Bigger is not innovating. It is simply iterating. Make a new product category and we can all say you are innovating. Make one a little bit better and you are iterating.
What infected MS was laziness, and complacency. Windows CE languished with little to no updates. MS didn't consider what the smartphone would evolve into until Apple showed the world. I think they'd be in Android's position had they immediately gone back to the drawing board and come up with something people would find worthwhile to use.
Even though it's not so long ago, I think many of the people posting here forget how truly amazing the iPhone presentation was and how it caught everyone... and I do mean everyone... completely off-guard and flatfooted. More so considering it was the most rumored device for at least a year before the presentation. That Apple pulled off all of the little pieces like the ATT exclusivity agreement, subsidizing, complete control of the iPhone without branding, updates, in-house apps with Google services, Webkit changes, acquisitions for touch, etc... all the while keeping everything tip-top secret... just mind-blowing!
That SJ was a cagey bugger I think everyone knew, but this was a crowning achievement of enthusiastic discipline if there ever was one. I wonder how often he had the prototype in his pocket and fought with himself not to show it off to one of the naysayers or in a tough negotiation battle?!
As to Microsoft, who surely has an entire division (army?) of tech analysts and researchers that are tasked to keep up with break-throughs in everything from materials, to screens, chips, whatever... the word complacency doesn't even begin to describe the absolute hibernation of a company of their size and status in the market at that time, let alone for 3 years after iPhone was a major hit. Mind-blowing by a factor of 10!
Although on the other hand, I don't think they could have taken what they had much further without the totall re-write that they have been forced to do. By all accounts, Windows Phone 8.1 is just now starting to get into a groove and has API's that developers can sink their teeth into... both from MS and 3rd party. It will be interesting to see how this story enfolds versus Android/Google more so than Apple.
Bigger is not innovating. It is simply iterating. Make a new product category and we can all say you are innovating. Make one a little bit better and you are iterating.
Repeating something false doesn't make it true, but if you must make shit up at least to make shit up that can't so easily make you words look foolish. You know, maybe innovate a new anti-Apple slogan instead of iterating the same old tired one.
iterate |?it??r?t| verb [ with obj. ]
perform or utter repeatedly.
innovate |?in??v?t| verb [ no obj. ]
make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products
Apple and most of all Microsoft has seen that they might do well working together (see Office for iPad). What y'all say to a new Tag Team now that "Blow-hard Ballmer" has retired? Siri could use some help and Cortana (see above linked post) looked like she could keep up using Bing as her backend manager... so who needs Google?
My opinion... but what made Google great in the day, wasn't so much that their search worked so well, but because it was an uncluttered minimal interface both for search and results, as opposed to Yahoo, Excite, AltaVista and other so-called "web portals with search" of the time. [S]They've[/S] Google has since become intrusive, cluttered, and worst of all... unreliable in some respects due to their ballyhooed algorithms throwing up ads and SEO-optimized product aggregators and glorified telephone books first. In Germany it's a rather large problem for users that still don't know "how to search", and just click on top results rather than looking at the URLs first. Lots of nasty stuff hidden in those top results that need cleaning up later.
Now ask me if I could give a hoot how good it is or isn't.... :smokey:
Thanks for the link. Microsoft has done a pretty credible job with Cortana, especially as both Apple and Google had a significant head start. I'm surprised actually.
Repeating something false doesn't make it true, but if you must make shit up at least to make shit up that can't so easily make you words look foolish. You know, maybe innovate a new anti-Apple slogan instead of iterating the same old tired one.
iterate |?it??r?t|
verb [ with obj. ]
perform or utter repeatedly.
innovate |?in??v?t|
verb [ no obj. ]
make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products
"Repeating something false doesn't make it true"
Uh, people do that all of the time as a means of brainwashing. If you say something (whether it's true or false) people eventually THINK it's true, even though it isn't with enough repetition. Remember Bush's "read my lips"? His quote was repeated tons of times enough to convince people to vote for him, even though it turned out not to be true. People are easily manipulated with repetition.
Lots of institutions rely on repeating falsehoods to promote something and for a lot them, it actually works.
There's good reason to the fundamental principle that there is no (legal) ownership to ideas. I know the US patent system has its difficulties with this principle because it makes it far too easy to overcome, creating a whole industry of patent trolls and legal abuse.
But every time I read how Apple stole an idea from Android, or Google from Apple, of X from Y, and how one copied the other, I am getting sick. All progress comes from copying, even what makes mankind unique compared to all other animals is our ability to copy and learn something new from it (I know, some other species have a similar, but reduced ability to do so too).
So all please get over the conception that using ("copying") and improving upon other people's / companies' ideas is evil.
Fully agree with you.
Idea that, say, Toshiba could have patented laptop form factor and prevent everyone else from making laptops... is frightening. We would probably still have 4cm tick machines and they would all be - Toshibas.
Or if someone could have patented idea of portable music player, as in portable device capable of reproducing music via earphones, powered from internal battery. No iPods, no music playback from smartphones.
We don't really get THAT many new ideas. Most progress comes from improving someone elses ideas. But what improvement is it! From Étienne Lenoir internal combustion engines to nowadays engines powering supercars. From early 4-bit microprocessors to nowadays Xeons and i7 CPUs. From Wright brothers airplane to nowadays fighter jets and passengers.
Not to mention that improvements on others ideas also gives motivation for original inventors to keep on pushing development. Without fierce competition, would iPhone be at 5s level, where it is right now... or would it still be on, say, 3Gs level? Would we impatiently wait for iPhone 4 to be released in September 2014?
Just curious if that last slide is part of the formal evidence or something AI came up with?
In the original trial they wanted to show the somewhat famous pictures of Samsung phones that don't look like the iPhone, then the iPhone alone, then Samsung phones after the iPhone that look like the iPhone. What they excluded are the phones that looked like the iPhone *before* the iPhone was released. I believe Apple even forced the issue forcing the removal of some Samsung models that looked like the iPhone before it was release saying that they were not 'part of the lawsuit' Samsung wanted to show pictures of the F700 which was released the year prior to the iPhone. Apple removed it from the list of infringing devices and objected to Samsung showing pictures of it at the trial. Smart. Shady. But smart.
If that last picture is part of the evidence I'm surprised they included the Danger Sidekick. They craftily included only different colored ones and only showed them in the 'open keyboard' position, but it opens the door for the Samsung defense to include pictures of black closed ones, which look very similar to the iPhone and show that that is one general direction of where things were headed with cell phone evolution. How can a phone that looks like the iPhone have been released 5 years before the iPhone?
Idea that, say, Toshiba could have patented laptop form factor and prevent everyone else from making laptops... is frightening. We would probably still have 4cm tick machines and they would all be - Toshibas.
Or if someone could have patented idea of portable music player, as in portable device capable of reproducing music via earphones, powered from internal battery. No iPods, no music playback from smartphones.
We don't really get THAT many new ideas. Most progress comes from improving someone elses ideas. But what improvement is it! From Étienne Lenoir internal combustion engines to nowadays engines powering supercars. From early 4-bit microprocessors to nowadays Xeons and i7 CPUs. From Wright brothers airplane to nowadays fighter jets and passengers.
Not to mention that improvements on others ideas also gives motivation for original inventors to keep on pushing development. Without fierce competition, would iPhone be at 5s level, where it is right now... or would it still be on, say, 3Gs level? Would we impatiently wait for iPhone 4 to be released in September 2014?
I think Apple would have been fine. There was competition before and Apple still made the iPhone.
Patent law is there to protect your property in what form it comes in every company has patterns and they protect them
And charge for the use of
And patterns are time bound
Some People copy DVDs it's Piracy is against the law but some people believe it's okay , Even selling the DVDs . you can justify anything if you try hard enough
Bigger is not innovating. It is simply iterating. Make a new product category and we can all say you are innovating. Make one a little bit better and you are iterating.
such as, if someone said that there should be a smart phone without any specifications
what is an idea with full specs and implementation?
iphone, all specifications on screen size, internal component, and software design, etc. when iPhone came out in 2007, it was NOT just an idea, it was a full product.
before iPhone appeared in 2007, there were many "smartphone" around, such Sony/Ericsson Pa990 or something like that. thus iphone-like or iPhone basically should be patented by apple so that no one else need to be shy away from coping it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Fully agree with you.
Idea that, say, Toshiba could have patented laptop form factor and prevent everyone else from making laptops... is frightening. We would probably still have 4cm tick machines and they would all be - Toshibas.
Or if someone could have patented idea of portable music player, as in portable device capable of reproducing music via earphones, powered from internal battery. No iPods, no music playback from smartphones.
We don't really get THAT many new ideas. Most progress comes from improving someone elses ideas. But what improvement is it! From Étienne Lenoir internal combustion engines to nowadays engines powering supercars. From early 4-bit microprocessors to nowadays Xeons and i7 CPUs. From Wright brothers airplane to nowadays fighter jets and passengers.
Not to mention that improvements on others ideas also gives motivation for original inventors to keep on pushing development. Without fierce competition, would iPhone be at 5s level, where it is right now... or would it still be on, say, 3Gs level? Would we impatiently wait for iPhone 4 to be released in September 2014?
Agree with both you and DED. It's a totally silly accusation doesn't deserve repeating over and over.
You you serious? You don't think a partner who has been secretly planning to compete with you in every market you are in doesn't have an advantage having their CEO sit on your board? Do you think if Apple knew there were doing so he would have ever been there? One way to tell is how Google handled the info. The company that tells everything they are working on long before it's ready, kept the fact that they were going into these markets from their closest partner who had a place on Apple's board. That's why Jobs was so angry with him.
Sorry but that last line I find offensive. I may now use an Android device but I started out with the first 3 iPhones. My reasoning in changing to Android was features that were then lacking and some that still are from the iPhone and the greater choice and customisation available. I can afford any iPhone right now so brand anyone who buys anything but an iPhone as cheap is utterly wrong.
I prefer the craftsmanship that went into this 64 bit powerhouse to any piece of cheap Android junk which is the majority of the 80%.
Some suckers are conned by Samsung's marketing into paying more than an iPhone for plastic coated crap.
My apologies. I mistakenly thought you believed in the fairytale of how Schmidt stole from Apple.
So speaking to your suggestion that as a matter of ethics Schmidt should have recused himself from iPhone related discussions that 's just what was reported by independent news organizations. Schmidt did voluntarily bow out whenever discussion of the iPhone arose in Apple Board meetings. Still unethical?
Very odd that you seem to have no apparent concerns about either Levinson, now part of yet another Google project (is he stealing information on Apple's health initiatives to benefit Google latest health-focused investment Calico?) or Bill Campbell who had an opportunity to play both sides against the middle. Two of the three remained involved with both Google and Apple after Schmidt had already stepped away and one is still involved in some manner.
Schmidt,
is the shit,
who did,
it!
I prefer poems to fairytales.
Google is an ad agency of the lowest of the low products, they rank somewhere between used car salesmen and compensation lawyers in the scheme of things.
Comments
Bigger is not innovating. It is simply iterating. Make a new product category and we can all say you are innovating. Make one a little bit better and you are iterating.
Even though it's not so long ago, I think many of the people posting here forget how truly amazing the iPhone presentation was and how it caught everyone... and I do mean everyone... completely off-guard and flatfooted. More so considering it was the most rumored device for at least a year before the presentation. That Apple pulled off all of the little pieces like the ATT exclusivity agreement, subsidizing, complete control of the iPhone without branding, updates, in-house apps with Google services, Webkit changes, acquisitions for touch, etc... all the while keeping everything tip-top secret... just mind-blowing!
That SJ was a cagey bugger I think everyone knew, but this was a crowning achievement of enthusiastic discipline if there ever was one. I wonder how often he had the prototype in his pocket and fought with himself not to show it off to one of the naysayers or in a tough negotiation battle?!
As to Microsoft, who surely has an entire division (army?) of tech analysts and researchers that are tasked to keep up with break-throughs in everything from materials, to screens, chips, whatever... the word complacency doesn't even begin to describe the absolute hibernation of a company of their size and status in the market at that time, let alone for 3 years after iPhone was a major hit. Mind-blowing by a factor of 10!
Although on the other hand, I don't think they could have taken what they had much further without the totall re-write that they have been forced to do. By all accounts, Windows Phone 8.1 is just now starting to get into a groove and has API's that developers can sink their teeth into... both from MS and 3rd party. It will be interesting to see how this story enfolds versus Android/Google more so than Apple.
If interested, Cortana versus Siri versus Google Now | Windows Phone Central and a major review from Peter Bright at Ars was a good read.
Now ask me if I could give a hoot how good it is or isn't.... :smokey:
Repeating something false doesn't make it true, but if you must make shit up at least to make shit up that can't so easily make you words look foolish. You know, maybe innovate a new anti-Apple slogan instead of iterating the same old tired one.
verb [ with obj. ]
perform or utter repeatedly.
innovate |?in??v?t|
verb [ no obj. ]
make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products
Apple and most of all Microsoft has seen that they might do well working together (see Office for iPad). What y'all say to a new Tag Team now that "Blow-hard Ballmer" has retired? Siri could use some help and Cortana (see above linked post) looked like she could keep up using Bing as her backend manager... so who needs Google?
My opinion... but what made Google great in the day, wasn't so much that their search worked so well, but because it was an uncluttered minimal interface both for search and results, as opposed to Yahoo, Excite, AltaVista and other so-called "web portals with search" of the time. [S]They've[/S] Google has since become intrusive, cluttered, and worst of all... unreliable in some respects due to their ballyhooed algorithms throwing up ads and SEO-optimized product aggregators and glorified telephone books first. In Germany it's a rather large problem for users that still don't know "how to search", and just click on top results rather than looking at the URLs first. Lots of nasty stuff hidden in those top results that need cleaning up later.
Thanks for the link. Microsoft has done a pretty credible job with Cortana, especially as both Apple and Google had a significant head start. I'm surprised actually.
Repeating something false doesn't make it true, but if you must make shit up at least to make shit up that can't so easily make you words look foolish. You know, maybe innovate a new anti-Apple slogan instead of iterating the same old tired one.
verb [ with obj. ]
perform or utter repeatedly.
innovate |?in??v?t|
verb [ no obj. ]
make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products
"Repeating something false doesn't make it true"
Uh, people do that all of the time as a means of brainwashing. If you say something (whether it's true or false) people eventually THINK it's true, even though it isn't with enough repetition. Remember Bush's "read my lips"? His quote was repeated tons of times enough to convince people to vote for him, even though it turned out not to be true. People are easily manipulated with repetition.
Lots of institutions rely on repeating falsehoods to promote something and for a lot them, it actually works.
Fully agree with you.
Idea that, say, Toshiba could have patented laptop form factor and prevent everyone else from making laptops... is frightening. We would probably still have 4cm tick machines and they would all be - Toshibas.
Or if someone could have patented idea of portable music player, as in portable device capable of reproducing music via earphones, powered from internal battery. No iPods, no music playback from smartphones.
We don't really get THAT many new ideas. Most progress comes from improving someone elses ideas. But what improvement is it! From Étienne Lenoir internal combustion engines to nowadays engines powering supercars. From early 4-bit microprocessors to nowadays Xeons and i7 CPUs. From Wright brothers airplane to nowadays fighter jets and passengers.
Not to mention that improvements on others ideas also gives motivation for original inventors to keep on pushing development. Without fierce competition, would iPhone be at 5s level, where it is right now... or would it still be on, say, 3Gs level? Would we impatiently wait for iPhone 4 to be released in September 2014?
Just curious if that last slide is part of the formal evidence or something AI came up with?
In the original trial they wanted to show the somewhat famous pictures of Samsung phones that don't look like the iPhone, then the iPhone alone, then Samsung phones after the iPhone that look like the iPhone. What they excluded are the phones that looked like the iPhone *before* the iPhone was released. I believe Apple even forced the issue forcing the removal of some Samsung models that looked like the iPhone before it was release saying that they were not 'part of the lawsuit' Samsung wanted to show pictures of the F700 which was released the year prior to the iPhone. Apple removed it from the list of infringing devices and objected to Samsung showing pictures of it at the trial. Smart. Shady. But smart.
If that last picture is part of the evidence I'm surprised they included the Danger Sidekick. They craftily included only different colored ones and only showed them in the 'open keyboard' position, but it opens the door for the Samsung defense to include pictures of black closed ones, which look very similar to the iPhone and show that that is one general direction of where things were headed with cell phone evolution. How can a phone that looks like the iPhone have been released 5 years before the iPhone?
You'll notice that I wrote usually, which means that there are sometimes exceptions to the rule.
So you did. My apologies.
I think Apple would have been fine. There was competition before and Apple still made the iPhone.
Agree with both you and DED. It's a totally silly accusation doesn't deserve repeating over and over.
And charge for the use of
And patterns are time bound
Some People copy DVDs it's Piracy is against the law but some people believe it's okay ,
Even selling the DVDs . you can justify anything if you try hard enough
Theft is theft
Heh. It's innovation when Samsung does it, right?
what is a pure idea?
such as, if someone said that there should be a smart phone without any specifications
what is an idea with full specs and implementation?
iphone, all specifications on screen size, internal component, and software design, etc. when iPhone came out in 2007, it was NOT just an idea, it was a full product.
before iPhone appeared in 2007, there were many "smartphone" around, such Sony/Ericsson Pa990 or something like that. thus iphone-like or iPhone basically should be patented by apple so that no one else need to be shy away from coping it.
Quote:
Fully agree with you.
Idea that, say, Toshiba could have patented laptop form factor and prevent everyone else from making laptops... is frightening. We would probably still have 4cm tick machines and they would all be - Toshibas.
Or if someone could have patented idea of portable music player, as in portable device capable of reproducing music via earphones, powered from internal battery. No iPods, no music playback from smartphones.
We don't really get THAT many new ideas. Most progress comes from improving someone elses ideas. But what improvement is it! From Étienne Lenoir internal combustion engines to nowadays engines powering supercars. From early 4-bit microprocessors to nowadays Xeons and i7 CPUs. From Wright brothers airplane to nowadays fighter jets and passengers.
Not to mention that improvements on others ideas also gives motivation for original inventors to keep on pushing development. Without fierce competition, would iPhone be at 5s level, where it is right now... or would it still be on, say, 3Gs level? Would we impatiently wait for iPhone 4 to be released in September 2014?
The Kogan Agora did eventually ship. It's just another cheap Android phone http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/agora-50-dual-core-smartphone/
I am a Doctor, Lawyer, and Indian Chief
besides being pope.
Let me see now
Where did the iPod,iPhone,iPad
Products that generated billions of dollars of trade
Shoot, copies of these items generate billions of dollars in trade
come from?
Europe - land of the freetards
Or
USA - land where the daring innovator gets protection for a short period of time
(as stipulated in the Constitution)
?
Times up.
Pencils down!
Wait, wait, wait, you're the Pope, and you say Europe is a land of "freetards"?
Sorry but that last line I find offensive. I may now use an Android device but I started out with the first 3 iPhones. My reasoning in changing to Android was features that were then lacking and some that still are from the iPhone and the greater choice and customisation available. I can afford any iPhone right now so brand anyone who buys anything but an iPhone as cheap is utterly wrong.
I prefer the craftsmanship that went into this 64 bit powerhouse to any piece of cheap Android junk which is the majority of the 80%.
Some suckers are conned by Samsung's marketing into paying more than an iPhone for plastic coated crap.
My apologies. I mistakenly thought you believed in the fairytale of how Schmidt stole from Apple.
So speaking to your suggestion that as a matter of ethics Schmidt should have recused himself from iPhone related discussions that 's just what was reported by independent news organizations. Schmidt did voluntarily bow out whenever discussion of the iPhone arose in Apple Board meetings. Still unethical?
Very odd that you seem to have no apparent concerns about either Levinson, now part of yet another Google project (is he stealing information on Apple's health initiatives to benefit Google latest health-focused investment Calico?) or Bill Campbell who had an opportunity to play both sides against the middle. Two of the three remained involved with both Google and Apple after Schmidt had already stepped away and one is still involved in some manner.
Schmidt,
is the shit,
who did,
it!
I prefer poems to fairytales.
Google is an ad agency of the lowest of the low products, they rank somewhere between used car salesmen and compensation lawyers in the scheme of things.