Why didn't Apple patent the hell out of this? That way they could sue SameDung again.
If there is anything to patent, it would be easily worked around. It's a video of 1.5 seconds @ 15fps encoded with H.264 with an MPEG4 container, and a 12MPx image (since that's the 6S series takes) paired with it. What exactly would be patentable?
The worst thing to happen is to have this be limited to just Apple devices, and then another vendor having their own options that nearly the same by slightly different, and then websites wanting to adopt them but having to deal with it like we're living in the 90's when IE6 was king. Better to just have a standard that makes for a better user experience for everyone.
Apple has an installed base of Mas, iPads and iPhones, plus iPod Touches, that can all view their proprietary Live Photos. That's a large universe of people already who can benefit, and growing larger as time goes by. Apple is already something of a standard computing platform among the population of customers it serves; those who appreciate a premium experience. Offering features that they can share only with others within that community is not a disadvantage; it strengthens the value of being in that community and isolates those when are not. It's an exclusive club, with exclusive benefits, even small ones like Live Photo. As for adoption by other platforms, Apple already has the clout to push that through, as evidenced by the fact FB will be adding support, among others.
Um. HTC Zoe, anyone? I know it's hard to believe but some things do exist before Apple "invents" them.
Read the full article first. Here, I'll do you a favor for applicable parts: "HTC earlier released smartphones with a "Zoe" capture mode, which allows users to take a snapshot, hold for a burst, or continue holding to capture video. Animated burst sequences or video clips can then be processed into a composite image (similar to double exposure) or edited to remove objects.
Zoe doesn't result in a photo that comes to life when touched like Live Photo. That didn't stop Android Geeksfrom claiming that "HTC's Zoe Capture was capable of doing the same thing long before Live Photos," and complaining that "this gimmick only became cool now because Apple has it on its phones."
Nokia living photos is another example of an idea that does basically the same thing. In this case, Apple is the follower, and samesung is just really following.
Except nobody used it, Nokia had problems enough producing good shot to shot photos...
The advantage of Apple here is they have access to low level hw and dsp resources to do this, which those other apps undoubtably don't.
For this to work, the film must be recorded essentially in parallel with the photo, in a rolling buffer. But, film usually not recorded at 12MP, so it's probably not photos that are in the buffer.
When the photo gets taken, the film must be cut as the camera module takes over (to set proper exposure, etc)... Full frames 12MP must then be taken (it does it already to reduce shake), one frame comes out as the picture, this series of picture is then compressed/reduced in parallel with filming resuming after the photo. The whole thing is then spliced together and outputed as one film.
If the photo is HDR (or anything that requires much processing, it becomes more complicated).
The advantage of Apple here is they have access to low level hw and dsp resources to do this, which those other apps undoubtably don't.
For this to work, the film must be recorded essentially in parallel with the photo, in a rolling buffer. But, film usually not recorded at 12MP, so it's probably not photos that are in the buffer.
When the photo gets taken, the film must be cut as the camera module takes over (to set proper exposure, etc)... Full frames 12MP must then be taken (it does it already to reduce shake), one frame comes out as the picture, this series of picture is then compressed/reduced in parallel with filming resuming after the photo. The whole thing is then spliced together and outputed as one film.
If the photo is HDR (or anything that requires much processing, it becomes more complicated).
Yup, I agree. Apple has the upper hand of course. App developers would simply be imitating as best they could.
I think this will become just another gimmick feature that users don't really care about; and that's not something Apple does very often, at least not in comparison to their competitors.
So it just makes a GIF? Sorry, but hadn't even remembered this was a thing, until my phone suggested this article. It likes to include some light hearted comedy now and then.
The fact that you start a Live Photo by touching the photo, rather than a play icon of some sort as with HTCs 2012 Zoe implementation DOES NOT MAKE IT AN APPLE INNOVATION. Not to mention we've all been starting video on our phones by touching the images for years on YouTube, so you can't really even lay claim to that.
Apple has an amazing, amazing product in the 6/6s series, but it didn't sell a zillion of them because of catch up gimmicks like the one this article touts. It did it because it took an obviously good idea, LARGER PHONES (an Android trend Samsung gets 90% of the the credit for) and made them nearly perfect. A year before any Android OEM did.
Be happy Apple makes the best phones and stop over reaching when it comes to childish articles about serious subjects. Real people work hard to bring these innovations to the market. They start on the same open source software that 80% of the world is carrying around in their pockets. Apple has a well documented history of seeing what ideas stick in the Android wilderness, taking those ideas, perfecting them, and turning them into huge profits.
Apple copied Nokia's Living Images. They didn't even have the courtesy to acknowledge having done so and Phil Schiller even said "It's a beautiful experience; unlike any other way of interacting with photos." something blatantly untrue.
To accuse Samsung of copying Apple instead of saying both Apple and Samsung copied Nokia is disingenuous.
Apple usually patents everything well in advance of releasing whatever it is they're going to release when they bring a new product to market, there's a website devoted just to Apples Patents which they (Apple) applies for new patents almost on a weekly basis filing for numerous patents on reg. basis.
So it just makes a GIF? Sorry, but hadn't even remembered this was a thing, until my phone suggested this article. It likes to include some light hearted comedy now and then.
The fact that you start a Live Photo by touching the photo, rather than a play icon of some sort as with HTCs 2012 Zoe implementation DOES NOT MAKE IT AN APPLE INNOVATION. Not to mention we've all been starting video on our phones by touching the images for years on YouTube, so you can't really even lay claim to that.
Apple has an amazing, amazing product in the 6/6s series, but it didn't sell a zillion of them because of catch up gimmicks like the one this article touts. It did it because it took an obviously good idea, LARGER PHONES (an Android trend Samsung gets 90% of the the credit for) and made them nearly perfect. A year before any Android OEM did.
Be happy Apple makes the best phones and stop over reaching when it comes to childish articles about serious subjects. Real people work hard to bring these innovations to the market. They start on the same open source software that 80% of the world is carrying around in their pockets. Apple has a well documented history of seeing what ideas stick in the Android wilderness, taking those ideas, perfecting them, and turning them into huge profits.
A GIF is not a god damn movie, man... I'm not even talking to you, talk to yourself.
Can't really patent it when Nokia did something similar in april 2014 with Living Images.
You can patent IMPLEMENTATION. can you say Nokia had the exact same implementation... Probably not. If the implementation is obvious, no you can't patent it.
Apple often makes the definitive implementation that popularizes something.
why? Because other's implementation often suck ass. (example touch ID)
why would apple want to spend resources pushing for a new feature on competing devices? LP works with iphones, ipads and macs, and thats a huge audience already (all my family is iOS, etc). as an example, iMessages is iOS-only, and really is a value-add to apple's ecosystem, considering the best-in-class security iMessages enjoy.
You're asking why Apple would want anything they created to ever be open source or standardized? You'll have to Apple why they've decided to have such a long track record of doing just that.
you didn't answer the question. other than making your Harry Potter newspaper wish come true, what is the strategic benefit for Apple to push competitors to offer the same feature it offers its own ecosystem of users?
Nokia living photos is another example of an idea that does basically the same thing. In this case, Apple is the follower, and samesung is just really following.
which has nothing to do with what I asked. he complained about HTC having something similar first, and that was covered in the article.
per usual, being first doesn't mean getting it right. see iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc...
Comments
"HTC earlier released smartphones with a "Zoe" capture mode, which allows users to take a snapshot, hold for a burst, or continue holding to capture video. Animated burst sequences or video clips can then be processed into a composite image (similar to double exposure) or edited to remove objects.
Zoe doesn't result in a photo that comes to life when touched like Live Photo. That didn't stop Android Geeksfrom claiming that "HTC's Zoe Capture was capable of doing the same thing long before Live Photos," and complaining that "this gimmick only became cool now because Apple has it on its phones."
For this to work, the film must be recorded essentially in parallel with the photo, in a rolling buffer. But, film usually not recorded at 12MP, so it's probably not photos that are in the buffer.
When the photo gets taken, the film must be cut as the camera module takes over (to set proper exposure, etc)... Full frames 12MP must then be taken (it does it already to reduce shake), one frame comes out as the picture, this series of picture is then compressed/reduced in parallel with filming resuming after the photo.
The whole thing is then spliced together and outputed as one film.
If the photo is HDR (or anything that requires much processing, it becomes more complicated).
The fact that you start a Live Photo by touching the photo, rather than a play icon of some sort as with HTCs 2012 Zoe implementation DOES NOT MAKE IT AN APPLE INNOVATION. Not to mention we've all been starting video on our phones by touching the images for years on YouTube, so you can't really even lay claim to that.
Apple has an amazing, amazing product in the 6/6s series, but it didn't sell a zillion of them because of catch up gimmicks like the one this article touts. It did it because it took an obviously good idea, LARGER PHONES (an Android trend Samsung gets 90% of the the credit for) and made them nearly perfect. A year before any Android OEM did.
Be happy Apple makes the best phones and stop over reaching when it comes to childish articles about serious subjects. Real people work hard to bring these innovations to the market. They start on the same open source software that 80% of the world is carrying around in their pockets. Apple has a well documented history of seeing what ideas stick in the Android wilderness, taking those ideas, perfecting them, and turning them into huge profits.
Apple copied Nokia's Living Images. They didn't even have the courtesy to acknowledge having done so and Phil Schiller even said "It's a beautiful experience; unlike any other way of interacting with photos." something blatantly untrue.
To accuse Samsung of copying Apple instead of saying both Apple and Samsung copied Nokia is disingenuous.
If the implementation is obvious, no you can't patent it.
Apple often makes the definitive implementation that popularizes something.
why? Because other's implementation often suck ass. (example touch ID)
which has nothing to do with what I asked. he complained about HTC having something similar first, and that was covered in the article. per usual, being first doesn't mean getting it right. see iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc...
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/samsung-may-head-back-to-the-galaxy-s4-for-its-new-galaxy-s7-feature-1313185 Here is a part of it on video