- Last Active
Steve Jobs wanted Jeff Goldblum to be 'voice of Apple'From what I saw in interviews, Susan Bennet was originally hired by either Lucent Technologies (now Nokia BellLabs) or Avaya to annunciate virtually every vowel/consonant combination and sometimes multiple annunciations and even happy/sad/sarcastic tones in the English language. These recordings were originally made for PBX systems.In that interview, Susan said it was painstaking work; with over 4,000 hours of audio recorded and catalogued. However, BellLabs was able to study and research text-to-speech using a living person's voices. Imainge that job..!In the end, it was easier for Avaya/BellLabs to develop call path routing, and hire a voice actor to create 20 (or more) voice prompts. It was actually the Siri company that apple acquired that found the BellLabs work useful in the modern age of computing.PBXes and phone tree menus reverted back to something similar to when you call 1-800-MY-APPLE to ask for any type of customer service after the sale. As an example, "Hi, I'm an automated system that can understand full sentences to route you to the most expensive customer service Rep. So, how much money do you have in your purse today?" Or "Your purse seems a little heavy, why don't you come into an Apple Store and lighten it". These are PBX phone tree prompt Jeff Goldblum wouldn't have desired to be credited with. But crediting him as a potential Siri Voice is misplaced. That would have been Nokia BellLabs' decision. 😀
Apple lawsuit accuses Nokia of being at core of patent licensing conspiracyericthehalfbee said:There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.
On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.
Quite the dilemma.
Well, you have two factors at work here. First, let's face facts. Apple has an over-reliance on PR and the press. Today, there exist 573,000 stories and links on the web about the original cross-licensing agreement. When that many articles exist, people will generally draw the conclusion that they licensed all the patents.
Apple developers are also likely to study all patents; and code patented ideas into Apple's software. Apple under Tim Cook is incredibly predictable. Apple can complain, pretend it's a victim, file a lawsuit, and parade it's CEO out to give a speech on how it doesn't need corrective action. That's how Tim Cook's Apple works and also why people who work in New York Finance like the company so much. It seems to work well for their stock valuation.
As a second item, hiring attorneys to scour through the patent database for ideas which people and companies were willing to pay real money to patent (and disclose) makes it easy for Apple's R&D budget to find ideas for products. You'll notice that Apple is accusing Acacia, a Research Company, for anti-trust..? Sounds like Acacia has some real good R&D researchers and ideas which Apple wants to copy.
But still, patents should be paid for; especially if the company is the size of Apple. As an example, I could conceivably see Apple not wanting to pay for patents related to phone payments. In 1999, Nokia, Visa, and Finland-based NordBanken had this technology on a Nokia 7710 phone series in Europe... Back then, Visa had a second SIM card Chip; which Apple probably calls a "Secure Enclave". Then, Apple re-introduced it as "new technology" with much bravado, and announced the payment platform with Chase Bank and called it ApplePay. Still, my guess is that Chase didn't develop the technology; but instead, Nokia did, Apple copied it, then approached chase so it could market the iPhone features to its customers. It was a feature which people didn't know they wanted or even needed, but Apple most likely found the patents and decided to copy another thing someone else did; and slap a fruit on it.
Apple sues Swatch over 'Tick different' trademarkspice-boy said:The target audience for this Swatch device is too young to remember or ever heard of the "Think Different" campaign. I understand Apple trying to protect it's technology, patents and such but this is a waste of time and money.
Phil Schiller is trying to justify his job in branding. The "Tick Different" may confuse customers into thinking an analog clock is somehow the same as an Apple device with a one-day battery.