Everyone says Android is stolen from iOS...yet no one can actually point to how it is stolen from iOS...and I'm not talking some vague patent on a "method" I'm talking actual point by point "iOS had this then Android TOOK IT" because such a thing does not exist. (with the exception of folder creation in Android 4.0 but that is a good trade off for Apple's new innovative notification center)
How about Android phones using multi-touch, otherwise known as the patent Apple just received?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Also Apple came into PARC labs as potential investors...(a lie) and took the idea (not illegal IMO and not immoral as I feel good ideas should be shared and adapted or licensed so the originator gets paid for his advancement of things - something Apple seems to be against) of the GUI and made it their own. Taking an idea and adapting it into your own is how advancement works...at least that's how it use to work before software patents.
Apple gave Xerox the right to purchase 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stocks for letting them examine the PARC GUI. In the end, Apple only took the base ideas of the GUI and completely reengineered them to fit the Apple team's ideas as to how the consumer would interact with a computer. The IPO stock that was worth Over $17 million dollars less than a year later, so it's not like Xerox didn't make anything on the deal.
Only Google didn't have the decency to offer Apple anything for Schmidt 'peeking under the kimono' the way Apple did with Xerox.
Samsung is an example and hypothetical, my future predicting skills need work. Sure many of these companies would love to have Apples business but A - Many of them would take months to get set up to produce what Apple may need if not years which would destroy Apple B - I am also talking about countries (China) that are not democratic and will do as they are told by their country. Apple is playing on a playground where there are rules and people are playing fair but if the time ever comes, those rules and fairness can quickly evaporate. Especially if say China feels Apple owns too much Chinese property or Apple is threatening China in some manner, China will crush them and no one is going to care except Apple. China makes everything, China also produces over 90% of the meterial needed for modern batteries and electronics. You think Apple has allot of money in the bank, China's bank account is insane. China is positioning itself to be the world power, I hate to admit that but the writing is on the wall and some petty company is not going to change that. Sure Apple is the most valued company in the world but that would change quickly if China got a wild hair and cut them off, all Apple production gets stopped, China pays the companies that are affected, everyone is happy except Apple. And it could be as simple as a pride thing, China may feel insulted by Apple slapping chinese companies around, China may decide to do a little of its own slapping, say a 6 month hold on all Apple products for inspection purposes?????
Is that why Foxconn is shutting down Apple plants in China?
Oh, hang on THEY ARE EXPANDING THEM and opening another in Brazil.
China has over five thousand years of MONEY being the major motivator of their culture and Apple has that in spades.
Only Google didn't have the decency to offer Apple anything for Schmidt 'peeking under the kimono' the way Apple did with Xerox.
If Apple and perhaps specifically Steve Jobs didn't think that Schmidt, and by extension Google, was going to offer value to Apple by being on the Board I can't imagine why he would have pushed for it.
How about Android phones using multi-touch, otherwise known as the patent Apple just received?
Read the patent better. Apple doesn't own multi-touch like you think they do (and wish they do or whatever else you people long for)
Quote:
Apple gave Xerox the right to purchase 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stocks for letting them examine the PARC GUI. In the end, Apple only took the base ideas of the GUI and completely reengineered them to fit the Apple team's ideas as to how the consumer would interact with a computer. The IPO stock that was worth Over $17 million dollars less than a year later, so it's not like Xerox didn't make anything on the deal.
Only Google didn't have the decency to offer Apple anything for Schmidt 'peeking under the kimono' the way Apple did with Xerox.
How is being inspired by a successful product copying?
If Android was purchased in 2005...and Schmidt was on the board in 2006 and iPhone was released in 2007 and Android as inspired (or copied in this new Apple world) was released in 2008 (after a few demos around the time (actually after) iPhone's release that showed a different design....how was the Android that existed after iPhone was officially released stolen by Schmidt on the board? Why would they wait so long to implement these Schmidt-stole ideas? It doesn't really make sense.
He really said they were going to COPY Blackberry, then they were going to COPY iOS? Or was it they were influenced by those two? There's a heck of a difference.
I'm not saying definitively that he didn't use the word "copy", but I personally think you might be putting an editorial spin on the actual statements if there were any.
He actually said "copy". It's weird, but you know, Schmitt is known for putting his foot into his mouth.
I don't disagree with the money to be had but I do wonder why this golden egg hasn't been sought after. It makes me think it's too good to be true or not in the best interest of Apple's longevity with iOS-based devices in ways I can't imagine.
It they took the money, the Apple Brand would henceforth be on its way to commoditization. What price can be set on Apple's creative mindset as embodied by its core intellectual properties? None ...for it's priceless, for it generates profit as if profit came out of its own printing press.
Apple has no peer for creating value out of the blue. A winning proposition that is worthy of being brought before a Court of Law and the court of Public Opinion, ...with extreme prejudice to commoditization.
Well, Sony, for one, is now making most of the cameras for the 4S. At an estimate of almost $20 a pop, that will be at least 100,000,000 modules Sony will be selling to Apple this year. Considering Sony's business problems, this will add significantly to their profits. Since this module is more expensive than others, Sony might not have customers for it if Apple left, as it is a custom model, using Apple's own lens design. Somehow, losing $2 billion in business would not be happy for Sony. Others have business with Apple on that list as well.
Sony and Apple seem to get on really well together, it seems to stem from mutual respect for each other.
Sony/SonyEricsson are conspicuous by their absence from ANY lawsuits involving Apple.
Their Android handsets are differentiated from iPhones with innovative designs.
Sony also probably makes a lot selling their music/movies via iTunes.
All in all Apple and Sony seem to pursue fairly similar goals.
Agreed he suffers from Hoof and Mouth, but I still don't think he ever said they "copied" iOS. Your link, while offering a smorgasbord of poorly conceived Schmidt statements, didn't indicate he ever served that one up either.
If Apple and perhaps specifically Steve Jobs didn't think that Schmidt, and by extension Google, was going to offer value to Apple by being on the Board I can't imagine why he would have pushed for it.
Schmidt had some value to Apple.
Of course they did, but that doesn't mean they got the value they expected. Apparently, Schmitt is going around, now that Jobs is gone, and it's safe to do so, and changing history, as the article says:
Samsung is an example and hypothetical, my future predicting skills need work. Sure many of these companies would love to have Apples business but A - Many of them would take months to get set up to produce what Apple may need if not years which would destroy Apple
First off, Samsung is a South Korean company, and yes they do a lot of manufacturing in China, but I am pretty sure that the Chinese government would not take sides in a S. Korean Vs US fight.
Apple has totally dumped contract manufacturers before and did not have any problem making up the difference. The real value is in the software, design, user experience and marketing.
Additionally, Apple is Samsung's overall biggest customer. I don't think they would want to lose them, it would not make sense in the long term.
With a reported 700,000 activations per day average that is 63,000,000 per quarter which is $630,000,000 in profit for Apple.
This is where Schmidt's bragging is going to bite Google on the rear. It's pretty clear that their number is inflated as there is no way for them to avoid double counting some devices. Anyone want to be that when it comes time to pay royalties that Google says the number of devices is much smaller?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If we figure 30M iPhones and 15M iPads with an average sale price of $630 we get $28.350B which means $5.67B in net profits if we consider 20%.
So why is Apple suing over licensing if we're talking about billions per year in profit? Does this legitimize the thievery? Would Samsung have licensed from Apple all the trademarks and patents they stole or would Apple have been laughed at when trying to ink deals from vendors?
Agreed he suffers from Hoof and Mouth, but I still don't think he ever said they "copied" iOS. Your link, while offering a smorgasbord of poorly conceived Schmidt statements, didn't indicate he ever served that one up either.
Those aren't actual business statements directed at another. They're general statements he made, and I don't know the timing of this statement. It could have come after the articles.
Read the patent better. Apple doesn't own multi-touch like you think they do (and wish they do or whatever else you people long for)
Apple now has a patent for multi-touch. Which other Android handset maker has such a patent? Since I'm sure you fully understand the Apple patent completely, please inform us as to how the Android multi-touch not violating Apple's patent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
How is being inspired by a successful product copying?
If Android was purchased in 2005...and Schmidt was on the board in 2006 and iPhone was released in 2007 and Android as inspired (or copied in this new Apple world) was released in 2008 (after a few demos around the time (actually after) iPhone's release that showed a different design....how was the Android that existed after iPhone was officially released stolen by Schmidt on the board? Why would they wait so long to implement these Schmidt-stole ideas? It doesn't really make sense.
Once a disruptive technology hits the market, it takes time to see whether it's worth copying. Had the iPhone been a total flop, the Android of 2011 would probably look exactly like Blackberry's OS, a la the prototype Android phone. As for the delay between the iPhone's release and the Android knock-off offerings, even the best copy-artists need time to get all their crap in one sock.
Pass the parcel may suit Apple who obviously may have to pay $10 per iDevice too.
Why would Apple have to pay themselves $10 for each iDevice to use their own patents?
Quote:
$10 ain't a lot compared to the near $600+ they get per iSmart user.
They don't make $600 per iSmart (???) user.
Over half that $600 is simply for materials to build the products then there's everything else that goes along with the product (manufacturing costs, sales, marketing, boxes, literature, etc.)
Apple's strategy is 1) a losing one, and 2) doesn't make sense. It is costing Apple millions in attorney fees, years in times, and to date Apple has had little success. Meanwhile, Microsoft is 1) spending little on attorney fees, and 2) is getting a pay day on practically every Android device sold.
In the short term it appears Apple strategy is a losing one but over time they may win very very big if Android is found to be stealing IP.
But PC makers can force Microsoft to allow them to install older versions of Windows on the PCs that they ship. Dell kept Windows XP alive for at least 2 years after Microsoft attempted to end-of-life it. (Dell plans to continue Windows XP driver support until December 2012, more than 11 years after Windows XP was released.)
And just why would Dell want to ship PCs running XP? Because their corporate customers demanded it. Because XP was "good enough." And Vista wasn't. From the Wikipedia entry on Windows XP: "As of November 2011, Windows XP market share is at 32.8% after having peaked at 76.1% in January 2007."
This is precisely the same problem that Windows 8 will face. Windows 7 will be "good enough" for the next decade, the way XP was "good enough" over the past decade. Windows 7 even has a "Windows XP Mode" so you can run all of your decade-old apps. There won't be any need to upgrade to Windows 8. Only people buying brand new PCs will end up with Windows 8.
Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't force average consumers to upgrade. And they can't lure average consumers into buying the latest version of Windows simply by sprinkling a little eye candy on top of the same old thing. Over the last two and a half decades, they've trained users to expect a terrible PC experience. Just barely tolerable. Just barely "good enough." There's no "wow" in Windows any more. Was there ever?
I couldn't agree more. The answer to your last question is a resounding ... " Nope!"
HTC said they would remove the feature. That's their work around. One can't actually work around everything. That's one of the reasons why patents exist.
The golden egg hasn't been gone after because of Steve's inclinations to not go after it. We have all read what he was thinking. But not everything he thought was great. If Apple sued years ago, it might have been different. But by waiting until Android was so big, these companies are now reluctant to part with their sales the way they might have been the first year when it looked as though Android was going nowhere. That's one problem with not pouncing right away. I was surprised that after Jobs said that they would defend the iPhone (before it was called iOS), that they didn't do so immediately. They could have scared off other manufacturers back then, but not now.
In fact they did start pursuing legal action immediately but it takes time to map out a legal strategy and put together a case properly. Their strategy is to keep the entire Android marketplace off balance and to keep applying pressure. They aren't about to let happen with Windows blatantly ripping them off without a fight. As a stockholder I want them to stay mad as hell and keep the pressure on. Google is in fact the new evil and needs to be raked over the coals for their outright theft of Apple IP.
Comments
Everyone says Android is stolen from iOS...yet no one can actually point to how it is stolen from iOS...and I'm not talking some vague patent on a "method" I'm talking actual point by point "iOS had this then Android TOOK IT" because such a thing does not exist. (with the exception of folder creation in Android 4.0 but that is a good trade off for Apple's new innovative notification center)
How about Android phones using multi-touch, otherwise known as the patent Apple just received?
Also Apple came into PARC labs as potential investors...(a lie) and took the idea (not illegal IMO and not immoral as I feel good ideas should be shared and adapted or licensed so the originator gets paid for his advancement of things - something Apple seems to be against) of the GUI and made it their own. Taking an idea and adapting it into your own is how advancement works...at least that's how it use to work before software patents.
Apple gave Xerox the right to purchase 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stocks for letting them examine the PARC GUI. In the end, Apple only took the base ideas of the GUI and completely reengineered them to fit the Apple team's ideas as to how the consumer would interact with a computer. The IPO stock that was worth Over $17 million dollars less than a year later, so it's not like Xerox didn't make anything on the deal.
Only Google didn't have the decency to offer Apple anything for Schmidt 'peeking under the kimono' the way Apple did with Xerox.
Samsung is an example and hypothetical, my future predicting skills need work. Sure many of these companies would love to have Apples business but A - Many of them would take months to get set up to produce what Apple may need if not years which would destroy Apple B - I am also talking about countries (China) that are not democratic and will do as they are told by their country. Apple is playing on a playground where there are rules and people are playing fair but if the time ever comes, those rules and fairness can quickly evaporate. Especially if say China feels Apple owns too much Chinese property or Apple is threatening China in some manner, China will crush them and no one is going to care except Apple. China makes everything, China also produces over 90% of the meterial needed for modern batteries and electronics. You think Apple has allot of money in the bank, China's bank account is insane. China is positioning itself to be the world power, I hate to admit that but the writing is on the wall and some petty company is not going to change that. Sure Apple is the most valued company in the world but that would change quickly if China got a wild hair and cut them off, all Apple production gets stopped, China pays the companies that are affected, everyone is happy except Apple. And it could be as simple as a pride thing, China may feel insulted by Apple slapping chinese companies around, China may decide to do a little of its own slapping, say a 6 month hold on all Apple products for inspection purposes?????
Is that why Foxconn is shutting down Apple plants in China?
Oh, hang on THEY ARE EXPANDING THEM and opening another in Brazil.
China has over five thousand years of MONEY being the major motivator of their culture and Apple has that in spades.
Only Google didn't have the decency to offer Apple anything for Schmidt 'peeking under the kimono' the way Apple did with Xerox.
If Apple and perhaps specifically Steve Jobs didn't think that Schmidt, and by extension Google, was going to offer value to Apple by being on the Board I can't imagine why he would have pushed for it.
Schmidt had some value to Apple.
How about Android phones using multi-touch, otherwise known as the patent Apple just received?
Read the patent better. Apple doesn't own multi-touch like you think they do (and wish they do or whatever else you people long for)
Apple gave Xerox the right to purchase 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stocks for letting them examine the PARC GUI. In the end, Apple only took the base ideas of the GUI and completely reengineered them to fit the Apple team's ideas as to how the consumer would interact with a computer. The IPO stock that was worth Over $17 million dollars less than a year later, so it's not like Xerox didn't make anything on the deal.
Only Google didn't have the decency to offer Apple anything for Schmidt 'peeking under the kimono' the way Apple did with Xerox.
How is being inspired by a successful product copying?
If Android was purchased in 2005...and Schmidt was on the board in 2006 and iPhone was released in 2007 and Android as inspired (or copied in this new Apple world) was released in 2008 (after a few demos around the time (actually after) iPhone's release that showed a different design....how was the Android that existed after iPhone was officially released stolen by Schmidt on the board? Why would they wait so long to implement these Schmidt-stole ideas? It doesn't really make sense.
He really said they were going to COPY Blackberry, then they were going to COPY iOS? Or was it they were influenced by those two? There's a heck of a difference.
I'm not saying definitively that he didn't use the word "copy", but I personally think you might be putting an editorial spin on the actual statements if there were any.
He actually said "copy". It's weird, but you know, Schmitt is known for putting his foot into his mouth.
Remember some other odd things he's said?:
http://allthingsd.com/20110919/will-...l-he-need-one/
..........
.........
I don't disagree with the money to be had but I do wonder why this golden egg hasn't been sought after. It makes me think it's too good to be true or not in the best interest of Apple's longevity with iOS-based devices in ways I can't imagine.
It they took the money, the Apple Brand would henceforth be on its way to commoditization. What price can be set on Apple's creative mindset as embodied by its core intellectual properties? None ...for it's priceless, for it generates profit as if profit came out of its own printing press.
Apple has no peer for creating value out of the blue. A winning proposition that is worthy of being brought before a Court of Law and the court of Public Opinion, ...with extreme prejudice to commoditization.
Well, Sony, for one, is now making most of the cameras for the 4S. At an estimate of almost $20 a pop, that will be at least 100,000,000 modules Sony will be selling to Apple this year. Considering Sony's business problems, this will add significantly to their profits. Since this module is more expensive than others, Sony might not have customers for it if Apple left, as it is a custom model, using Apple's own lens design. Somehow, losing $2 billion in business would not be happy for Sony. Others have business with Apple on that list as well.
Sony and Apple seem to get on really well together, it seems to stem from mutual respect for each other.
Sony/SonyEricsson are conspicuous by their absence from ANY lawsuits involving Apple.
Their Android handsets are differentiated from iPhones with innovative designs.
Sony also probably makes a lot selling their music/movies via iTunes.
All in all Apple and Sony seem to pursue fairly similar goals.
All in all Apple and Sony seem to pursue fairly similar goals.
Elimination of competition through litigation?
He actually said "copy". It's weird, but you know, Schmitt is known for putting his foot into his mouth.
Remember some other odd things he's said?:
http://allthingsd.com/20110919/will-...l-he-need-one/
Agreed he suffers from Hoof and Mouth, but I still don't think he ever said they "copied" iOS. Your link, while offering a smorgasbord of poorly conceived Schmidt statements, didn't indicate he ever served that one up either.
If Apple and perhaps specifically Steve Jobs didn't think that Schmidt, and by extension Google, was going to offer value to Apple by being on the Board I can't imagine why he would have pushed for it.
Schmidt had some value to Apple.
Of course they did, but that doesn't mean they got the value they expected. Apparently, Schmitt is going around, now that Jobs is gone, and it's safe to do so, and changing history, as the article says:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjack...rtner=yahootix
Samsung is an example and hypothetical, my future predicting skills need work. Sure many of these companies would love to have Apples business but A - Many of them would take months to get set up to produce what Apple may need if not years which would destroy Apple
First off, Samsung is a South Korean company, and yes they do a lot of manufacturing in China, but I am pretty sure that the Chinese government would not take sides in a S. Korean Vs US fight.
Apple has totally dumped contract manufacturers before and did not have any problem making up the difference. The real value is in the software, design, user experience and marketing.
Additionally, Apple is Samsung's overall biggest customer. I don't think they would want to lose them, it would not make sense in the long term.
With a reported 700,000 activations per day average that is 63,000,000 per quarter which is $630,000,000 in profit for Apple.
This is where Schmidt's bragging is going to bite Google on the rear. It's pretty clear that their number is inflated as there is no way for them to avoid double counting some devices. Anyone want to be that when it comes time to pay royalties that Google says the number of devices is much smaller?
If we figure 30M iPhones and 15M iPads with an average sale price of $630 we get $28.350B which means $5.67B in net profits if we consider 20%.
So why is Apple suing over licensing if we're talking about billions per year in profit? Does this legitimize the thievery? Would Samsung have licensed from Apple all the trademarks and patents they stole or would Apple have been laughed at when trying to ink deals from vendors?
Which would you rather have - $630 M or 5,670 M?
Agreed he suffers from Hoof and Mouth, but I still don't think he ever said they "copied" iOS. Your link, while offering a smorgasbord of poorly conceived Schmidt statements, didn't indicate he ever served that one up either.
Those aren't actual business statements directed at another. They're general statements he made, and I don't know the timing of this statement. It could have come after the articles.
Read the patent better. Apple doesn't own multi-touch like you think they do (and wish they do or whatever else you people long for)
Apple now has a patent for multi-touch. Which other Android handset maker has such a patent? Since I'm sure you fully understand the Apple patent completely, please inform us as to how the Android multi-touch not violating Apple's patent?
How is being inspired by a successful product copying?
If Android was purchased in 2005...and Schmidt was on the board in 2006 and iPhone was released in 2007 and Android as inspired (or copied in this new Apple world) was released in 2008 (after a few demos around the time (actually after) iPhone's release that showed a different design....how was the Android that existed after iPhone was officially released stolen by Schmidt on the board? Why would they wait so long to implement these Schmidt-stole ideas? It doesn't really make sense.
Once a disruptive technology hits the market, it takes time to see whether it's worth copying. Had the iPhone been a total flop, the Android of 2011 would probably look exactly like Blackberry's OS, a la the prototype Android phone. As for the delay between the iPhone's release and the Android knock-off offerings, even the best copy-artists need time to get all their crap in one sock.
Pass the parcel may suit Apple who obviously may have to pay $10 per iDevice too.
Why would Apple have to pay themselves $10 for each iDevice to use their own patents?
$10 ain't a lot compared to the near $600+ they get per iSmart user.
They don't make $600 per iSmart (???) user.
Over half that $600 is simply for materials to build the products then there's everything else that goes along with the product (manufacturing costs, sales, marketing, boxes, literature, etc.)
Apple's strategy is 1) a losing one, and 2) doesn't make sense. It is costing Apple millions in attorney fees, years in times, and to date Apple has had little success. Meanwhile, Microsoft is 1) spending little on attorney fees, and 2) is getting a pay day on practically every Android device sold.
In the short term it appears Apple strategy is a losing one but over time they may win very very big if Android is found to be stealing IP.
I'm not saying that MS is failing, just that if they don't change some of the way they do business, their business will suffer in the long run.
I think that we can all agree with that.
M$ has always done bass ackwards stupidity. For decades now. They set the whole PC market back by a decade in the 90's.
But PC makers can force Microsoft to allow them to install older versions of Windows on the PCs that they ship. Dell kept Windows XP alive for at least 2 years after Microsoft attempted to end-of-life it. (Dell plans to continue Windows XP driver support until December 2012, more than 11 years after Windows XP was released.)
And just why would Dell want to ship PCs running XP? Because their corporate customers demanded it. Because XP was "good enough." And Vista wasn't. From the Wikipedia entry on Windows XP: "As of November 2011, Windows XP market share is at 32.8% after having peaked at 76.1% in January 2007."
This is precisely the same problem that Windows 8 will face. Windows 7 will be "good enough" for the next decade, the way XP was "good enough" over the past decade. Windows 7 even has a "Windows XP Mode" so you can run all of your decade-old apps. There won't be any need to upgrade to Windows 8. Only people buying brand new PCs will end up with Windows 8.
Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't force average consumers to upgrade. And they can't lure average consumers into buying the latest version of Windows simply by sprinkling a little eye candy on top of the same old thing. Over the last two and a half decades, they've trained users to expect a terrible PC experience. Just barely tolerable. Just barely "good enough." There's no "wow" in Windows any more. Was there ever?
I couldn't agree more. The answer to your last question is a resounding ... " Nope!"
HTC said they would remove the feature. That's their work around. One can't actually work around everything. That's one of the reasons why patents exist.
The golden egg hasn't been gone after because of Steve's inclinations to not go after it. We have all read what he was thinking. But not everything he thought was great. If Apple sued years ago, it might have been different. But by waiting until Android was so big, these companies are now reluctant to part with their sales the way they might have been the first year when it looked as though Android was going nowhere. That's one problem with not pouncing right away. I was surprised that after Jobs said that they would defend the iPhone (before it was called iOS), that they didn't do so immediately. They could have scared off other manufacturers back then, but not now.
In fact they did start pursuing legal action immediately but it takes time to map out a legal strategy and put together a case properly. Their strategy is to keep the entire Android marketplace off balance and to keep applying pressure. They aren't about to let happen with Windows blatantly ripping them off without a fight. As a stockholder I want them to stay mad as hell and keep the pressure on. Google is in fact the new evil and needs to be raked over the coals for their outright theft of Apple IP.
In the short term it appears Apple strategy is a losing one but over time they may win very very big if Android is found to be stealing IP.
I wish I had a short term, losing strategy that earned me $6 billion per quarter.