If I ever had to travel with just my iPad rather than with both iPad and MBP I'd have to take an external keyboard. Yes I can use the virtual one but for me it is almost unusable as my finger tips as a guitarist seem to lack sufficient living tissue to work! A lot of finger taps fail to work for me with my left hand. Not complaining, it's my fault for having odd finger tips on my left hand but I can't be the only one ... Or am I?
That is very odd indeed. I don't have this. Is it still your left hand that is failing if you turn the iPad 180 degrees?
Ok, tell me then. What's the A5 chip doing in Apple's devices? How about the aluminum chasis they design? What about the internal parts of the new MacBook Pro? Chips? Logic boards?
Just to make you a little happier, APPLE IS A SOFTWARE COMPANY AND HARDLY A HARDWARE COMPANY AT ALL, BUT CAN SOMEWHAT BE CONSIDERED AS A CASING, CHASSIS AND COVER COMPANY. Unfortunately, it will sound so lo-tech that a fanboi will be even angrier. The mobo has to be made by Apple; otherwise, after already succumbing the CPU war and admitting that the devil [i.e. Intel] ain't that bad at all, using Apple's own mobo would make it unique than if it uses PC mobo's made by the likes of Gigabyte, ASUS, DFI, MSI and of course Intel itself and a lot of others. I tell you this if Apple let any of these established PC mobo manufacturers build the mobo for MBP, it will leave Apple mobo in the dust.
There are just very few chips inside the MBP made by Apple, and BIOS chip is one of them. But, then again what will be the different with PC if you let AMI, AWARD, PHOENIX and so on build the BIOS for MBP. Again, these BIOS manufacturers can easily run circle around Apple, if Apple let them build one, because THEY ARE MUCH BETTER AT HANDLING PC's hardware.
Then we come across the video cards, and voila we come across NVIDIA, AMD-ATI and Intel onboard, PC's mainstay for videocards. If we are talking about the Solid State Drives[SSD], then we come up with Toshiba and Samsung as the manufacturers of MBP's SSD. Now, the part that every owner of new Mac Book Pro is so proud about: the retina display which is essentially LCD on which its arrays being organized a certain way to pack in more pixels per square inch. Apple certainly didn't make the panel themselves. MBP uses Samsung and Toshiba's retina displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimys1022
SO you're saying other companies designed those things, then Apple is just using them?
Apple isn't just a software company. If it was, it would be like Adobe. Apple is both software and hardware, which makes them run so efficiently as a company.
Yes, these manufacturers made things based on certain designs. They could be using their own designs, or they make one based on Apple's design [here I will say fantasy]. For Apple, it is a fantasy BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING IT EVEN IF THEY HAVE THE PATENT, THE DESIGN OR THE CONCEPT. Apple doesn't own any fabs. Apple may have some agreements with some suppliers for exclusive uses of their assembly lines, but Apple doesn't own any of it. Apple have the LCD array design for the so-called retina displays, but Apple doesn't make them because Apple doesn't have the capability nor the technology to do it. Suppliers make them based on Apple's specs/guidelines/designs. Designing stuff and making stuff are two different things, and Apple is an exhibit A for this fact. The point is if the technology of these suppliers have not reached the level where certain parts of Apple fantasy devices can be manufactured, Apple will have to wait because Apple doesn't have the technology to do it. Apple is always at the mercy of their suppliers/manufacturers technological know-how to make their i-devices viable.
And.....cue the fanboys who try to say this is not stealing MSFT ideas. Listen, I love Apple as much as anyone, but lets call a spade a spade here, they got beat to the punch.
You need to spend more time reading the article. This patent was filed by Apple in August of 2011. Nearly a year before MS "sort of" announced their rubber keyboard option to their alpha hardware. Furthermore, If I remember right, MS doesn't have a patent on their rubber keyboard, they buy it from an OEM.
I like Apple's bi-directional communicating cover idea better then I do MS' rubber keyboard ( which has been available for the iPad for a year or so).
Yes, these manufacturers made things based on certain designs. They could be using their own designs, or they make one based on Apple's design [here I will say fantasy]. For Apple, it is a fantasy BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING IT EVEN IF THEY HAVE THE PATENT, THE DESIGN OR THE CONCEPT. Apple doesn't own any fabs. Apple may have some agreements with some suppliers for exclusive uses of their assembly lines, but Apple doesn't own any of it. Apple have the LCD array design for the so-called retina displays, but Apple doesn't make them because Apple doesn't have the capability nor the technology to do it. Suppliers make them based on Apple's specs/guidelines/designs. Designing stuff and making stuff are two different things, and Apple is an exhibit A for this fact. The point is if the technology of these suppliers have not reached the level where certain parts of Apple fantasy devices can be manufactured, Apple will have to wait because Apple doesn't have the technology to do it. Apple is always at the mercy of their suppliers/manufacturers technological know-how to make their i-devices viable.
I'm with TS on this: You're completely nuts.
!. Your argument is akin to saying the USA government doesn't have a modern army because it doesn't make its own weapons.
2. Not only Apple, but every manufacturer is "at the mercy" of the level of current technology. However, Apple is one company that underwrites the development of newer technology in batteries, ARM technology, solid-state memory, metallurgy, displays, and communications. Were it not for Apple's billions of dollars there may not be a tablet market like we know it today. Even the phone market would be hardly improved from 2007.
I think many people read too much into Apple's patents.
What we're seeing in the patents are just ideas, not products that are sitting on a shelf ready to ship.
The best "keyboard tablet" already exists, it's called a laptop, many vendors make them. There used to be models where you could detach the "screen" part and use it as a tablet, where the keyboard part had the other optional parts like the optical drive and additional usb ports. They were heavy, nobody wants heavy things.
The problem with the smart cover concept (even Microsoft's) is that it's not a keyboard, the lack of feedback or key depth makes it unsuitable for being used for long periods of time. It is a step up from the touch screen, where the keyboard obscures half the screen, but it's not a replacement. There are still people out there that prefer the loud clicky 1980's IBM keyboards on their computers. When you give these people something with short key depth, or much more quiet, they don't like it. Fortunately people can adapt. So the "keyboard" cover is just not necessary.
For such people you can install the sound effect of a 1970 IBM Selectric® typewriter clacking away, complete with bell and carriage return. Fortunately, as that group of people "age out" of the system we will see a rise in another generation that will cuddle up with their iPads and whisper sweet-nothings into the built-in microphone to input their prose. After all, the keyboard is so 19th century.
Not only that, Apple got beat by Google for that Glass thingy. It's sad though if you think about it. Apple fantasizes about certain devices and patents them at the very next NY minute, even if it will take Apple years to realize it, if at all, because APPLE IS A SOFTWARE COMPANY AND HARDLY A HARDWARE COMPANY AT ALL. So, in order for Apple to build things it's been issued patents on, it will have to wait for VARIOUS HARDWARE COMPANIES TO SOMEDAY COME UP WITH ALL REQUIRED PARTS BEFORE THOSE APPLE'S FANTASY DEVICES CAN BE ASSEMBLED, then , and only then, APPLE WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD ITS FANTASY DEVICES WHILE HAVING THESE PATENTS AS PROTECTION AGAINST LITIGATIONS. That is Apple's game plan. Once in awhile, some companies screw up this scenario, i.e. Google Glass and Microsoft Surface. Google and Microsoft come up with working products prior to Apple [being able/having decided] to implement either of these patents.
Many other great inventors actually create things, prolly fail gazillion times before they get it right, and when they get it right then they think about patenting it. That is what patent office is supposed to be doing. Every hardware patent application has to be accompanied by a prototype that works as described by the patent itself. This will 100% kill all patent trolls. Nowadays though, USPTO is too busy with its own goal of collecting fees from patent grantees. The more patent it grants, the more money it will collect. It is being run totally like a fast food business chain. I betcha USPTO has a target of how many patent they must grant at a minimum every single year. It's becoming an organization with a volume goals. USPTO is into quantities instead of qualities.This kind of operation riddle with a lot of problems, much like any other for-profit entities in the business, namely greeds. USPTO even publishes list of patents due to be expired because the original assignees failed to pay the maintenance fee.
These are fees being collected by USPTO:
-Patent Application Filing Fees
-Patent Search Fees
-Patent Examination Fees
-Patent Post-Allowance Fees
-Patent Maintenance Fees
-Miscellaneous Patent Fees
-Post Issuance Fees
-Patent Extension of Time Fees
-Patent Appeals/Interference Fees
-Patent Petition Fees
-Patent Service Fees
-Patent Enrollment Fees
Here I have this fantasy about a "Time Machine" complete with its concept and drawings, but wait Apple already patented a "Time Machine", only of a different kind however. Hm..., oh no..., there is another Time Machine, found here. Moreover, I will have to pay tons of fees to USPTO which I can ill afford, but, we all know, Apple can afford to pay these USPTO fees with the profit it makes with its i-devices and can also even subsidize its currently "non money making" fantasy devices patent fees very comfortably for many years to come.
Have you gotten into your daddy's brandy cabinet again?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } ...hell, give me a larger form factor 'iPad' with a full operating system and i'd be very happy.
Why? Then you'd just complain about the short battery charge and the heat dissipating fins on the back. It is what it is for a purpose.
Looks like this patent is for a flexible touch panel/screen. So keyboard would be one of many uses for it. I'm not sure how you'd display app icons or draw on MS's touch cover.
Yes. I think that the end of claim 1, where it recites that "wherein at least some of the information is presented visually on the flap display," is pretty important. I doubt that it will be enough of a distinction to make the claims be considered non-obvious, though.
Once again Apple is copying another companies products. Did Microsoft unveil a dual screen tablet not too long ago? Sure this is a cover, but it still follows the same concept of two screens to use in concert and transfer data between screens. That is what MS product did. Just saying Apple takes inspiration and doesn't get sued, but others take inspiration from Apple and they get sued.
I don't see Apple copying anything here. At least not yet. They're not makign this product. Are you suggesting that MS should sue Apple for filing a patent application on an idea they have?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/224698/apple_develops_eink_hybrid_display.html I really hope something like that will come in next or over-next generation. And not only for iPads, iPhone, but also generaly in every display, bc to sit 10 hours at work in front of the PC, laptop and then use iPad is killing my eyes!
Just image reading long PDFs at your laptop e-ink screen. It would be amazing!:)
Imagine having it read to you with the iPad set to "Sultry Sexy Female voice." For ambient sounds set the iPad to "gentle ocean waves with gulls."
I don't see Apple copying anything here. At least not yet. They're not makign this product. Are you suggesting that MS should sue Apple for filing a patent application on an idea they have?
Fortunately, you didn't hurt the feelings of our flowering subject-matter expert by suggesting things he overlooked:
I read somewhere that the smart cover brings in almost $1B annually in revenue for Apple. And to think it allegedly came about because Steve saw a magazine article on magnets, dropped it off on Jony Ive's desk and 'let's do something with magnets'.
Or Jobs might have looked at the 2007 HTC Avantage and thought, "oh look a screen protector that uses magnets: that acts as a magnetically attached keyboard, that allows the screen to sit up right and that even allows the viewing of notifications when the cover is in place- how can we adapt that, and then tell the world ""BOY DID WE PATENT IT?"""
There's a high percentage of patents that get approved but later found to be invalid in whole or part.
True. there was this fellow (back in 2007) that told the world that he had patented Multi-Touch. In his defence he wasn't around to see the application rejected sometime later.
Or Jobs might have looked at the 2007 HTC Avantage and thought, "oh look a screen protector that uses magnets: that acts as a magnetically attached keyboard, that allows the screen to sit up right and that even allows the viewing of notifications when the cover is in place- how can we adapt that, and then tell the world ""BOY DID WE PATENT IT?"""
Inspiration comes from many sources.
You sure try to spin things to discredit Apple. The HTC Advantage cover doesn't display notifications on it, it has a clear plastic strip that lets you see the notifications on the device screen. The keyboard cover also looks and behaves nothing like the smart cover.
The keyboard cover idea didn't have to be inspired by anything, I even came up with something like it in April and it was originally based on using the LEAP motion sensor with the iPad and the keyboard would just be printed on it:
e-ink with capacitive touch would probably be more feasible though and allow it to double as an e-book reader as well as allow you to apply changeable decals to the iPad.
You sure try to spin things to discredit Apple. The HTC Advantage cover doesn't display notifications on it, it has a clear plastic strip that lets you see the notifications on the device screen. The keyboard cover also looks and behaves nothing like the smart cover.
The keyboard cover idea didn't have to be inspired by anything, I even came up with something like it in April and it was originally based on using the LEAP motion sensor with the iPad and the keyboard would just be printed on it:
e-ink with capacitive touch would probably be more feasible though and allow it to double as an e-book reader as well as allow you to apply changeable decals to the iPad.
You are correct the HTC's cover does use a clear strip to show notifications on the screen, rather than generating it's own.
I was responding the the suggestion by a fellow poster that the current smart cover was the result of nothing more than the chance reading of an article about magnets. Increasingly there are those who believe that every thing that Apple brings to market has been invented by apple through somekind of divine inspiration.
IMO the reality is that Apple (et al) look at other products, borrow from them and then adapt them, generally resulting in something that is well crafted and designed. I use the example of the HTC cover to demonstrate my point. Two of smartcover's wow factors were the use of magnets and the ability to "turn off" the ipad. The HTC used magnets to hold it the cover in place both when used as a screen protector and to allow the screen to sit upright. Those same magnets were used to "turn off" the screen, whilst also allowing the device to display new notifications, these notifications are repositioned so that they can be seen thorough the clear section of the cover.
With regard to trying to discredit Apple, why is my trying to point out similarities with existing products me adopting "spin"? Why should we have to accept that a company trying to sell us something is being 100% honest all of the time (this is not aimed solely at apple but at their competitors as well). .
Increasingly there are those who believe that every thing that Apple brings to market has been invented by apple through somekind of divine inspiration.
No I think it's more that regardless of inspiration, all hardware they bring to market is unique enough to be called their own unlike their competition. For example, none of Apple's products have ever looked anything like any Samsung product nor any other product that predated it. However, a significant number of Samsung's current products are designed to look very similar to Apple's products.
It's not just about making the same type of product with the same function. It's about making something that looks as close to identical as a competing product. Samsung isn't the only offender by a long way:
Comments
That is very odd indeed. I don't have this. Is it still your left hand that is failing if you turn the iPad 180 degrees?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimys1022
Ok, tell me then. What's the A5 chip doing in Apple's devices? How about the aluminum chasis they design? What about the internal parts of the new MacBook Pro? Chips? Logic boards?
Just to make you a little happier, APPLE IS A SOFTWARE COMPANY AND HARDLY A HARDWARE COMPANY AT ALL, BUT CAN SOMEWHAT BE CONSIDERED AS A CASING, CHASSIS AND COVER COMPANY. Unfortunately, it will sound so lo-tech that a fanboi will be even angrier. The mobo has to be made by Apple; otherwise, after already succumbing the CPU war and admitting that the devil [i.e. Intel] ain't that bad at all, using Apple's own mobo would make it unique than if it uses PC mobo's made by the likes of Gigabyte, ASUS, DFI, MSI and of course Intel itself and a lot of others. I tell you this if Apple let any of these established PC mobo manufacturers build the mobo for MBP, it will leave Apple mobo in the dust.
There are just very few chips inside the MBP made by Apple, and BIOS chip is one of them. But, then again what will be the different with PC if you let AMI, AWARD, PHOENIX and so on build the BIOS for MBP. Again, these BIOS manufacturers can easily run circle around Apple, if Apple let them build one, because THEY ARE MUCH BETTER AT HANDLING PC's hardware.
Then we come across the video cards, and voila we come across NVIDIA, AMD-ATI and Intel onboard, PC's mainstay for videocards. If we are talking about the Solid State Drives[SSD], then we come up with Toshiba and Samsung as the manufacturers of MBP's SSD. Now, the part that every owner of new Mac Book Pro is so proud about: the retina display which is essentially LCD on which its arrays being organized a certain way to pack in more pixels per square inch. Apple certainly didn't make the panel themselves. MBP uses Samsung and Toshiba's retina displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimys1022
SO you're saying other companies designed those things, then Apple is just using them?
Apple isn't just a software company. If it was, it would be like Adobe. Apple is both software and hardware, which makes them run so efficiently as a company.
Yes, these manufacturers made things based on certain designs. They could be using their own designs, or they make one based on Apple's design [here I will say fantasy]. For Apple, it is a fantasy BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING IT EVEN IF THEY HAVE THE PATENT, THE DESIGN OR THE CONCEPT. Apple doesn't own any fabs. Apple may have some agreements with some suppliers for exclusive uses of their assembly lines, but Apple doesn't own any of it. Apple have the LCD array design for the so-called retina displays, but Apple doesn't make them because Apple doesn't have the capability nor the technology to do it. Suppliers make them based on Apple's specs/guidelines/designs. Designing stuff and making stuff are two different things, and Apple is an exhibit A for this fact. The point is if the technology of these suppliers have not reached the level where certain parts of Apple fantasy devices can be manufactured, Apple will have to wait because Apple doesn't have the technology to do it. Apple is always at the mercy of their suppliers/manufacturers technological know-how to make their i-devices viable.
Originally Posted by mcrs
I tell you this if Apple let any of these established PC mobo manufacturers build the mobo for MBP, it will leave Apple mobo in the dust.
I tell you this: you're completely nuts.
There are just very few chips inside the MBP made by Apple, and BIOS chip is one of them.
Apple uses EFI.
Look, you seem pretty riled up about being wrong. I suggest to stop. Being wrong, that is. Go ahead and stay riled up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wright
And.....cue the fanboys who try to say this is not stealing MSFT ideas. Listen, I love Apple as much as anyone, but lets call a spade a spade here, they got beat to the punch.
You need to spend more time reading the article. This patent was filed by Apple in August of 2011. Nearly a year before MS "sort of" announced their rubber keyboard option to their alpha hardware. Furthermore, If I remember right, MS doesn't have a patent on their rubber keyboard, they buy it from an OEM.
I like Apple's bi-directional communicating cover idea better then I do MS' rubber keyboard ( which has been available for the iPad for a year or so).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
Yes, these manufacturers made things based on certain designs. They could be using their own designs, or they make one based on Apple's design [here I will say fantasy]. For Apple, it is a fantasy BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING IT EVEN IF THEY HAVE THE PATENT, THE DESIGN OR THE CONCEPT. Apple doesn't own any fabs. Apple may have some agreements with some suppliers for exclusive uses of their assembly lines, but Apple doesn't own any of it. Apple have the LCD array design for the so-called retina displays, but Apple doesn't make them because Apple doesn't have the capability nor the technology to do it. Suppliers make them based on Apple's specs/guidelines/designs. Designing stuff and making stuff are two different things, and Apple is an exhibit A for this fact. The point is if the technology of these suppliers have not reached the level where certain parts of Apple fantasy devices can be manufactured, Apple will have to wait because Apple doesn't have the technology to do it. Apple is always at the mercy of their suppliers/manufacturers technological know-how to make their i-devices viable.
I'm with TS on this: You're completely nuts.
!. Your argument is akin to saying the USA government doesn't have a modern army because it doesn't make its own weapons.
2. Not only Apple, but every manufacturer is "at the mercy" of the level of current technology. However, Apple is one company that underwrites the development of newer technology in batteries, ARM technology, solid-state memory, metallurgy, displays, and communications. Were it not for Apple's billions of dollars there may not be a tablet market like we know it today. Even the phone market would be hardly improved from 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa
I think many people read too much into Apple's patents.
What we're seeing in the patents are just ideas, not products that are sitting on a shelf ready to ship.
The best "keyboard tablet" already exists, it's called a laptop, many vendors make them. There used to be models where you could detach the "screen" part and use it as a tablet, where the keyboard part had the other optional parts like the optical drive and additional usb ports. They were heavy, nobody wants heavy things.
The problem with the smart cover concept (even Microsoft's) is that it's not a keyboard, the lack of feedback or key depth makes it unsuitable for being used for long periods of time. It is a step up from the touch screen, where the keyboard obscures half the screen, but it's not a replacement. There are still people out there that prefer the loud clicky 1980's IBM keyboards on their computers. When you give these people something with short key depth, or much more quiet, they don't like it. Fortunately people can adapt. So the "keyboard" cover is just not necessary.
For such people you can install the sound effect of a 1970 IBM Selectric® typewriter clacking away, complete with bell and carriage return. Fortunately, as that group of people "age out" of the system we will see a rise in another generation that will cuddle up with their iPads and whisper sweet-nothings into the built-in microphone to input their prose. After all, the keyboard is so 19th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
Not only that, Apple got beat by Google for that Glass thingy. It's sad though if you think about it. Apple fantasizes about certain devices and patents them at the very next NY minute, even if it will take Apple years to realize it, if at all, because APPLE IS A SOFTWARE COMPANY AND HARDLY A HARDWARE COMPANY AT ALL. So, in order for Apple to build things it's been issued patents on, it will have to wait for VARIOUS HARDWARE COMPANIES TO SOMEDAY COME UP WITH ALL REQUIRED PARTS BEFORE THOSE APPLE'S FANTASY DEVICES CAN BE ASSEMBLED, then , and only then, APPLE WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD ITS FANTASY DEVICES WHILE HAVING THESE PATENTS AS PROTECTION AGAINST LITIGATIONS. That is Apple's game plan. Once in awhile, some companies screw up this scenario, i.e. Google Glass and Microsoft Surface. Google and Microsoft come up with working products prior to Apple [being able/having decided] to implement either of these patents.
Many other great inventors actually create things, prolly fail gazillion times before they get it right, and when they get it right then they think about patenting it. That is what patent office is supposed to be doing. Every hardware patent application has to be accompanied by a prototype that works as described by the patent itself. This will 100% kill all patent trolls. Nowadays though, USPTO is too busy with its own goal of collecting fees from patent grantees. The more patent it grants, the more money it will collect. It is being run totally like a fast food business chain. I betcha USPTO has a target of how many patent they must grant at a minimum every single year. It's becoming an organization with a volume goals. USPTO is into quantities instead of qualities.This kind of operation riddle with a lot of problems, much like any other for-profit entities in the business, namely greeds. USPTO even publishes list of patents due to be expired because the original assignees failed to pay the maintenance fee.
These are fees being collected by USPTO:
-Patent Application Filing Fees
-Patent Search Fees
-Patent Examination Fees
-Patent Post-Allowance Fees
-Patent Maintenance Fees
-Miscellaneous Patent Fees
-Post Issuance Fees
-Patent Extension of Time Fees
-Patent Appeals/Interference Fees
-Patent Petition Fees
-Patent Service Fees
-Patent Enrollment Fees
Here I have this fantasy about a "Time Machine" complete with its concept and drawings, but wait Apple already patented a "Time Machine", only of a different kind however. Hm..., oh no..., there is another Time Machine, found here. Moreover, I will have to pay tons of fees to USPTO which I can ill afford, but, we all know, Apple can afford to pay these USPTO fees with the profit it makes with its i-devices and can also even subsidize its currently "non money making" fantasy devices patent fees very comfortably for many years to come.
Have you gotten into your daddy's brandy cabinet again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
...hell, give me a larger form factor 'iPad' with a full operating system and i'd be very happy.
Why? Then you'd just complain about the short battery charge and the heat dissipating fins on the back. It is what it is for a purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Looks like this patent is for a flexible touch panel/screen. So keyboard would be one of many uses for it. I'm not sure how you'd display app icons or draw on MS's touch cover.
Yes. I think that the end of claim 1, where it recites that "wherein at least some of the information is presented visually on the flap display," is pretty important. I doubt that it will be enough of a distinction to make the claims be considered non-obvious, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
Once again Apple is copying another companies products. Did Microsoft unveil a dual screen tablet not too long ago? Sure this is a cover, but it still follows the same concept of two screens to use in concert and transfer data between screens. That is what MS product did. Just saying Apple takes inspiration and doesn't get sued, but others take inspiration from Apple and they get sued.
I don't see Apple copying anything here. At least not yet. They're not makign this product. Are you suggesting that MS should sue Apple for filing a patent application on an idea they have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by namot
http://www.pcworld.com/article/224698/apple_develops_eink_hybrid_display.html I really hope something like that will come in next or over-next generation. And not only for iPads, iPhone, but also generaly in every display, bc to sit 10 hours at work in front of the PC, laptop and then use iPad is killing my eyes!
Just image reading long PDFs at your laptop e-ink screen. It would be amazing!:)
Imagine having it read to you with the iPad set to "Sultry Sexy Female voice." For ambient sounds set the iPad to "gentle ocean waves with gulls."
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightcmech
I don't see Apple copying anything here. At least not yet. They're not makign this product. Are you suggesting that MS should sue Apple for filing a patent application on an idea they have?
Fortunately, you didn't hurt the feelings of our flowering subject-matter expert by suggesting things he overlooked:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401553,00.asp
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I read somewhere that the smart cover brings in almost $1B annually in revenue for Apple. And to think it allegedly came about because Steve saw a magazine article on magnets, dropped it off on Jony Ive's desk and 'let's do something with magnets'.
Or Jobs might have looked at the 2007 HTC Avantage and thought, "oh look a screen protector that uses magnets: that acts as a magnetically attached keyboard, that allows the screen to sit up right and that even allows the viewing of notifications when the cover is in place- how can we adapt that, and then tell the world ""BOY DID WE PATENT IT?"""
Inspiration comes from many sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There's a high percentage of patents that get approved but later found to be invalid in whole or part.
True. there was this fellow (back in 2007) that told the world that he had patented Multi-Touch. In his defence he wasn't around to see the application rejected sometime later.
You sure try to spin things to discredit Apple. The HTC Advantage cover doesn't display notifications on it, it has a clear plastic strip that lets you see the notifications on the device screen. The keyboard cover also looks and behaves nothing like the smart cover.
The keyboard cover idea didn't have to be inspired by anything, I even came up with something like it in April and it was originally based on using the LEAP motion sensor with the iPad and the keyboard would just be printed on it:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/149531/intel-launches-next-gen-ivy-bridge-processors-with-3d-transistors#post_2100874
e-ink with capacitive touch would probably be more feasible though and allow it to double as an e-book reader as well as allow you to apply changeable decals to the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You sure try to spin things to discredit Apple. The HTC Advantage cover doesn't display notifications on it, it has a clear plastic strip that lets you see the notifications on the device screen. The keyboard cover also looks and behaves nothing like the smart cover.
The keyboard cover idea didn't have to be inspired by anything, I even came up with something like it in April and it was originally based on using the LEAP motion sensor with the iPad and the keyboard would just be printed on it:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/149531/intel-launches-next-gen-ivy-bridge-processors-with-3d-transistors#post_2100874
e-ink with capacitive touch would probably be more feasible though and allow it to double as an e-book reader as well as allow you to apply changeable decals to the iPad.
You are correct the HTC's cover does use a clear strip to show notifications on the screen, rather than generating it's own.
I was responding the the suggestion by a fellow poster that the current smart cover was the result of nothing more than the chance reading of an article about magnets. Increasingly there are those who believe that every thing that Apple brings to market has been invented by apple through somekind of divine inspiration.
IMO the reality is that Apple (et al) look at other products, borrow from them and then adapt them, generally resulting in something that is well crafted and designed. I use the example of the HTC cover to demonstrate my point. Two of smartcover's wow factors were the use of magnets and the ability to "turn off" the ipad. The HTC used magnets to hold it the cover in place both when used as a screen protector and to allow the screen to sit upright. Those same magnets were used to "turn off" the screen, whilst also allowing the device to display new notifications, these notifications are repositioned so that they can be seen thorough the clear section of the cover.
With regard to trying to discredit Apple, why is my trying to point out similarities with existing products me adopting "spin"? Why should we have to accept that a company trying to sell us something is being 100% honest all of the time (this is not aimed solely at apple but at their competitors as well). .
No I think it's more that regardless of inspiration, all hardware they bring to market is unique enough to be called their own unlike their competition. For example, none of Apple's products have ever looked anything like any Samsung product nor any other product that predated it. However, a significant number of Samsung's current products are designed to look very similar to Apple's products.
It's not just about making the same type of product with the same function. It's about making something that looks as close to identical as a competing product. Samsung isn't the only offender by a long way:
but Samsung is making the most money from it.
You over-exaggerate the similarities and such exaggeartion is not required in the case of Apple vs Samsung.