That's nice. You apparently haven't learned that patents are one of the reasons we have such cool stuff. Without the ability to protect R&D investments, why should someone invent anything new?
For the money. IMHO with or without software patents Apple would still have developed the iPhone and would still have made billions in profit.
Cover flow is very limiting, so is probably your experience with music/audio file management. You probably have just a handful of albums.
Cover flow is one of the most useless views. (Album Grid in Musicbee is my preference). My audio library has around 900 Albums and more than 20.000 tracks.
Well, for such a collection (many people have even more) iTunes is useless too.Bad music management, bad tagging options etc.
Thanks god there are some decent pieces, like Musicbee are much better choices. I run VmWare only to use Musicbee.
www.getmusicbee.com
P.S.
And on windows I haven't been 'drilling down through file folders' since the 1st version of Winamp. Shame that you haven't experienced it in the 90s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
Are you sure about that? Would you rather scroll through music files by opening up folders on a windows desktop? Cover flow may not be the best, but it certainly is an improvement over drilling down through file folders.
Are you sure about that? Would you rather scroll through music files by opening up folders on a windows desktop? Cover flow may not be the best, but it certainly is an improvement over drilling down through file folders.
I hate this so much when I'm trying to play music in my car. I rest the iPhone sideways to watch the road, then swing it up to pick a song and it slowly changes away from Cover Flow. Cover Flow also totally ignores that I've drilled down to a genre, for example. Shows me totally dissimilar music. Thank god for orientation lock.
I hate this so much when I'm trying to play music in my car. I rest the iPhone sideways to watch the road, then swing it up to pick a song and it slowly changes away from Cover Flow. Cover Flow also totally ignores that I've drilled down to a genre, for example. Shows me totally dissimilar music. Thank god for orientation lock.
Stop playing with your iPhone while you're driving. If you want to kill yourself, there are ways to do it without taking out innocent people at the same time.
For the money. IMHO with or without software patents Apple would still have developed the iPhone and would still have made billions in profit.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd love to see your evidence for that.
Furthermore, it assumes that Apple is the whole world. There are also millions of smaller inventors who would never see a penny for their inventions if everyone could freely copy. It also assumes that Apple would still make billions in profit. If the competition could make even more exact copies of Apple's products because of lack of IP protection, what makes you so certain that Apple would still sell as many phones and maintain its current margins?
Or any relevance to the article. I suppose you've also not seen the window, as you seem to be ignoring how stolen the UI designs for that thing are.
Yup. The link was basically web spam. As I've never heard of it, I Googled and got this video:
There are some cool and innovative aspects to it, as well as the usual (for Samsung) wholly copied UI elements.
Interesting idea to use a kitchen window as a display surface (addresses the space problem.) But of course it is mostly BS as it also creates many problems. Most kitchens have the window over the sink which is a less than optimal location for a display in a kitchen. Bad place for recipe display, bad place to interact, little privacy from neighbors, good Gorilla arm potential.
Anyway, a nice conceptual effort, but probably just a concept that will not see the light of day.
Personally, I think something like the iPad set on an articulated swing arm might be a nice choice for the kitchen. And you can take it with you when your not in the kitchen.
Personally, I think something like the iPad set on an articulated swing arm might be a nice choice for the kitchen. And you can take it with you when your not in the kitchen.
Cabinet mount! Just have a depression in the front of one of your cabinet doors in which an iPad can sit! Make it large enough that all models can fit, and just have a frame insert to make it snug. That way if a new shape comes out, people can just buy a new insert from you to install in the depression. Pop the iPad in and out.
I figure the iPad is only going to get bigger than right now, so if one ever gets large enough that the depression doesn't work, offer a door swap program.
I care because I don't think that an idea like cover flow should be patentable. Cover flow is a digitized version of a film strip, something that has been around for over 100 years. This patent (and to a much lesser extent, the slide to unlock patent) is a patent on an animation. This is not a new and useful invention like a specialized valve or even a unique process used to create a product, and I think that only unique and functional inventions should be patentable.
EDIT: this is in reply to Quadra 610. I'm not sure how to edit in a quote.
Folks should also watch this: The Patent Pollution Problem, a talk by Dan Ravisher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation. It's a great talk about why we have so many lousy, ridiculous patents. Folks should also read Bessen & Meurer's analysis of software patents in Patent Failure. Their chapter on software patents is freely available: http://researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/dopat9.pdf.
I really am amazed that so many commenters on here defend software patents so vigorously.
That's nice. You apparently haven't learned that patents are one of the reasons we have such cool stuff. Without the ability to protect R&D investments, why should someone invent anything new?
Out of curiosity, when Samsung between 2005 and 2010 spent $35 billion on R&D and employed 20k engineers worldwide to work on telecommunication technology that Apple decided to 'steal' for the iPhone and iPad, why do you not sing the same tune?
Out of curiosity, when Samsung between 2005 and 2010 spent $35 billion on R&D and employed 20k engineers worldwide to work on telecommunication technology that Apple decided to 'steal' for the iPhone and iPad, why do you not sing the same tune?
Because Apple stole nothing, probably. That'd probably be the reason.
Because Apple stole nothing, probably. That'd probably be the reason.
Exactly what do you call "using something without paying for it" then? Last time I checked, Apple was the ONLY device manufacturer who has not cross-licensed technology from Samsung related to UMTS.
I care because I don't think that an idea like cover flow should be patentable. Cover flow is a digitized version of a film strip, something that has been around for over 100 years. This patent (and to a much lesser extent, the slide to unlock patent) is a patent on an animation. This is not a new and useful invention like a specialized valve or even a unique process used to create a product, and I think that only unique and functional inventions should be patentable.
EDIT: this is in reply to Quadra 610. I'm not sure how to edit in a quote.
Well, your impression of CoverFlow versus the reality is very different. You need to understand what a patent is, how property is defined and why Apple buying the company that created CoverFlow made a lot of sense.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's nice. You apparently haven't learned that patents are one of the reasons we have such cool stuff. Without the ability to protect R&D investments, why should someone invent anything new?
For the money. IMHO with or without software patents Apple would still have developed the iPhone and would still have made billions in profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
For the money. IMHO with or without software patents Apple would still have developed the iPhone and would still have made billions in profit.
Exactly. Considering Apple has made billions even before these silly lawsuits started.
Cover flow is very limiting, so is probably your experience with music/audio file management. You probably have just a handful of albums.
Cover flow is one of the most useless views. (Album Grid in Musicbee is my preference). My audio library has around 900 Albums and more than 20.000 tracks.
Well, for such a collection (many people have even more) iTunes is useless too.Bad music management, bad tagging options etc.
Thanks god there are some decent pieces, like Musicbee are much better choices. I run VmWare only to use Musicbee.
www.getmusicbee.com
P.S.
And on windows I haven't been 'drilling down through file folders' since the 1st version of Winamp. Shame that you haven't experienced it in the 90s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
Are you sure about that? Would you rather scroll through music files by opening up folders on a windows desktop? Cover flow may not be the best, but it certainly is an improvement over drilling down through file folders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
For the money. IMHO with or without software patents Apple would still have developed the iPhone and would still have made billions in profit.
Right, spending on R&D billions and then letting other company save on R&D and set the price on their exact same product lower. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
Are you sure about that? Would you rather scroll through music files by opening up folders on a windows desktop? Cover flow may not be the best, but it certainly is an improvement over drilling down through file folders.
What drilling down?
music/artist/album
Quote:
Originally Posted by PotatoLeekSoup
I hate this so much when I'm trying to play music in my car. I rest the iPhone sideways to watch the road, then swing it up to pick a song and it slowly changes away from Cover Flow. Cover Flow also totally ignores that I've drilled down to a genre, for example. Shows me totally dissimilar music. Thank god for orientation lock.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }a future candidate for the darwin awards.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Stop playing with your iPhone while you're driving. If you want to kill yourself, there are ways to do it without taking out innocent people at the same time.
So? Entirely different industry with different dynamics. Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, there's almost no investment in 'innovation'.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd love to see your evidence for that.
Furthermore, it assumes that Apple is the whole world. There are also millions of smaller inventors who would never see a penny for their inventions if everyone could freely copy. It also assumes that Apple would still make billions in profit. If the competition could make even more exact copies of Apple's products because of lack of IP protection, what makes you so certain that Apple would still sell as many phones and maintain its current margins?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
This is a ridiculous patent.
Why? Why on earth should you care?
Watch your back Samsung, Microsoft ain't gonna sue you for this window, but Apple will, sooon...., sheesh....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
Watch your back Samsung, Microsoft ain't gonna sue you for this window, but Apple will, sooon…., sheesh….
I wish that link had pictures.
Or any relevance to the article. I suppose you've also not seen the window, as you seem to be ignoring how stolen the UI designs for that thing are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I wish that link had pictures.
Or any relevance to the article. I suppose you've also not seen the window, as you seem to be ignoring how stolen the UI designs for that thing are.
Yup. The link was basically web spam. As I've never heard of it, I Googled and got this video:
There are some cool and innovative aspects to it, as well as the usual (for Samsung) wholly copied UI elements.
Interesting idea to use a kitchen window as a display surface (addresses the space problem.) But of course it is mostly BS as it also creates many problems. Most kitchens have the window over the sink which is a less than optimal location for a display in a kitchen. Bad place for recipe display, bad place to interact, little privacy from neighbors, good Gorilla arm potential.
Anyway, a nice conceptual effort, but probably just a concept that will not see the light of day.
Personally, I think something like the iPad set on an articulated swing arm might be a nice choice for the kitchen. And you can take it with you when your not in the kitchen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Personally, I think something like the iPad set on an articulated swing arm might be a nice choice for the kitchen. And you can take it with you when your not in the kitchen.
Cabinet mount! Just have a depression in the front of one of your cabinet doors in which an iPad can sit! Make it large enough that all models can fit, and just have a frame insert to make it snug. That way if a new shape comes out, people can just buy a new insert from you to install in the depression. Pop the iPad in and out.
I figure the iPad is only going to get bigger than right now, so if one ever gets large enough that the depression doesn't work, offer a door swap program.
I care because I don't think that an idea like cover flow should be patentable. Cover flow is a digitized version of a film strip, something that has been around for over 100 years. This patent (and to a much lesser extent, the slide to unlock patent) is a patent on an animation. This is not a new and useful invention like a specialized valve or even a unique process used to create a product, and I think that only unique and functional inventions should be patentable.
EDIT: this is in reply to Quadra 610. I'm not sure how to edit in a quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So? Entirely different industry with different dynamics. Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, there's almost no investment in 'innovation'.
Sure.. Now the question is: does software really need as much as protection as in the pharma industry or almost none like in the fashion industry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234
Wrong. Spend some time to watch this talk http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
Folks should also watch this: The Patent Pollution Problem, a talk by Dan Ravisher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation. It's a great talk about why we have so many lousy, ridiculous patents. Folks should also read Bessen & Meurer's analysis of software patents in Patent Failure. Their chapter on software patents is freely available: http://researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/dopat9.pdf.
I really am amazed that so many commenters on here defend software patents so vigorously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's nice. You apparently haven't learned that patents are one of the reasons we have such cool stuff. Without the ability to protect R&D investments, why should someone invent anything new?
Out of curiosity, when Samsung between 2005 and 2010 spent $35 billion on R&D and employed 20k engineers worldwide to work on telecommunication technology that Apple decided to 'steal' for the iPhone and iPad, why do you not sing the same tune?
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Out of curiosity, when Samsung between 2005 and 2010 spent $35 billion on R&D and employed 20k engineers worldwide to work on telecommunication technology that Apple decided to 'steal' for the iPhone and iPad, why do you not sing the same tune?
Because Apple stole nothing, probably. That'd probably be the reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because Apple stole nothing, probably. That'd probably be the reason.
Exactly what do you call "using something without paying for it" then? Last time I checked, Apple was the ONLY device manufacturer who has not cross-licensed technology from Samsung related to UMTS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
I really am amazed that so many commenters on here defend software patents so vigorously.
I also wonder how many of them are software developers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
I care because I don't think that an idea like cover flow should be patentable. Cover flow is a digitized version of a film strip, something that has been around for over 100 years. This patent (and to a much lesser extent, the slide to unlock patent) is a patent on an animation. This is not a new and useful invention like a specialized valve or even a unique process used to create a product, and I think that only unique and functional inventions should be patentable.
EDIT: this is in reply to Quadra 610. I'm not sure how to edit in a quote.
Well, your impression of CoverFlow versus the reality is very different. You need to understand what a patent is, how property is defined and why Apple buying the company that created CoverFlow made a lot of sense.