Apple vs. Samsung - The Verdict(s) are rolling in

PogMoThoin

Hold on, what if Ford sued Toyota for having door handles that opened in a similar upward manner or windows that you wind to open. You should not be able to patent this shít. We need a whole re-think of patenting laws worldwide and these negotiations need to include China or it's failed.

Colmustard

It seems I am in a minority. I believe if a company takes a chance and invests some of its resources in improving their products they should enjoy the rewards.

So I wellcome this judgement, even though I am a galaxy man, these days a company can't develop a better product without a plagerised cheaper version coming out of China a month later. Believe me this is not good for wests technology and brand industries. This intellectual theft very is threatening to our jobs and wealth.

Biggins

Wibbs wrote: »

OK let's look at them...

Etc...

We could debate over all the above and I could list webpages arguing my side (and there is pages which do contest your points better than I could - EXAMPLE - I'm assuming ZDNET alone knows their stuff) - and you in turn could retort likewise very easily.

At the end of the day, the point is that ALL are copying to some extent from each other.
A fool would be blind not to see it.

Where it really starts to take the pee though is when Apple start crying about a rectangle of a bloomin' phone or how thick and similar a phone frame might be to another.
Seriously, is this helping the 'cutting edge of technology'?

Apple - and others - need to get over themselves and instead of in-fighting, need to more concentrate more so on their next application or tweak to it.
(It also helps if they don't over-price their items too.)

Wibbs

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Hold on, what if Ford sued Toyota for having door handles that opened in a similar upward manner or windows that you wind to open. You should not be able to patent this shít. We need a whole re-think of patenting laws worldwide and these negotiations need to include China or it's failed.

Oh I agree. There needs to be more sense applied, but as you say unless you get China on board(which I have doubts about) it's a dead loss as Mandarin doesn't seem to contain the equivalent concept of "intellectual property theft". Theres a great saga about the Chinese ripping off Honda scooters. Calling them Honga's and all sorts of shíte. On top of that, instead of clubbing together to build an actual industry that could innovate themselves, little companies started to compete with each other in a race to the bottom that resulted finally in the scooters being sold by weight(and they rarely worked). In any event I reckon China's days are more numbered than the meme would have us believe so in a decade's time it'll be far less an issue when cheap and reliable manufacturing goes somewhere else.

PogMoThoin

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Hold on, what if Ford sued Toyota for having door handles that opened in a similar upward manner or windows that you wind to open. You should not be able to patent this shít. We need a whole re-think of patenting laws worldwide and these negotiations need to include China or it's failed.

You need to be able to patent things, even small things otherwise the right people wont gain from their ideas. I work in an area where patents are very important and even a small thing that looks nothing to someone on the outside can have a massive impact in reality.

China is an absolute disgrace when it comes to IP, through my own work I have an idea what goes on over there and while I cant go into it its is an unbelievable disgrace.

Sonics2k

The idea of patenting a shape, and let's not beat around the bush because that's what it is, is absolutely ridiculous.

Apple have won this, but all other manufacturers are now in real danger. Apple are doing exactly what they accused Microsoft of back in the 90's, trying to create a monopoly of the industry and destroy any competition.

Wibbs

Biggins wrote: »

We could debate over all the above and I could list webpages arguing my side (and there is pages which do contest your points better than I could - EXAMPLE - I'm assuming ZDNET alone knows their stuff) - and you in turn could retort likewise very easily.

Not really. The examples you've linked are copying, however the bulk of copying went the other way. To use someone elses car metaphor it's like everyone is building 3 wheel open scooters with tillers for steering, then one company brings out a four wheeled car as we would recognise one with a cabin, seats and steering wheel and the rest pile in and bring out their own car. You're arguing over one windscreen wiper or two, or adding a car radio, so no it doesn't really equalise out. By the by, ZDNET have oft repeated the xerox parc myth. There's an old saying about journos and the press "paper won't refuse ink" and that is equally applicable to pixels.

Colmustard

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree. There needs to be more sense applied, but as you say unless you get China on board(which I have doubts about) it's a dead loss as Mandarin doesn't seem to contain the equivalent concept of "intellectual property theft". Theres a great saga about the Chinese ripping off Honda scooters. Calling them Honga's and all sorts of shíte. On top of that, instead of clubbing together to build an actual industry that could innovate themselves, little companies started to compete with each other in a race to the bottom that resulted finally in the scooters being sold by weight(and they rarely worked). In any event I reckon China's days are more numbered than the meme would have us believe so in a decade's time it'll be far less an issue when cheap and reliable manufacturing goes somewhere else.

Here here.

Patsy fyre

So when apple copies samsung and increases the size of the screen in the iphone 5 can samsung then sue apple?
Absolute bull!
I hope apple and all their billions rot in hell

Wibbs

Sonics2k wrote: »

Apple have won this, but all other manufacturers are now in real danger. Apple are doing exactly what they accused Microsoft of back in the 90's, trying to create a monopoly of the industry and destroy any competition.

Oh I agree 100%. I far prefered them when they were the underdog. They certainly innovated more than anyone else as a general rule. Because they pretty much had to. It was their "killer app". The more power they get the less they'll have to innovate. We're already seeing this. Their last two OS(lion and mountain lion) while bringing some nice features along are also backward steps on more than a few fronts and are locking people down even more to their way of doing things. They were much more freewheeling up until the mid noughties. My humble as to what changed? Steve Jobs health and ending life. The mentality of leaving a secure legacy and more control over that legacy has a lot to do with their current mentality.

Colmustard

Patsy fyre wrote: »

So when apple copies samsung and increases the size of the screen in the iphone 5 can samsung then sue apple?
Absolute bull!
I hope apple and all their billions rot in hell

No because the screen is not apples or samsungs. The touch screens belong to another patent.

Both these companies pay for their use.

Biggins

Wibbs wrote: »

Not really. The examples you've linked are copying, however the bulk of copying went the other way. To use someone elses car metaphor it's like everyone is building 3 wheel open scooters with tillers for steering, then one company brings out a four wheeled car as we would recognise one with a cabin, seats and steering wheel and the rest pile in and bring out their own car. You're arguing over one windscreen wiper or two, or adding a car radio, so no it doesn't really equalise out. By the by, ZDNET have oft repeated the xerox parc myth. There's an old saying about journos and the press "paper won't refuse ink" and that is equally applicable to pixels.

Well we will have to agree to differ.
A simple google search "Apple stole..." will throw up loads of listing/examples.

The same applies for "Samsung stole..." will throw up similar.

They are all at it.
Again, a fool (not you) would say different.

zom

tolosenc wrote: »

The hilarious bit is that Jobs wanted to destroy Android (and thus effectively create a monopoly)

It's really hard to understand a guy who was aware that he's going to die soon and he was playing such dirty games. But anyways - if apple could monopolize smartphone market in USA (which means almost whole important market in the world) they then could stop any R&D probably. It's pointless to spend any money on development when you have monopoly.

PogMoThoin

Kaysen Stale Kilt wrote: »

You need to be able to patent things, even small things otherwise the right people wont gain from their ideas. I work in an area where patents are very important and even a small thing that looks nothing to someone on the outside can have a massive impact in reality.

I agree, but patents need to protect innovation, not kill it

Biggins

PogMoThoin wrote: »

I agree, but patents need to protect innovation, not kill it

I agree.
Where it gets daft though, is when companies start fighting over shapes and frames.
Seriously Apple? They (and others) need to kop on!

The only real winners are the legal teams on both sides!

Sonics2k

Sonics2k wrote: »

The idea of patenting a shape, and let's not beat around the bush because that's what it is, is absolutely ridiculous.

I think it was in the German case that Apple were caught putting in false evidence. They had side-by-side images of an iPad and Galaxy S tab and had changed the aspect ratio of each to make them closer together.

To be able to patent a shape is ridiculous. To be able to patent pinch-to-zoom or double-tap to zoom is ridiculous. Hell they have a patent on a bounce when the end of a list/screens has been reached, I saw that used over 10 years ago in flash websites. It's just ludicrous.

jonnny68

For those of you saying some of this stuff existed before Apple patented it, realize this is nothing new. Apple loves to patent stuff that already exists and say they created it, look at the GUI they "borrowed" from Xerox. In 1989 Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple for copying the look and feel of their GUI. Funny thing is Apple has now accused Android of doing the same thing they did to Xerox.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it was in the German case that Apple were caught putting in false evidence. They had side-by-side images of an iPad and Galaxy S tab and had changed the aspect ratio of each to make them closer together.

To be able to patent a shape is ridiculous. To be able to patent pinch-to-zoom or double-tap to zoom is ridiculous. Hell they have a patent on a bounce when the end of a list/screens has been reached, I saw that used over 10 years ago in flash websites. It's just ludicrous.

But apple said they owned the patent on all flat rectangular touch screen devices.
Samsung replied with a youtube video of a clip from 2001 a space oddessy where someone was using a tablet.

Samsung even tried to enter the original apple designs for the iPhone where someone had said "let's make it look sony-ish" and there was a mock up of a phone that they even put the sony logo on. That later became the iPhone.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

But apple said they owned the patent on all flat rectangular touch screen devices.

There's so many cases in different places that it's hard to be specific but in the German one they were claiming it was the same shape when it wasn't, think the iPad was 4:3 and the Samsung was 16:9 but both had been altered in the evidence Apple entered. If they're confident they can patent and four-sided shape with rounded corners they wouldn't be doing that.

Cossax

Deleted User wrote: »

There's so many cases in different places that it's hard to be specific but in the German one they were claiming it was the same shape when it wasn't, think the iPad was 4:3 and the Samsung was 16:9 but both had been altered in the evidence Apple entered. If they're confident they can patent and four-sided shape with rounded corners they wouldn't be doing that.

Didn't Apple also show the Android app drawer, as opposed to the homescreen, in that case in order to make them look more similar? As if changing the aspect ratios wasn't bad enough!

PogMoThoin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0

Wibbs

jonnny68 wrote: »

For those of you saying some of this stuff existed before Apple patented it, realize this is nothing new. Apple loves to patent stuff that already exists and say they created it, look at the GUI they "borrowed" from Xerox. In 1989 Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple for copying the look and feel of their GUI. Funny thing is Apple has now accused Android of doing the same thing they did to Xerox.

Eh maybe you should actually read up on the facts, rather than as I pointed out earlier, peddle out myths, half truths, or outright inaccuracies. Seriously folks. Say a lie often enough and it becomes the truth really applies in this particular case.

I'll say again; a link Biggins referred to rattles out the oft repeated ballsology myth about Jobs and other Apple heads visit to Xerox Parc. Numero uno they paid a million dollars in stock options for looking at and using some of the ideas, something MS never did when they later ripped off Apples polishing of same, nor did Google with Android, secondly there was a humungous difference in user experience between the Xerox Gui and Apple's.

Examples? Drag and drop. we use that all the time. Not in the Xerox GUI. Editing of disk and folder and application names, copy and paste, pull down menus, clipboard, multiple file system views, trashcan, control panel, mini app desktop accessories. None of that in the Xerox GUI. The xerox GUI doesn't have a finder/desktop either. They took an idea which was a barely working prototype which they paid for and made it near unrecognisable, but recognisable if you use windows type GUI's today The list is long of the improvements they made. You used to able to run a java based sim of the Xerox system "Smalltalk" and I'll try and find it and by god you'll see what I mean if you compare it to even the OS on the Apple Lisa. Chalk and cheese. Like comparing the first Daimler Benz to a Model A Ford.

The Xerox Lawsuit? That was to do with Xerox not getting residual payments/royalties(that were never agreed on in the first place) outside of their million dollar stock options they were given. Which paid out handsomely BTW. The judge threw the case out in short order for having little or no legal basis. As one lawyer said (paraphrase) "claiming that Xerox built the MacOS is as daft as a beaver claiming it built the Hoover dam". That case was as much about the fashion at the time with all the major boyos filing "look and feel" gui lawsuits at each other. Funny how Xerox didn't go after MS or indeed IBM for OS warp for apparently doing the same thing.



PS I personally think Apple have become serious C U Next Tuesdays of late. NO disagreement there, but sorry I just get pissed off when half truth memes on any subject are peddled as fact.

Biggins

Wibbs wrote: »

...I'll say again; a link Biggins referred to rattles out the oft repeated ballsology myth about Jobs and other Apple heads visit to Xerox Parc. Numero uno they paid a million dollars in stock options for looking at and using some of the ideas, something MS never did when they later ripped off Apples polishing of same, nor did Google with Android, secondly there was a humungous difference in user experience between the Xerox Gui and Apple's.

I don't think anyone will disagree that Jobs visited the Xerox PARC.
As for the million dollars, lets be clear about that:

...Jobs proposed a deal: he would allow Xerox to buy a hundred thousand shares of his company for a million dollars—its highly anticipated I.P.O. was just a year away—if PARC would “open its kimono.” Jobs was given a couple of tours, and he ended up standing in front of a Xerox Alto, PARC’s prized personal computer.
LINK

To me, paying to visit a place doesn't constitute a licence to copy.
However I'll leave that to lawyers to argue over.

Now boiled down to brass tacks, Apple took ideas they saw, copied them and put their own changes upon them.
I don't think anyone could deny that.
Did they invent the GUI? No.
They took it and then adapted it.

Even Jobs stated:

They showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first one I didn’t even really see the other two. One of the things they showed me was object oriented programming – they showed me that but I didn’t even see that. The other one they showed me was a networked computer system… they had over a hundred Alto computers all networked using email etc., etc., I didn’t even see that. I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me, which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I’d ever seen in my life.

Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was incomplete, they’d done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn’t know that at the time but still thought they had the germ of the idea was there and they’d done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that all computers would work like this some day.

End of the day, they take others ideas and they add to them.
Simply what Samsung stand accused of doing - but seeing as Samsung has 38% of the now phone sales world-wide and Apple 18%, they didn't like their ideas stolen/copied in return!

Adele Goldberg, who had been a researcher at the PARC at that time, already suspected that Jobs’ visit would entail extensive consequences: “He came back, and I almost said ‘asked’ but the truth is ‘demanded,’ that his entire programming team get a demo of the Smalltalk System, and the then head of the science center asked me to give the demo because Steve specifically asked for me to give the demo, and I said ‘no way.’ I had a big argument with these Xerox executives, telling them that they were about to give away the kitchen sink, and I said that I would only do it if I were ordered to do it, cause then, of course, it would be their responsibility, and that’s what they did.” LINK

If Apple can't beat a competition by actually inventing something on its own - hell, Apple can kill off the competition in the court room - for they doing what Apple had done previously themselves many a time!

Scioch

Did Apple pay for the Xerox stuff or not ? Wibbs saying they paid 1 million to use the technology and Biggins saying they gave them an option to buy shares to view the thing.

People go on about half truths and myths but its still hard to find the actual truth of the matter.

PogMoThoin

Seems it's not working out in Apples favour
https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G

Allyall

The whole thing is ridiculous. Anyone that thinks/says different is...... Wrong.

Apple didn't even come up with an original name.

How a Company like Apple expects to move forward with all of these ridiculous Court cases is crazy.
Eventually, no company in their right mind, will want to work with Apple, or Especially for Apple.
Anyone that comes up with anything new in the next decades will probably (and rightly so) run a mile from any offers that Apple may approach them with.

Sony are crumbling in front of our eyes, and that's partly (Mostly imo) because they wanted to stick to their own formats, they were very greedy and, for example, could have made a lot more money from the minidisc, but were silly with their licensing. Apple can surely only go the same way when all the dust settles, if it ever does.

Biggins

Scioch wrote: »

Did Apple pay for the Xerox stuff or not ? Wibbs saying they paid 1 million to use the technology and Biggins saying they gave them an option to buy shares to view the thing.

People go on about half truths and myths but its still hard to find the actual truth of the matter.

Its well recorded/documented even by Apple sites, that they paid for a top visit.
One simple example of which there is many:

* In Defense of Steve Jobs

At the time, Apple was still a year away from its IPO. Everybody wanted in. Apple was the hottest of hot companies. So Xerox and Apple made a deal: Apple would be granted 3 days of access to PARC in exchange for Xerox being allowed to buy 100,000 shares of Apple stock for 8€ per share.

Wibbs

Biggins wrote: »

To me, paying to visit a place doesn't constitute a licence to copy.
However I'll leave that to lawyers to argue over.

And they have and found in favour of Apple. Xerox had venture capital in Apple at this stage, the apple bods paid extra to see and implement from what they saw their own thing. Try and count the number of years between that event and the Xerox lawsuit?

Now boiled down to brass tacks, Apple took ideas they saw, copied them and put their own changes upon them.
I don't think anyone could deny that.
Did they invent the GUI? No.
They took it and then adapted it.
Even Jobs stated:

Eh yea look what he stated. They had a great germ of an idea not close to being saleable and fully featured and what you call "added to it" is better described as innovating from it. FFS Biggins take your well fashioned blinkers off for a nice change, if only on this example.

End of the day, they take others ideas and they add to them.
Simply what Samsung stand accused of doing - but seeing as Samsung has 38% of the now phone sales world-wide and Apple 18%, they didn't like their ideas stolen/copied in return!

You're really not good at this. Samsung and Google pretty much entirely copied the iphone version of the smartphone concept. You did see my link to the pre iphone Google/Android phone? At that stage they were ripping off Blackberry's design. Then they saw which way the wind was blowing and hopped on it. Where are the Android/Google/Samsung Blackberry clones? eh....

If Apple can't beat a competition by actually inventing something on its own - hell, Apple can kill off the competition in the court room - for they doing what Apple had done previously themselves many a time!

TBH Biggins I'm seeing yet another subject where your opinion seems to trump fact and history and objective good sense for the sake of it and what you believe this week. And this is coming from someone who's no good reason to be an Apple fanboi and indeed has more reasons than most not to be.

Biggins

Its clear Wibbs that you have your view/opinion and I respect that.
However its been well commented that Apple have over time took stuff from others and innovated/improved it and of times dumped other parts of something they got from else where.
I don't think this can be debated to be honest.

Apple is simply (in my view and from what I have read/heard of others who think similar) complaining in court about what they have done previously themselves.


As for they complaining about designs, as we have seen in Germany, they are even willing to lie to a court to win such cases and put forth false evidence.
Classy!

O' and by the way, as regard Apple and the smart phone...
The first ever smartphone was designed by IBM in 1992. Their first smartphone was called 'SIMON'. Besides being a simple phone, it also contained a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, note pad, e-mail, send and receive fax, and games which are basic features of mobile phones today.

Thats history and fact.
Now I wonder where Apple got the idea!

VEN

i remember back in the day one of the great prizes on the Where in the World quiz show was a Macintosh computer, the home education system for all the family

Biggins

VEN wrote: »

i remember back in the day one of the great prizes on the Where in the World quiz show was a Macintosh computer, the home education system for all the family

To be fair, the Mac' was and is a great machine.
In visual graphic quality, they for DTP (Desktop Publishing) for a long time, could not be beaten.
Time has moved on and things have evened up all around, thats competition and progress.

Now such progress if Apple constantly gets its way, might be stifled more so according to many an I.T. commentator.

I look forward to the Samsung appeal case.

Wibbs

Biggins wrote: »

Its clear Wibbs that you have your view/opinion and I respect that.

My view/opinion are all very well, but my historical facts as far as IT go trump your opinions.

Apple is simply (in my view and from what I have read/heard of others who think similar) complaining in court about what they have done previously themselves.

And arguably more what has been done to them in the past.

O' and by the way, as regard Apple and the smart phone...
The first ever smartphone was designed by IBM in 1992.

ORLY? Hmmm, let's go back to 1983 shall we? Never mind the late 80's Apple thinktank voice recognition apple phone.

Thats history and fact.

You seem remarkably talented in misconstruing both.

Now I wonder where Apple got the idea!

Have you heard of the Newton? Forget the Simpsons pisstake for a moment, that kicked off in dev terms in 1987. A handheld connective PDA with many of the smartphone ideas built in.

Like I said Biggins, try reading actual IT hstory as opposed to backing up subjective opinion with googled hacks that happen to agree with you. It would stand you well. And not just on this subject.



Good christ I can't quite believe I'm defending apple of all companies.Still when bullshít is about I'll defend what passes for objectivity every day of the week.

Wompa1

For anybody who thinks Microsoft or Apple is better than each other. Yee should watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZImohBzSRDU

Both were pivotal in each others success.

Scioch

Wompa1 wrote: »

For anybody who thinks Microsoft or Apple is better than each other. Yee should watch this:

Both were pivotal in each others success.

I'd watch it if it were available in this country.

Wompa1

In the video Steve Jobs says when he was brought back into Apple it was in real trouble. People who worked there and even their customer base had the mindset that for Apple to win, Microsoft had to lose. If that was the case at the time Microsoft would have won and Apple would be no more. That's why in 97 they re-formed a partnership.

What is it with apple , their products are all over priced pieces of ****e yet people buy them all. Pay €600 for an ipad and play 10 year old flash games badly !

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What is it with apple , their products are all over priced pieces of ****e yet people buy them all. Pay €600 for an ipad and play 10 year old flash games badly !

Would you ever clear off with that absolute nonsense. Apple make extremely good products but some people just think its "cool" to say otherwise. They wouldnt be the most valuable company in the world if their products were not very very good.

Wompa1

Here's Steve Jobs speaking the day after Bill Gates unveiled Microsofts first tablet computer in 2003:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMyZwhzy5hE&feature=related

He says Bill said yesterday that people will bring these to meetings and take notes but I just don't see that. We researched this, for this kind of device to be successful you need people to write and do away with keyboards. we actually have the best hand writing software in the business but we found writing is just too slow. It was touted that there's a market of people who don't or can't type but we found thanks to time, most of those people have died by now. Typing is just faster. We have no plans to invest in a tablet.

Microsoft needs to sue Apple for the iPad...shocking stuff eh? The first video Bill and Steve talked about taking already existing products and innovating and find ways to add to them and make them better. That IT companies need partnership so everyone can advance...

Wompa1

Kaysen Stale Kilt wrote: »

Would you ever clear off with that absolute nonsense. Apple make extremely good products but some people just think its "cool" to say otherwise. They wouldnt be the most valuable company in the world if their products were not very very good.

There was uproar when the 4S was released by people because the look of the phone didn't change enough because nobody would know they owned the newest iPhone.

Apple would be nowhere if not for their marketing and sleek image and hardware. Steve Jobs greatest attribute was design and marketing. Their software sucks.

Working on a VDI setup right now. All the talk about oh we need a really good network, oh we need quick, reliable storage. But what has been determined as the most crucial part? The software. You can have the coolest, slickest setup you can imagine but if the applications and software aren't up to scratch it's not worth ****. Apples software is not the best on the market but they have good marketing, a loyal fanbase and until recent years had an underdog, indy like image. They sell their product to many because they sell their brand so well.

And I'm somebody who wants to buy a MAC. I would never buy an iPhone or an iPad because I don't rate them. You can get an equally good product for less from other manufacturers in the phone market and by the time the price comes down for tablets enough for me to consider one, there will be better options from other manufacturers. Maybe even the surface with Windows 8

Professey Chin

Right. Ill lay my points out on what I think of apple 1st. They can make great products and great software(older versions of OSX are done really well, last couple are going into bad territory ill get into later). I dont hate them but I think others do some things better or more open.
Product wise they do make advancements others are reluctant to take such as the new MacBook Pros screen or firewire. Sometimes it works & sometimes it doesnt.
Their biggest problem is they create a solution that works like the original iOS and are pretty much set in their ways from an almost fear that if they change drastically their consumer base will be scared.

This entire battle happened before between the old Mac OS and Windows. That time Apple had a good thing going with the new GUI and Microsoft copied a lot of elements from it. Apple fcuked up then by sticking to their own hardware while MS licensed it out. More hardware partners, more competition, cheaper products depending on a persons budget, larger userbase, more support.
And this is the exact same thing happening again with a new player in Google. Apple get a good thing with user friendly interaction (although tbh I find it horrible to use :pac:) and the best marketing dept in the world but they dont evolve from it. Compare the actual features of the 1st 2 iPhones to an N95 and they get pissed on but what they do they do it well and attractively.

Then a new player enters in Android. Contrary to a lot of beliefs it wasnt going to be a blackberry replica before the iOS. Some iOS elements were taken in the later builds but full touchscreen prototypes were shown to manufacturers starting around early 07. Android was designed to run on any configuration of devices (keyboard, no keyboard, touch , no touch, high power, low power etc etc etc).
But Android brought a new game. A fully functional Open Source OS available free for any hardware manufacturer to do with as they please with full Google backing once they meet some requirements (which is why some Chinese tablets dont have the market/gmail etc). For a couple of years this didnt bother Apple. The devices were sluggish, low memory, clumsy to use. And other companies wernt doing any better with Symbian, Blackberry and webOS (definitely the best attempt but not good enough). HTC made ingrounds with their Sense skin on Android making it much more user friendly and Samsung took a lot of details (stupidly, Google even told them not to) in their original Touchwiz build from iOS (the more you look their it was really just the icon layout they copied which was done before by LG but standard consumers just seen screen with icons).

This didnt matter since their combined sales were low then people started catching on exactly like the PC war. Android was available on a multitude of devices. Low priced, high priced, keyboard, no keyboard etc. All these shared apps that were previously only available on iOS devices at double the cost and this has apple scared with a massive sense of deja vu. But they cant go after Google since the reality is Google control the web.Search,Youtube, gmail, maps(which theyre trying to get away from....badly for now) all primarily belong to them. Piss them off enough and you lose a huge portal. So they go after the biggest manufacturer in Samsung. Google has a presence on iOS it wont want to lose but it still holds a lot of cards especially since it bought Motorola Mobility (which has started patent suits on apple recently although unsuccesfully so far).

Apple has being reliant on how user friendly they are as a plus point and compared to early Android builds it was but their refusal to update (and being so convinced it works that elements of iOS are being brought horribly into OSX now ) is going to be their downfall. Google recognized it android wasnt the best to use in AOSP state and that manufacturers were almost forced to create skins to make it better so it would sell. So they brought in Mathias Duarte who designed webOS for Palm. Current result is the latest build of Android in Jelly Bean runs over iOS in a lot of ways.

End result is Apple are now starting to worry. Theyre scared to make drastic changes to their original success formula while Google have been constantly and rapidly improving Android without worrying (Android is on its 9th major revision in 4 years) but at the same time their need for control over the hardware ecosystem rules out competition on device prices. So they have to resort to suing and using a very broken patent system.

If you look through some of the awards in this they make no sense. The Nexus S 4G was ruled as infringing on the bounce back patent (when you scroll to the end of a screen apple has a patent on the screen scrolling past and bouncing back to the end) but this was never in a Nexus S build (this gives a glow of light when you hit the end). There was over 700 rulings to make in this but the time the jury (who as proven through interviews, the majority of which were luddites) was about 1 minute per claim/device.

I really just wanted to give an overview of everything here so now its time for a TLDR...
TL;DR. Repeat of MacOS/Windows battle, Apple scared, dont want to lose again but dont want to change to improve, resort to using broken patent system, big boys yet to come into play.

Overheal

Casillas wrote: »

I thought 1billion was a lot until I saw the 2011 profit of 247billion. That is just insane wealth!

thats Samsung's operational Revenue, ie. How much money the company churns every year. Their actual profit in 2011 as reported Net Income was $18.3bn, so this does take a hefty chunk out of that, but nothing they can't handle by any means.

Elessar wrote: »

Firewire, the GUI, proper touchscreen smartphones, the iPod, tablets etc. and more recently thunderbolt and high resolution displays.

These 2 stick out as technologies that we will never see all that much outside the Macspace, if we see them at all. Thunderbolt that is, Firewire has already come and gone and while you see the odd PC that has a port this was far from mainstream, the premiums you paid for firewire devices didn't really make it worth the while.

Same will happen with Thunderbolt, because USB is just far too - well, Universal. 3.0 beefed up the spec to the point where your whitepaper data rates exceed that of SATA II and almost match SATA III- basically the limits of what you can get out of a mechanical hard drive. The power delivery is fixed too, devices we used to see that ate up 2 ports for power (like external DVD burners) will now use 1. The spec even handles it supplying video and power for small external screens, some prototype designs were small 7" type screens that were designed to display Instant Messaging and such but I haven't seen these on the market. There are also high level discussions about future revisions of the tech (eg. USB 1.1) that will deliver more power to devices - up to 100 Watts. That would be enough in theory to operate a laptop, which is kind of creepy.

Thunderbolt is neat and all because it has twice the bandwidth of USB 3.0, but the industry won't adopt it. It's just another way, realistically, for apple to keep people hooked on their approved ecosystem of devices by keeping people connected through proprietary-ish interfaces.

srsly78 wrote: »

This phone [HTC Desire] is ancient now. Of course it does not compare well to the latest iphone. 2 generations of devices have now superceded it.

And in some cases similar phones are still on the market. This is actually what irked me about Android. I was trying to shop for a phone, and was pissed off because of the phones I was looking at getting, almost all of them were still running Froyo or Gingerbread, when Honeycomb was well-out and Ice Cream Sandwich was around the corner. And yet there are still phones out there running outdated android, with no upgrades (unless you want to go internet-diving and try to find some jailbroken crack) - All I wanted was a phone that worked. Hence, iPhone.

All Android needed to do to win my business was not be such a pain in the ass: it should be such that if I own an old phone and a new version of android is out, my phone can take it. But that's not the case. Certainly not the case with the tablets. iOS meanwhile always updates at least the most recent 3 generations of hardware typically, so you're looking at 3 good years of upgrades and support for your phone or device. After which, it just stops being updated.

The other thing is the propensity of many android phones and devices to seriously underperform. This comes from too many hands involved in development. You look at the Iconia A200 tablet for example. They gave it Ice Cream Sandwich, but this seriously did something to the tablet where now if you do a live wallpaper, the touchscreen suffers from a full 2 second touch-response delay. And some phones I've encountered with other people just frustrate the hell out of them, needing to be manually restarted several times a day, if they choose not to crash of their own accord.

Where android is concerned though, the best out there is definitely Samsung. Just don't know what they were thinking when they made the Note. As a phone, that **** just doesn't make any sense. It's a PDA. And a pain in the ass at that to hold in your hand. As a PDA though, it looks fantastic.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Hold on, what if Ford sued Toyota for having door handles that opened in a similar upward manner or windows that you wind to open. You should not be able to patent this shít. We need a whole re-think of patenting laws worldwide and these negotiations need to include China or it's failed.

It's an integral function of Capitalism that has flaws and abuses but it's ensuring people are incentivised for trying to innovate. Monsanto is one company that has gone way to far with agricultural patents for example, read up on them: basically, if you buy their corn seed, that's their property. If you replant your field using seeds you harvest from that years crop you're violating their patent, so you have to rebuy all new seed from Monsanto every year.

I see what you're saying of course, patents need to after some point expire in such a way that can't be gamed. But it can be. Again, Monsanto. Their patent on the roundup-resistant corn strain should have been expired long by now but they've found loophole after loophole to re-up the patent on it. In general though you will find that when an idea becomes that commonplace it works out eventually.

zom wrote: »

It's pointless to spend any money on development when you have monopoly.

Pretty much. Hence why I hate Intel just as much. They're a company that spends more on R&D than their competitor, AMD, revenues in a year. And still, Intel has been in trouble for antitrust violations in the recent past: bribing PC vendors to not sell AMD based PCs nearly as much. Intel even threatened to remove kickbacks etc. to companies like Dell and HP when they started expanding their AMD lineups. Intel settled with AMD for $1.25 billion in 2009. AMD has grown their market share steadily ever since, the only exception being in Server hardware, where Intel still corners 94.5% of the market (Xenon is a bitch). AMD owns 26% of the Desktop CPU market and 16% of the Mobile market, with 19.7% overall, as of Q1 closing 2012.

I buy AMD products whenever I have the option.

art davidson

Overheal wrote: »

Well, a few anyway. There have been a few court battles in Europe. One in Seoul (Samsung's HQ) where the courts ruled in favor of Samsung, stating they didn't violate any of Apple's patents and that Apple infringed on some wireless tech.

In the UK of course, A judge ruled not only did Samsung not copy the iPad, but that Apple had to post basically an apology notice on it's UK website, stating Samsung didn't copy the iPad.

Now for the US Court Battle, at Silicon Valley, just 10 miles from Apple HQ (did that make jury selection a nightmare? You bet!), the courts ruled on almost all counts in favor of Apple. Samsung owes Apple $1.05 Billion in damages. $1,049,343,540, to be precise. It found that many of their patents were infringed, such as bounceback (a feature that shows you whitespace when you scroll to the end of a page or document, etc) among others. Infringing devices include:

Continuum, Droid Charge, Exhibit 4G, Galasy Ace, Prevail, S 4G, S II, Galaxy Tab, The Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerie, Nexus S 4G, Replenish and Vibrant
Captivate, continuum, droid charge, fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II, i9100, Galaxy s 2 Tmobile, Tab, Tab 10.1, Gem, Indulge, Infuse, Nexus S 4G
Fascinate, Galaxy S, S 4G, S 2 ATT, S2 i9100, S2 Tmobile, S 2 Epic 4G touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.

Interesting to point out that their newest devices, like the SIII, the Tab 2 10.1, Tab 2 7", Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note Tab were not included on this list. Probably because with this case being so protracted they don't actually infringe in any way and samsung had time to design them as fresh, or because they are too new, litigation was never filed for those devices. The injunction hearing is filed for September 20th, and will determine which of the infringing devices will need to be taken off the market. I look forward to being sold out of my samsung products for a while - this must be how the gunshops feel when a democrat gets elected.

You ask me though, I'm not surprised. Samsung was the manufacturer of many Apple components, and even if you look at other things like the Samsung Series 9 laptops, they're basically windows macbooks. That's all they are. Same trackpad, same lot-of-other-things.

Whats interesting is how many countries and courts theyre suing from though and all the varying verdicts we're getting. In the UK "Samsung didn't the copy the iPad" in the US "Yeah they did".

What will it probably mean for the future? Not tooo much. Samsung has already as I mentioned put out new devices with some fresh redesigns like the Tab 2 series and the Note, the Interface patents are easy to change and keep out of new designs. What really stings is all the money flying around, but frankly to either company these are just left and right hooks: Samsung Revenue was $247.5bn in 2011 and makes products for everything from televisions to dishwashers. Apple's revenue was $108bn. Not life-ending sums of money for these giants. Plus it's easy to ensure new devices don't infringe on "the look", Samsung for instance was the first tablet developer that I know of to install front-facing speakers on their Galaxy Tab 2. The ironic part? I think they only did it first so they would have a tablet out there Apple couldn't claim they copied.

Apple are a joke, they are bought by due to the brilliant marketing that apply have, the products are vastly over priced.

im not having this copy rubbish, for one the 2 phones are totally different in the O/S and placement of buttons.

If Apple are suing Samsung based on looks they might as well sue every goddamn phone company in the last 5 years for clones.

steve jobs would love to see apple sueing the most 'valuable' company in the world suing its rival but he full well knows its not for looks but for market share and all the extra over priced iphones that could be sold for all them androids.

'Siri, should i buy an iphone 5'

yes since you have no other choice left, its a world monopolised by apple idiots now bwahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa

Wibbs

art davidson wrote: »

steve jobs would love to see apple sueing the most 'valuable' company in the world suing its rival but he full well knows its not for looks but for market share and all the extra over priced iphones that could be sold for all them androids.

Eh... he's dead?

Seaneh

Overheal wrote: »

These 2 stick out as technologies that we will never see all that much outside the Macspace

Neither of which are apple tech and both of which are ignored by every one else because they are either no better than other tech available or offer far less value for money.

But when it comes to apple, let's be honest, it's more about the look and the desire to be "different" than practicality, hence idiocy like unibody laptops (no performance benefit, several times more expensive than a cast body, actual limitation on performance, etc) and using stupid tech like firewire and now thunderbolt.

Seaneh

Kaysen Stale Kilt wrote: »

Would you ever clear off with that absolute nonsense. Apple make extremely good products but some people just think its "cool" to say otherwise. They wouldnt be the most valuable company in the world if their products were not very very good.

McDonalds is the biggest, most profitable restaurant chain in the world.

Their food is ****e.

You use a terrible argument.

Colmustard

Apple are in a very volatile position, there range is to narrow on the grounds the PC and Laptops are dying a death. What that means is Apple are only as good as their last product.

With samsung they have multiple product and types of phones and a bit of leeway if one of their range flops. I don't understand why apple haven't got a broader range of phones and ipads. It's a very dangerous business model.

PogMoThoin

Overheal wrote: »

And in some cases similar phones are still on the market. This is actually what irked me about Android. I was trying to shop for a phone, and was pissed off because of the phones I was looking at getting, almost all of them were still running Froyo or Gingerbread, when Honeycomb was well-out and Ice Cream Sandwich was around the corner. And yet there are still phones out there running outdated android, with no upgrades (unless you want to go internet-diving and try to find some jailbroken crack) - All I wanted was a phone that worked. Hence, iPhone.

Sorry, got to pull you on this. No phone got Honeycomb, it was a tablet only version of android. All of the blame for the lack of upgrades on Android lies with the phone manufacturers themselves, not Google. New versions of Android don't require better faster hardware, new versions have the same hardware requirements, ICS will run just as well on the same hardware as GB, Jellybean runs better on the same hardware as ICS, it's up to the hardware manufacturers to put some time into developing it and release it as an upgrade. Most of them use it as an excuse to stop supporting older hardware.

monster1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dqUuvLk4

Oafley Jones

Colmustard wrote: »

Apple are in a very volatile position, there range is to narrow on the grounds the PC and Laptops are dying a death. What that means is Apple are only as good as their last product.

With samsung they have multiple product and types of phones and a bit of leeway if one of their range flops. I don't understand why apple haven't got a broader range of phones and ipads. It's a very dangerous business model.

It's the business model that's transformed them from completely ****ed to the monster they are today. Apple's ruthlessness when it comes to product lines - Sculley era Apple was doing what you suggested - is widely regarded as of the key drivers behind their success.

srsly78

Overheal wrote: »

And in some cases similar phones are still on the market. This is actually what irked me about Android. I was trying to shop for a phone, and was pissed off because of the phones I was looking at getting, almost all of them were still running Froyo or Gingerbread, when Honeycomb was well-out and Ice Cream Sandwich was around the corner. And yet there are still phones out there running outdated android, with no upgrades (unless you want to go internet-diving and try to find some jailbroken crack) - All I wanted was a phone that worked. Hence, iPhone.

You can't put the latest iOs on older iphones either (without similar jailbreak malarkey that will just cause grief). Similarly you can't run windows 7 on a commodore 64