I know you have a quick response time on the Google promotion but if you'd read to the end of the comment, you'd have picked up where I said:
"Google's Current seems to be a feed aggregator like this but it uses time-limited trials too."
Also, I don't care about Google doing it, my suggestions are for Apple to do it.
I would assume then you mean similar to Google implementation since the article was about them in the first place and you too read it as including a hybridized RSS feeder.
I would assume then you mean similar to Google implementation since the article was about them in the first place and you too read it as including a hybridized RSS feeder.
No, I mean similar to my suggestions back in March, which Google obviously stole!:
"I actually think this would have been a good idea for Newsstand. Rather than subscribe to one publication, you'd tell it your interests and it would feed summaries of relevant articles into a wall of content and you'd be able to rank each article, like a personalised newspaper. It could be a single subscription and the subscription fee would be divided between the articles you read. If you read too many articles for your subscription level, it can cap the amount of articles that feed in. I actually don't use Newsstand at all because there isn't a single source of information that covers what I can get online. RSS helps but I still have to click though each article and there's no way for content creators to monetise it effectively."
These suggestions are meant for Apple. Google's obviously just finished development on the stolen idea and probably took layout design from Flipboard:
"I actually think this would have been a good idea for Newsstand. Rather than subscribe to one publication, you'd tell it your interests and it would feed summaries of relevant articles into a wall of content and you'd be able to rank each article, like a personalised newspaper. It could be a single subscription and the subscription fee would be divided between the articles you read. If you read too many articles for your subscription level, it can cap the amount of articles that feed in. I actually don't use Newsstand at all because there isn't a single source of information that covers what I can get online. RSS helps but I still have to click though each article and there's no way for content creators to monetise it effectively."
These suggestions are meant for Apple. Google's obviously just finished development on the stolen idea and probably took layout design from Flipboard:
Magical. I guess Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer weren’t code, then.
Not sure your point. Is either of those products being "dumped"? Or was it instead that Microsoft charges for those products so something like OpenOffice or Firefox would be examples of "illegal dumping"?
No, I mean similar to my suggestions back in March, which Google obviously stole!.
8-)
Yeah we all have the ears of folks at Apple and Google. I suspect they hang on our every word. . . or at least maybe it wouldn't hurt for them to listen.
This is akin to saying Apple copied Android for adding a Notification Center in iOS.
?So which is it? Either Apple copied Google and Google copied Apple, or neither really copied the other and added obvious convenience features that made sense?
By the way, for those not in the know... NextStep has had an API class called NSNotificationCenter for two decades now that's used by other objects to post and receive notifications. So the concept of a notification center has existed long before Android, just as the concept of a newsstand existed before Apple's App.
That's idiotic. A newsstand has historically been a place to buy periodicals, so obviously in the digital age it's not unique nor really creative to call a app to purchase digital periodicals a 'newsstand', but google is a number and it's use for a search engine is unique.
Not to argue, because it is silly, but historically a newsstand is a place to buy periodicals... No one saved the periodicals they purchased in a newsstand, which is what Apple's app is; a place to collect periodicals that you subscribed too. There's a slight difference.
And newsstand.co.uk has been providing newsstand services in electronic form since 1995
Interesting that Google must have copied Apple and should be sued for it, but Apple did not copy newsstand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because this suit would be in the US, not the UK? Because your example isn’t really relevant here? Come on.
I know this information may change your view of the world but the internet is world wide. newsstand.co.uk trades in every country that somone places an order from.
Do apple call their product something else in the UK?
And newsstand.co.uk has been providing newsstand services in electronic form since 1995
Interesting that Google must have copied Apple and should be sued for it, but Apple did not copy newsstand.
All the discussion about lawsuits is dumb anyway. Everything every company is coming up with is influenced by other ideas and/or products that came before. Here it seems like folks advocate "all lawsuits, all the time". Silly. FWIW I won't be at all surprised to find Apple rolling an RSS reader into their own Newsstand at some point. It won't be copying when they do either anymore than The Sun Times is a copy of The New York Times is a copy of the Tampa Bay Times
No-one's mentioned yet that Amazon also have a Newsstand service which I believe was launched at about the same time as Apple's. Given that Apple haven't kicked up a fuss over that, I think the chances of them taking on Google over the name are slim to none.
Comments
Yes, we know you don’t have the first clue what anyone here is discussing. You don’t need to keep reminding us.
Interesting that Google must have copied Apple and should be sued for it, but Apple did not copy newsstand.
Because this suit would be in the US, not the UK? Because your example isn’t really relevant here? Come on.
I don't care what you were discussing. I was responding to your comment, plain and simple.
Then I don’t care what your response is. You don’t care, therefore you can’t be correct.
You obviously do because you took time to reply to it.
So, what, you’re five? Run along, kiddo.
I know you have a quick response time on the Google promotion but if you'd read to the end of the comment, you'd have picked up where I said:
"Google's Current seems to be a feed aggregator like this but it uses time-limited trials too."
Also, I don't care about Google doing it, my suggestions are for Apple to do it.
I would assume then you mean similar to Google implementation since the article was about them in the first place and you too read it as including a hybridized RSS feeder.
No, I mean similar to my suggestions back in March, which Google obviously stole!:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156649/yahoo-buying-ios-app-summly-removes-it-from-app-store-for-power-nap#post_2300660
"I actually think this would have been a good idea for Newsstand. Rather than subscribe to one publication, you'd tell it your interests and it would feed summaries of relevant articles into a wall of content and you'd be able to rank each article, like a personalised newspaper. It could be a single subscription and the subscription fee would be divided between the articles you read. If you read too many articles for your subscription level, it can cap the amount of articles that feed in. I actually don't use Newsstand at all because there isn't a single source of information that covers what I can get online. RSS helps but I still have to click though each article and there's no way for content creators to monetise it effectively."
These suggestions are meant for Apple. Google's obviously just finished development on the stolen idea and probably took layout design from Flipboard:
http://gigaom.com/2013/11/20/google-kills-currents-launches-a-flipboard-style-newsstand-with-support-for-newspaper-paywalls/
I actually don't mind who makes it as long as it's done but Apple doing it wouldn't be copying Google if that's what you're implying.
Is there such a thing as illegally dumping software code? That's all it is and not physical merchandise.
I've never suggested Apple copies anyone on anything. Everyone is influenced by others, but few actually copy. (Samsung might be an exception)
Magical. I guess Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer weren’t code, then.
Not sure your point. Is either of those products being "dumped"? Or was it instead that Microsoft charges for those products so something like OpenOffice or Firefox would be examples of "illegal dumping"?
Yeah we all have the ears of folks at Apple and Google. I suspect they hang on our every word. . . or at least maybe it wouldn't hurt for them to listen.
This is akin to saying Apple copied Android for adding a Notification Center in iOS.
?So which is it? Either Apple copied Google and Google copied Apple, or neither really copied the other and added obvious convenience features that made sense?
By the way, for those not in the know... NextStep has had an API class called NSNotificationCenter for two decades now that's used by other objects to post and receive notifications. So the concept of a notification center has existed long before Android, just as the concept of a newsstand existed before Apple's App.
That's idiotic. A newsstand has historically been a place to buy periodicals, so obviously in the digital age it's not unique nor really creative to call a app to purchase digital periodicals a 'newsstand', but google is a number and it's use for a search engine is unique.
Not to argue, because it is silly, but historically a newsstand is a place to buy periodicals... No one saved the periodicals they purchased in a newsstand, which is what Apple's app is; a place to collect periodicals that you subscribed too. There's a slight difference.
And newsstand.co.uk has been providing newsstand services in electronic form since 1995
Interesting that Google must have copied Apple and should be sued for it, but Apple did not copy newsstand.
Because this suit would be in the US, not the UK? Because your example isn’t really relevant here? Come on.
I know this information may change your view of the world but the internet is world wide. newsstand.co.uk trades in every country that somone places an order from.
Do apple call their product something else in the UK?
I know this information may change your view of the world but the internet is world wide.
Is Britain the entire world?
They call the AirPort family ‘AirMac’ in Japan. Not relevant to this topic yet, though. They’d be suing Google here.
No-one's mentioned yet that Amazon also have a Newsstand service which I believe was launched at about the same time as Apple's. Given that Apple haven't kicked up a fuss over that, I think the chances of them taking on Google over the name are slim to none.