Nokia had Claims other than FRAND against Apple. Nokia has made statements agreeing that FRAND patents should be taken off the tablet. I do t know about Qualcomm. As far as patent trolls go, yes, I'm aware, but I wasn't including them with actual manufacturers.
Is this the Nokia statement you're thinking of? It was just a few days ago at the ITU roundtable discussion on (F)RAND policies.
“There are situations were injunctions against unwilling licensees are a necessary remedy for intellectual property rights holders, such as a total refusal to negotiate a licence, or refusal to pay compensation determined by a competent court,”
BTW, the original 10 patents that Nokia asserted against Apple, demanding an injunction as one remedy, were all standards-essential as far as I know. From Nokia themselves:
"The ten patents in suit relate to technologies fundamental to making devices which are compatible with one or more of the GSM, UMTS (3G WCDMA) and wireless LAN standards," Nokia said.
You said that last year's iPad becomes just the iPad.
Yeah. The iPad 3 right now is just "iPad". It's marketed as "the new iPad". "The new" gets dropped when the new model is released. Seems pretty simple.
As the summation agrees with what I've been saying, I don't understand why you disagree.
Because it clearly dose NOT agree with you've been saying...it says the opposite and I even quoted it for you.
If you want to find someone that has done some analysis and agrees with you go ahead and quote them. Do not attempt to twist this analysis to come to the exact opposite conclusion. Again I quote:
"Everything would then simply stay the same. Buttons and touch targets would be smaller, but not unusably so. The "slack" that currently exists between 3.5-inch iPhone interface elements and 9.7-inch iPad elements would just disappear, and you'd have the same basic iPad look with the same basic iPhone feel.
Keeping the current iPad interface and scaling it down would mean developers and users could run the same iPad apps they do today. Universal binary sizes could likewise remain the same, since no new interface sizes or asset sizes would be necessary.White space wouldn't increase, so the visual density of apps would remain the same.
It's the simplest solution, and those are the ones Apple typically implements."
Unless the app recognized the mini as a smaller device with the same resolution as the iPad 2, and changes the layout to match the smaller size, everything will be smaller by the percentage of the screen size, boxes, text, pictures, etc. the same layout will be smaller.
Around 19%. For the very smallest buttons allowed the difference is going from around 1/3" to around 1/4". The button becomes exactly the same size as it would be on the iPhone.
Quote:
While much of that will be fine, a fair amount won't. But it will be worse if the mini had a retina screen. On my retina iPad, details are much finer. Most of that would be lost on a retina mini. It would simply be too fine to see. Again, unless its redone for the smaller screen size.
Retina makes ZERO difference for UI element sizes. A 44x44 point button on retina is rendered as 88x88 pixels while it is rendered as 44x44 on the non-retina. Physically they are the same size. If someone is depending on retina to render correctly then it doesn't work correctly on the iPad 2. That would be a poorly designed app and their art assets are created wrong.
Quote:
I understand all you've been saying here, but much of it is flat out wrong, because the devices are assumed to be a certain resolution at a specific size. When designed, the UI's are designed for that size. This is exactly why Apple quadrupled the number of pixels on the phone and tablet. With a smaller screen, everything will be smaller. I'll say it a thousand times if required. The standards only app,y when used at the no inal screen size. Once a different screen size is used, those size standards go out the window.
You do not understand and it is not wrong. Apple SPECIFICALLY STATES 44x44 POINTS SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM UI TARGET SIZE. The Apple HIG takes into account screen density when it states that for ALL Apple iOS devices. There are not two difference minimums for iPhone and iPad. There are not two different minimums for retina vs non-retina. The reason why this works just fine for a 7.85" iPad Mini is because it is the same pixels per inch the iPhone. While everything is smaller the they are NO SMALLER THAN THEY WOULD BE IF RENDERED ON THE IPHONE.
Therefore ANY UI element that meets the Apple HIG recommendations will have an interaction target of sufficient size to be usable on the iPad Mini. THIS IS WHY WE DESIGN IN POINTS AND NOT PIXELS.
Quote:
I understand that selection boxes will be fine, and they are sized the same as the original iPhone had them, and doubling the Rez has no effect, because the developers have accommodated that already. But their are many other elements that have been developed just for the retina display that can't be used at a lower resolution, either at all, or well.
No, this is wrong and no you do not understand. Developers did nothing to accommodate for that...it is built into IOS. THIS IS WHY THE UI IS LAID OUT FOR 1024x768 AND NOT 2048x1536 ON THE RETINA IPAD.THIS IS WHY WE DESIGN IN POINTS AND NOT PIXELS. We had to do nothing except provide art assets for both retina and non-retina resolution for any UIImage. There is no retina vs non-retina nib. You make two nibs for a universal app: iphone and ipad. Not four for iphone, iphone retina, ipad, ipad retina.
The notable exception is anything that uses OpenGL.
Quote:
A lot of this is lure convenience. I have books with formulary inside. Previously, I continually had to double tap them to read them, because the detail was lost in the more coarse screen. Now, I can read them without tapping, but they are still small, and a lot of the Greek letters used in the formula's are difficult to render. Cut that size down, and again, I'll have to double tap, because they will be sharp, but too small to read.
Only because you have old eyes.
If it can render clearly on the iPad 2 it will render clearly on the non-retina iPad Mini just fine. If it can render clearly on the iPad 3 then it would render clearly on a retina iPad mini. The iPad 3 formula will be around 19% larger than the iPad mini formula. It is not half the size as you keep claiming. If that difference makes it unreadable for you then it was pretty much borderline to begin with.
Quote:
My main argument here is not about a mini iPad, which I'm for, but for a retina screen mini, which at this time, I think will be too expensive, and too soon for developers to take into account, as they will now have three different things to develop for. When Apple discontinues the iPad 2, the time will be right.
Developers have to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad Mini just as they had to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad or iPhone beyond providing the 2x images to UIImage. If an app is designed for the iPad Retina (meaning it includes the 2x assets) then they will work just fine on the iPad Mini.
Cost is an entirely different issue. It is not going to happen for a $249 base model iPad Mini. Apple could charge more for a retina iPad Mini given the number of SKUs present. They may not choose to do so.
Developers have to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad Mini just as they had to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad or iPhone beyond providing the 2x images to UIImage.
Okay. But they DO have to do things between a retina iPad and retina iPad mini. And between a non-retina iPad and non-retina iPad mini.
I'm also saying that I don't think all the fragmentation that will occurs is great, but with a 1024x768 tablet, the problem will be less, for now. I would expect that next year, we could see a retina mini.
There is no fragmentation. That's the beauty of a 7.85" iPad Mini. All universal apps just work.
Okay. But they DO have to do things between a retina iPad and retina iPad mini. And between a non-retina iPad and non-retina iPad mini.
No, my conclusion and that of many other devs is that we do not have to do things between a retina iPad and a retina iPad mini other than providing art assets at the desired resolution.
No, my conclusion and that of many other devs is that we do not have to do things between a retina iPad and a retina iPad mini other than providing art assets at the desired resolution.
Yes, because text isn't smaller when you make it smaller.
If you really had then you would have seen the flipboard example that looks kinda like this screen cap (only portrait) I made of the McGraw Hill chemisty textbook:
and then shrunk down to the 7.85" screen size for comparison:
These are BOTH readable and usable. (click images to see at full resolution).
That is the size difference between the iPad and iPad Mini. Both images are 1024x768. The 2nd image is shrunken down to the 7.85" (dia) size and then padded out to maintain the 1024x768 size so it shows up as 7.85" on a normal iPad. The 2nd image fuzzy because of the shrinking process...it will not be fuzzy on the real iPad Mini.
If you designed your textbook to be only borderline readable using an iPad 3 then yes, it'll suck on an iPad Mini. But it would have been your fault for designing a craptasitic textbook in the first place.
Yes, because text isn't smaller when you make it smaller.
The text is 19% bigger on the regular iPad than on the iPad Mini. I have no idea why you believe otherwise. Unless you picked an uber-tiny font to use in your book or app design then it will still be readable on the mini.
It's like moving down one font size in terms of readability.
If you chose a 14 point font for your text on the iPad it would be about the same size as 12 point when rendered on the iPad mini (it is STILL 14 point...it's just smaller).
If you chose a 6 point font for your text on the iPad you were just being silly...although the text on the bottom of the calendar is pretty small...but I kinda view the skeuomorphic design kinda silly to begin with...
See the image comparison above and those on seveneightyfive.
So when you scale everything down to the mini the layout remains exactly the same and it's still readable because the text isn't all that much physically smaller than before...
So why do you need to change anything? Did you even look at the two images? Or open up the flipboard one in your ipad?
This is probably wrong but there are 7 colors bands on the invitation if you count the one running down the middle. Signifying the 7" device? (rounding down )
This is probably wrong but there are 7 colors bands on the invitation if you count the one running down the middle. Signifying the 7" device? (rounding down )
Is this the Nokia statement you're thinking of? It was just a few days ago at the ITU roundtable discussion on (F)RAND policies.
<span style="color:rgb(87,74,66);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25px;">“There are situations were injunctions against unwilling licensees are a necessary remedy for intellectual property rights holders, such as a total refusal to negotiate a licence, or refusal to pay compensation determined by a competent court,”</span>
[SIZE=14px]<span style="color:rgb(87,74,66);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;line-height:25px;">BTW, the original 10 patents that Nokia asserted against Apple, demanding an injunction as one remedy, were all standards-essential as far as I know. From Nokia themselves:</span>
[/SIZE]
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.383333206176758px;">"The ten patents in suit relate to technologies fundamental to making devices which are compatible with one or more of the GSM, UMTS (3G WCDMA) and wireless LAN standards," Nokia said.</span>
You are taking a very specific area of abuse, and translating it to a general policy which Nokia disagrees with. The quote below comes in the paragraph right above the first quote you supplied.
"Two areas where specific (F)RAND clarifications have been proposed are (1) availability of injunctions with SEPs, and (2) determination of a common royalty base for licenses. Neither of these is really suitable for more prescriptive regulation, which would only involve significant risks for the delicate balance of the (F)RAND bargain."
No one would disagree that a company that outright refuses to negotiate a license (as Google does) as regards to FRAND, or refuses to obey a proper court order to pay a FRAND license could have an injunction ordered. But this is an extreme. The paragraph I quoted shows Nokia's true belief in how FRAND disputes should not be handled.
Not all standards based patents are FRAND. You have to understand that.
Yeah. The iPad 3 right now is just "iPad". It's marketed as "the new iPad". "The new" gets dropped when the new model is released. Seems pretty simple.
It seems simple to you. But as I explained, after a couple of years, we get two, or more just "iPad" designations. That leads to a lot of confusion. So this year will be referred to last years iPad. And next year, it will be referred to as being the iPad from two years ago. Then the iPad from three years ago, as opposed to the iPad from two years ago, as opposed to last years iPad, as opposed to this year's New iPad.
If this isn't confusing to you, then you have a unique mind.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Nokia had Claims other than FRAND against Apple. Nokia has made statements agreeing that FRAND patents should be taken off the tablet. I do t know about Qualcomm. As far as patent trolls go, yes, I'm aware, but I wasn't including them with actual manufacturers.
Is this the Nokia statement you're thinking of? It was just a few days ago at the ITU roundtable discussion on (F)RAND policies.
“There are situations were injunctions against unwilling licensees are a necessary remedy for intellectual property rights holders, such as a total refusal to negotiate a licence, or refusal to pay compensation determined by a competent court,”
read a statement from Nokia.
BTW, the original 10 patents that Nokia asserted against Apple, demanding an injunction as one remedy, were all standards-essential as far as I know. From Nokia themselves:
"The ten patents in suit relate to technologies fundamental to making devices which are compatible with one or more of the GSM, UMTS (3G WCDMA) and wireless LAN standards," Nokia said.
Originally Posted by melgross
You said that last year's iPad becomes just the iPad.
Yeah. The iPad 3 right now is just "iPad". It's marketed as "the new iPad". "The new" gets dropped when the new model is released. Seems pretty simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As the summation agrees with what I've been saying, I don't understand why you disagree.
Because it clearly dose NOT agree with you've been saying...it says the opposite and I even quoted it for you.
If you want to find someone that has done some analysis and agrees with you go ahead and quote them. Do not attempt to twist this analysis to come to the exact opposite conclusion. Again I quote:
"Everything would then simply stay the same. Buttons and touch targets would be smaller, but not unusably so. The "slack" that currently exists between 3.5-inch iPhone interface elements and 9.7-inch iPad elements would just disappear, and you'd have the same basic iPad look with the same basic iPhone feel.
Keeping the current iPad interface and scaling it down would mean developers and users could run the same iPad apps they do today. Universal binary sizes could likewise remain the same, since no new interface sizes or asset sizes would be necessary. White space wouldn't increase, so the visual density of apps would remain the same.
It's the simplest solution, and those are the ones Apple typically implements."
http://admin.imore.com/solving-7-ipad-mini-interface
Quote:
Unless the app recognized the mini as a smaller device with the same resolution as the iPad 2, and changes the layout to match the smaller size, everything will be smaller by the percentage of the screen size, boxes, text, pictures, etc. the same layout will be smaller.
Around 19%. For the very smallest buttons allowed the difference is going from around 1/3" to around 1/4". The button becomes exactly the same size as it would be on the iPhone.
Quote:
While much of that will be fine, a fair amount won't. But it will be worse if the mini had a retina screen. On my retina iPad, details are much finer. Most of that would be lost on a retina mini. It would simply be too fine to see. Again, unless its redone for the smaller screen size.
Retina makes ZERO difference for UI element sizes. A 44x44 point button on retina is rendered as 88x88 pixels while it is rendered as 44x44 on the non-retina. Physically they are the same size. If someone is depending on retina to render correctly then it doesn't work correctly on the iPad 2. That would be a poorly designed app and their art assets are created wrong.
Quote:
I understand all you've been saying here, but much of it is flat out wrong, because the devices are assumed to be a certain resolution at a specific size. When designed, the UI's are designed for that size. This is exactly why Apple quadrupled the number of pixels on the phone and tablet. With a smaller screen, everything will be smaller. I'll say it a thousand times if required. The standards only app,y when used at the no inal screen size. Once a different screen size is used, those size standards go out the window.
You do not understand and it is not wrong. Apple SPECIFICALLY STATES 44x44 POINTS SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM UI TARGET SIZE. The Apple HIG takes into account screen density when it states that for ALL Apple iOS devices. There are not two difference minimums for iPhone and iPad. There are not two different minimums for retina vs non-retina. The reason why this works just fine for a 7.85" iPad Mini is because it is the same pixels per inch the iPhone. While everything is smaller the they are NO SMALLER THAN THEY WOULD BE IF RENDERED ON THE IPHONE.
Therefore ANY UI element that meets the Apple HIG recommendations will have an interaction target of sufficient size to be usable on the iPad Mini. THIS IS WHY WE DESIGN IN POINTS AND NOT PIXELS.
Quote:
I understand that selection boxes will be fine, and they are sized the same as the original iPhone had them, and doubling the Rez has no effect, because the developers have accommodated that already. But their are many other elements that have been developed just for the retina display that can't be used at a lower resolution, either at all, or well.
No, this is wrong and no you do not understand. Developers did nothing to accommodate for that...it is built into IOS. THIS IS WHY THE UI IS LAID OUT FOR 1024x768 AND NOT 2048x1536 ON THE RETINA IPAD. THIS IS WHY WE DESIGN IN POINTS AND NOT PIXELS. We had to do nothing except provide art assets for both retina and non-retina resolution for any UIImage. There is no retina vs non-retina nib. You make two nibs for a universal app: iphone and ipad. Not four for iphone, iphone retina, ipad, ipad retina.
The notable exception is anything that uses OpenGL.
Quote:
A lot of this is lure convenience. I have books with formulary inside. Previously, I continually had to double tap them to read them, because the detail was lost in the more coarse screen. Now, I can read them without tapping, but they are still small, and a lot of the Greek letters used in the formula's are difficult to render. Cut that size down, and again, I'll have to double tap, because they will be sharp, but too small to read.
Only because you have old eyes.
If it can render clearly on the iPad 2 it will render clearly on the non-retina iPad Mini just fine. If it can render clearly on the iPad 3 then it would render clearly on a retina iPad mini. The iPad 3 formula will be around 19% larger than the iPad mini formula. It is not half the size as you keep claiming. If that difference makes it unreadable for you then it was pretty much borderline to begin with.
Quote:
My main argument here is not about a mini iPad, which I'm for, but for a retina screen mini, which at this time, I think will be too expensive, and too soon for developers to take into account, as they will now have three different things to develop for. When Apple discontinues the iPad 2, the time will be right.
Developers have to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad Mini just as they had to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad or iPhone beyond providing the 2x images to UIImage. If an app is designed for the iPad Retina (meaning it includes the 2x assets) then they will work just fine on the iPad Mini.
Cost is an entirely different issue. It is not going to happen for a $249 base model iPad Mini. Apple could charge more for a retina iPad Mini given the number of SKUs present. They may not choose to do so.
Originally Posted by nht
Developers have to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad Mini just as they had to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad or iPhone beyond providing the 2x images to UIImage.
Okay. But they DO have to do things between a retina iPad and retina iPad mini. And between a non-retina iPad and non-retina iPad mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm also saying that I don't think all the fragmentation that will occurs is great, but with a 1024x768 tablet, the problem will be less, for now. I would expect that next year, we could see a retina mini.
There is no fragmentation. That's the beauty of a 7.85" iPad Mini. All universal apps just work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Okay. But they DO have to do things between a retina iPad and retina iPad mini. And between a non-retina iPad and non-retina iPad mini.
No, my conclusion and that of many other devs is that we do not have to do things between a retina iPad and a retina iPad mini other than providing art assets at the desired resolution.
Originally Posted by nht
No, my conclusion and that of many other devs is that we do not have to do things between a retina iPad and a retina iPad mini other than providing art assets at the desired resolution.
Yes, because text isn't smaller when you make it smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I've done the same thing too.
If you really had then you would have seen the flipboard example that looks kinda like this screen cap (only portrait) I made of the McGraw Hill chemisty textbook:
and then shrunk down to the 7.85" screen size for comparison:
These are BOTH readable and usable. (click images to see at full resolution).
That is the size difference between the iPad and iPad Mini. Both images are 1024x768. The 2nd image is shrunken down to the 7.85" (dia) size and then padded out to maintain the 1024x768 size so it shows up as 7.85" on a normal iPad. The 2nd image fuzzy because of the shrinking process...it will not be fuzzy on the real iPad Mini.
Just like the Flipboard example here:
http://seveneightyfive.fscked.com/flipboard.html
If you designed your textbook to be only borderline readable using an iPad 3 then yes, it'll suck on an iPad Mini. But it would have been your fault for designing a craptasitic textbook in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, because text isn't smaller when you make it smaller.
The text is 19% bigger on the regular iPad than on the iPad Mini. I have no idea why you believe otherwise. Unless you picked an uber-tiny font to use in your book or app design then it will still be readable on the mini.
It's like moving down one font size in terms of readability.
If you chose a 14 point font for your text on the iPad it would be about the same size as 12 point when rendered on the iPad mini (it is STILL 14 point...it's just smaller).
If you chose a 6 point font for your text on the iPad you were just being silly...although the text on the bottom of the calendar is pretty small...but I kinda view the skeuomorphic design kinda silly to begin with...
See the image comparison above and those on seveneightyfive.
Originally Posted by nht
The text is 19% bigger on the regular iPad than on the iPad Mini. I have no idea why you believe otherwise.
That's what I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's what I'm saying.
So when you scale everything down to the mini the layout remains exactly the same and it's still readable because the text isn't all that much physically smaller than before...
So why do you need to change anything? Did you even look at the two images? Or open up the flipboard one in your ipad?
D
Originally Posted by Dpineda
iPad mini with colors. The background of colors in the invitacion means that iPad mini will come in colors. Great!!!
Every event has colors. That is completely meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpineda
iPad mini with colors. The background of colors in the invitacion means that iPad mini will come in colors. Great!!!
D
Welcome to AI!
That would be interesting...
Waiting for the elevator photos...
I will buy an iPad mini and could even consider an iMac or Mac mini...
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns
This is probably wrong but there are 7 colors bands on the invitation if you count the one running down the middle. Signifying the 7" device? (rounding down
Or possibly, it'll come in colors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns
This is probably wrong but there are 7 colors bands on the invitation if you count the one running down the middle. Signifying the 7" device? (rounding down
Or possibly, it'll come in colors.
You are taking a very specific area of abuse, and translating it to a general policy which Nokia disagrees with. The quote below comes in the paragraph right above the first quote you supplied.
"Two areas where specific (F)RAND clarifications have been proposed are (1) availability of injunctions with SEPs, and (2) determination of a common royalty base for licenses. Neither of these is really suitable for more prescriptive regulation, which would only involve significant risks for the delicate balance of the (F)RAND bargain."
No one would disagree that a company that outright refuses to negotiate a license (as Google does) as regards to FRAND, or refuses to obey a proper court order to pay a FRAND license could have an injunction ordered. But this is an extreme. The paragraph I quoted shows Nokia's true belief in how FRAND disputes should not be handled.
Not all standards based patents are FRAND. You have to understand that.
It seems simple to you. But as I explained, after a couple of years, we get two, or more just "iPad" designations. That leads to a lot of confusion. So this year will be referred to last years iPad. And next year, it will be referred to as being the iPad from two years ago. Then the iPad from three years ago, as opposed to the iPad from two years ago, as opposed to last years iPad, as opposed to this year's New iPad.
If this isn't confusing to you, then you have a unique mind.