and that's why it's not the default behavior.
In effect, you're choosing to destroy part of the content by double-taping to zoom-in. Just don't do that and the notch won't be a problem anymore.
Fair enough. But If the aspect ratio of the original film will not fit natively on the phone's screen, and yet I still choose to "zoom in", knowing it will crop some of the original image, the notch only FURTHER cuts into the zoomed/cropped film. My point, which I think is a very valid one, is that the notch is living inside my screen, literally deleting some of the screen. I'd rather have to belly-ache about aspect ratio issues over screen obstruction. In the case of Deadpool, I believe the original aspect ratio enables it to fit perfectly on the iPhone X's screen in full screen mode because when it's not in full screen mode there are even video bezels on all 4 sides of the video. When I put it in full screen mode it appears to fit perfectly with no cropping. I could be wrong about that, but it truly looks perfect to me in full screen mode. What ruins it is the notch which blatently obstructs some of the film. This is what my gripe is, because as I said before, a screen should be a screen. It should not be a place to park your utility box.
I'm fairly certain when you zoom-in on dead-pool you are loosing content and simply aren't noticing it. Scrub to a bright scene, note the things in the frame at the edges, then zoom-in...you ill see some of the frame disappear.
Again, this is why it's not the default behavior. Even on the 7 and earlier, zooming-in on a video causes you to lose data due to the cropping. It's not the notch, it's you.
You just use a 16x9 grid and zoom it and you'll see exactly what you lose. They know they don't have an argument: zooming means losing something.
And all possible thanks to Google ripping of iOS and calling it Android in the first place. /sigh
Android pre-dates even rumors of an iPhone. You probably mean the multi-touch interface.
Yes it does, it pre-dates it as first being a Point-and-shoot camera OS, then later being turned into a Blackberry rip-off OS, and finally when Eric Schmidt got wind of iPhone, had Google scrap all that and re-do Android in iPhone's image.
It's a copycat, stolen product, pure and simple.
There is a difference between inspired by and stolen. Stolen means it illegally copied the hardware and the source code of the software. While the role of Eric Schmidt is definitely objectionable, Google did not copy iOS in a strict sense, it rebuilt Android on the ideas of iOS.
If you insists that Android is a stolen product, copied from the iPhone, then you'd better take a look at the Alcatel WebTouch that was launched in 2000 (https://cloud10.todocoleccion.online/antiguedades-tecnicas/tc/2016/05/17/10/56887437.jpg). This was a touch screen phone with internet browser, email client, contact list, and other Java based apps. Apart from the fact that the Alcatel WebTouch was a fixed phone, the iPhone also seems to be a copycat and a stolen product.
You really have no idea what is the innovation of iPhone by Steve Jobs. The Android defenders always use the touch screen as fully representing the innovation of iPhone. This is totally wrong. Touch screen has existed long before iPhone. This is no secret, The real innovation of iPhone is it gets rid off the keyboard, buttons, menus, windows of the pc era completely. And this is what the shameless Google Android team did by completely copy Jobs idea.
If the Android OS copy the touch screen by still keep the keyboard and buttons then I would stop saying Google stole Jobs idea.
And all possible thanks to Google ripping of iOS and calling it Android in the first place. /sigh
Android pre-dates even rumors of an iPhone. You probably mean the multi-touch interface.
Yes it does, it pre-dates it as first being a Point-and-shoot camera OS, then later being turned into a Blackberry rip-off OS, and finally when Eric Schmidt got wind of iPhone, had Google scrap all that and re-do Android in iPhone's image.
It's a copycat, stolen product, pure and simple.
There is a difference between inspired by and stolen. Stolen means it illegally copied the hardware and the source code of the software. While the role of Eric Schmidt is definitely objectionable, Google did not copy iOS in a strict sense, it rebuilt Android on the ideas of iOS.
If you insists that Android is a stolen product, copied from the iPhone, then you'd better take a look at the Alcatel WebTouch that was launched in 2000 (https://cloud10.todocoleccion.online/antiguedades-tecnicas/tc/2016/05/17/10/56887437.jpg). This was a touch screen phone with internet browser, email client, contact list, and other Java based apps. Apart from the fact that the Alcatel WebTouch was a fixed phone, the iPhone also seems to be a copycat and a stolen product.
There is another example to refute your nonsense. HP sold a Windows based touch pad in 2000. Do you know that? It has touch screen. Is iPad a copycat of this product? Your narrow focusing of touch screen will say yes. But all people with a reasonable sense will say no,
Multi-touch ideas were almost certainly influenced by what Apple did with the iPhone. They were also influenced by Palm who like Apple opted for a touch-centric interface. Had Microsoft recognized what the iPhone brought to the market as quickly as Google understood it, or had Palm had deeper pockets, the arguments would involve other players instead of or in addition to Google.
As for my multi-touch comment in the original post... Google held back on unlocking the touch interface they had built in to Android in order to appease Steve Jobs. We all (should) know that. When Palm proceeded anyway using their own multi-touch patents despite Apple's saber-rattling threats to sue em (and Palm saying bring it on, we'll do the same), and for whatever reason Apple chose not to follow thru on the threats it forced Google's hand. With Palm calling Steve Jobs bluff Google had a choice to make: They could keep the feature locked away from being used as Mr. Jobs would like and by doing so be a complete non-factor in smartphones, or like Palm do it anyway even if Mr. Jobs was angered. We all know what they decided.
In the past couple of years they've agreed to put the sabers away and co-exist as a duopoly of iOS and Android. In the end Apple didn't sue Palm or Google and multi-touch done the Apple way became the standard. But iOS has never been Android and vice-versa. They've always had their own paths, even if some of the vision and features are shared and/or borrowed.
But I'm not trying to re-hash an old story. The smartphone wars are over as far as Apple and Google are concerned. It's some of the fans that just can't let go.
You are making a statement of fact, were you inside the walls of Apple and Google to know this.
There is no evidence to back up that Google had long game and had years of product roadmaps laying out the feature and function of Android. The only thing that "pre-date" was the name of Android, and Eric did not lie since that was true. But the fact that google/Eric did not defend themselves and keep silent on the topic is more telling than anything else. If anything we know about Google by their own actions they do not long term plan, they iterate in real time and adjust as they see what is going on around them. You can commend them for how quickly they rewrote Android to make it more like the iPhone, but their plan was around a keyboard based phone not what Apple started out right from the beginning. We know from Oracle/Google and the Apple/Samsung Lawsuits that Google was not working on what we know as Android is today prior to Apple product announcements.
BTW, Motorola also had a touch display phone with their own software and UI long before Andriod and IOS hit the market. It was only sold in Asia for various reasons and when IOS came out Motorola killed the product and jump on the android bandwagon. it was on the market back in 2006. https://www.cnet.com/products/motorola-ming-a1200-unlocked/review/ but it still was no iPhone, even Motorola knew what was going in when the IOS hit the market.
Touchscreen as not new as your nice article pointed out, they date back to 1980's in real world applications, I use the first on a HP computer, and I continue to us them to the present day so I have over 30 yrs of actual experience on touch displays. I can say that Apple fixes most if not all the issue which lingers for year with touch displays.
I would recommend you stop getting your facts from the internet and the media, if anything we all should know over the last 2 years the media only know the information told to them very few have actually real world experience with what the claim to write about.
And all possible thanks to Google ripping of iOS and calling it Android in the first place. /sigh
Android pre-dates even rumors of an iPhone. You probably mean the multi-touch interface.
Yes it does, it pre-dates it as first being a Point-and-shoot camera OS, then later being turned into a Blackberry rip-off OS, and finally when Eric Schmidt got wind of iPhone, had Google scrap all that and re-do Android in iPhone's image.
It's a copycat, stolen product, pure and simple.
There is a difference between inspired by and stolen. Stolen means it illegally copied the hardware and the source code of the software. While the role of Eric Schmidt is definitely objectionable, Google did not copy iOS in a strict sense, it rebuilt Android on the ideas of iOS.
If you insists that Android is a stolen product, copied from the iPhone, then you'd better take a look at the Alcatel WebTouch that was launched in 2000 (https://cloud10.todocoleccion.online/antiguedades-tecnicas/tc/2016/05/17/10/56887437.jpg). This was a touch screen phone with internet browser, email client, contact list, and other Java based apps. Apart from the fact that the Alcatel WebTouch was a fixed phone, the iPhone also seems to be a copycat and a stolen product.
There is another example to refute your nonsense. HP sold a Windows based touch pad in 2000. Do you know that? It has touch screen. Is iPad a copycat of this product? Your narrow focusing of touch screen will say yes. But all people with a reasonable sense will say no,
lets not forget the Newton prior to that... and Apple was working on a touch screen powerbook prior to the newton, which never sale the light of day, and I remember correctly there was a touch screen Grid computer at the same time of the newton. All that matter is who had the better design at the end of day.
I think the reason behind the notch is to improve the user experience. If the camera array was above the screen the users would have to look avbive the screen to trigger FaceID then refocus on the screen after being granted access. The notch means they just look at the screen and they’re in.
Well, I own an iPhone X (256GB) and my experience is when watching a movie in full screen
You've already ruined the movie by watching it on a tiny screen.
And all possible thanks to Google ripping of iOS and calling it Android in the first place. /sigh
Android pre-dates even rumors of an iPhone. You probably mean the multi-touch interface.
Android back then was just ripping off Blackberry OS. They just found something better to copy. Android was just a name and an idea, it wasn't a product. We've already seen the leaked emails from Google when the iPhone was initially shown. They said they couldn't release Android now and then set about copying iOS before releasing it.
And all possible thanks to Google ripping of iOS and calling it Android in the first place. /sigh
Android pre-dates even rumors of an iPhone. You probably mean the multi-touch interface.
Android back then was just ripping off Blackberry OS. They just found something better to copy. Android was just a name and an idea, it wasn't a product. We've already seen the leaked emails from Google when the iPhone was initially shown. They said they couldn't release Android now and then set about copying iOS before releasing it pivoted to go all in with a touch UI for Android because of the obvious benefits the iPhone demonstrated.
IMO it would have been stupid not to, and I'd bet you agree.
Nope. When you double-tap the screen it goes into full-screen mode BY cropping. Depending on the particular aspect ratio of the film, you will absolutely lose content as the video is cropped to zoom-in on your display. You will lose content from either the left & right sides of the frame, or the top & bottom (which depends on the letterbox aspect ratio). Even were there no notch, this is still true -- data is lost when you zoom-in.
So again, if you're as into the quality of the video content as you suggest, then you should be well aware that double-tapping to enter full-screen mode actually zooms-in and chops off part of your film. Doing so doesnt make sense to me, and that's why it's not the default behavior.
In effect, you're choosing to destroy part of the content by double-taping to zoom-in. Just don't do that and the notch won't be a problem anymore.
Fair enough. But If the aspect ratio of the original film will not fit natively on the phone's screen, and yet I still choose to "zoom in", knowing it will crop some of the original image, the notch only FURTHER cuts into the zoomed/cropped film. My point, which I think is a very valid one, is that the notch is living inside my screen, literally deleting some of the screen. I'd rather have to belly-ache about aspect ratio issues over screen obstruction. In the case of Deadpool, I believe the original aspect ratio enables it to fit perfectly on the iPhone X's screen in full screen mode because when it's not in full screen mode there are even video bezels on all 4 sides of the video. When I put it in full screen mode it appears to fit perfectly with no cropping. I could be wrong about that, but it truly looks perfect to me in full screen mode. What ruins it is the notch which blatently obstructs some of the film. This is what my gripe is, because as I said before, a screen should be a screen. It should not be a place to park your utility box.
I'm fairly certain when you zoom-in on dead-pool you are loosing content and simply aren't noticing it. Scrub to a bright scene, note the things in the frame at the edges, then zoom-in...you ill see some of the frame disappear.
Again, this is why it's not the default behavior. Even on the 7 and earlier, zooming-in on a video causes you to lose data due to the cropping. It's not the notch, it's you.
You just use a 16x9 grid and zoom it and you'll see exactly what you lose. They know they don't have an argument: zooming means losing something.
Deadpool was apparently filmed in 21:9. At a glance with LOTR, you don't really lose content on top and bottom when zoomed, at least at a glance. Corners, and notch, yes. Best to leave it not zoomed either way and hold it closer to your face.
Google not only ripped off the software design, they ripped off the hardware design too. And they continue to do so. Google is an ad company that sucks at anything else but collecting user data and selling it to the highest bidder.
Mr. Google drops another turd on AI. Oh, did I make an ad hominem attack? Sorry, if the shoe fits and all that.
And all possible thanks to Google ripping of iOS and calling it Android in the first place. /sigh
Android pre-dates even rumors of an iPhone. You probably mean the multi-touch interface.
Android pre-dated Apple with no multi-touch interface, but physical keyboard oriented OS like Blackberry. Bottom line: physical keyboard oriented OS was out of date and on the verge of death. Suddenly, there's a light in the end of tunnel that helped to revive the (copy) life of Physical Keyboard Oriented OS: iOS (it wasn't called iOS back then btw).
There were actually at least three different initial prototypes for the first Android developer phone, and one of those used a rudimentary touch interface. The one everyone here seems to be familiar with was just one of the three, the HTC-built and very Blackerry-ish Sooner. That's the one that some early developer published pics of a few years ago leading to the claims that Google started out copying Blackberry.
Google didn't create any of the prototypes. They were all done by members of the Open Handset Alliance at Google's behest to see what ideas they might come up with for integrating the Android OS in a usable interface driving smartphone hardware.
If you followed the news closely in 2007, you'd know that Eric Schmidt went back to Google and overhauled the entire Android project at the time because of the iOS UI.
So the other smartphone manufacturers that mocked the iPhone and stood their course were dummies and Google who recognized the paradigm shift and pivoted are dummies as well?
Comments
He's one of the most annoying Fandroids here...
If the Android OS copy the touch screen by still keep the keyboard and buttons then I would stop saying Google stole Jobs idea.
There is another example to refute your nonsense. HP sold a Windows based touch pad in 2000. Do you know that? It has touch screen. Is iPad a copycat of this product? Your narrow focusing of touch screen will say yes. But all people with a reasonable sense will say no,
There is no evidence to back up that Google had long game and had years of product roadmaps laying out the feature and function of Android. The only thing that "pre-date" was the name of Android, and Eric did not lie since that was true. But the fact that google/Eric did not defend themselves and keep silent on the topic is more telling than anything else. If anything we know about Google by their own actions they do not long term plan, they iterate in real time and adjust as they see what is going on around them. You can commend them for how quickly they rewrote Android to make it more like the iPhone, but their plan was around a keyboard based phone not what Apple started out right from the beginning. We know from Oracle/Google and the Apple/Samsung Lawsuits that Google was not working on what we know as Android is today prior to Apple product announcements.
BTW, Motorola also had a touch display phone with their own software and UI long before Andriod and IOS hit the market. It was only sold in Asia for various reasons and when IOS came out Motorola killed the product and jump on the android bandwagon. it was on the market back in 2006. https://www.cnet.com/products/motorola-ming-a1200-unlocked/review/ but it still was no iPhone, even Motorola knew what was going in when the IOS hit the market.
Touchscreen as not new as your nice article pointed out, they date back to 1980's in real world applications, I use the first on a HP computer, and I continue to us them to the present day so I have over 30 yrs of actual experience on touch displays. I can say that Apple fixes most if not all the issue which lingers for year with touch displays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-150
I would recommend you stop getting your facts from the internet and the media, if anything we all should know over the last 2 years the media only know the information told to them very few have actually real world experience with what the claim to write about.
lets not forget the Newton prior to that... and Apple was working on a touch screen powerbook prior to the newton, which never sale the light of day, and I remember correctly there was a touch screen Grid computer at the same time of the newton. All that matter is who had the better design at the end of day.
Android was just a name and an idea, it wasn't a product.
We've already seen the leaked emails from Google when the iPhone was initially shown. They said they couldn't release Android now and then set about copying iOS before releasing it.