Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They were afraid of a future in which Microsoft dominated smartphones, because Microsoft has their own search engine, ad networks etc...
When Apple appeared, Microsoft suddenly became unimportant in smartphones and the threat of Bing dominating mobile search was averted.
Google was partnering with Apple from the start of the iPhone, they even had Eric Schmidt on the board.
There was no danger that Apple would have developed their own search engine, maps, videohosting etc, if Google had not threatened Apples business by releasing Android as a direct competitor.
Hey, if Android had been focused on Symbian-like featurephones, Apple would probably have never objected.
But with the release of the Nexus One and the Galaxy S, Android was suddenly threatening the iPhone and so Apple dumped Google.
It's like having a well-paid job - and then you sleep with your boss' wife and tell him about it.
When Apple appeared, Microsoft suddenly became unimportant in smartphones and the threat of Bing dominating mobile search was averted.
Google was partnering with Apple from the start of the iPhone, they even had Eric Schmidt on the board.
There was no danger that Apple would have developed their own search engine, maps, videohosting etc, if Google had not threatened Apples business by releasing Android as a direct competitor.
Hey, if Android had been focused on Symbian-like featurephones, Apple would probably have never objected.
But with the release of the Nexus One and the Galaxy S, Android was suddenly threatening the iPhone and so Apple dumped Google.
It's like having a well-paid job - and then you sleep with your boss' wife and tell him about it.
Yes, because Apple can't change search or maps or video providers
And why they had to focus on one of their developments? Even better, Apple could not enter the phone market.
Now it is clear that you're joking because that has nothing to do with reality.
You're right. Even though the Blackjack was a WinMo phone made to compete directly with the Moto Q, Samsung threw in some Blackberry design cues as well (such as the round D-pad to mimic the Pearl trackball).
PS. I updated my previous post with this picture showing the HTC WinMo phone that the Android Sooner was a clone of:
Though that change didn't happen right away. Remember, the original iPhone was not exactly a blockbuster seller. Without 3G or third party apps, most smartphone owners stuck with their current OS. It wasn't until the iPhone 3G and the App Store, that the iPhone really took off.
Plus, Google never knew if Apple was going to switch to Bing or not. Microsoft has a history of paying companies to do so.
Yep, that kind of sums it up. Not being a developer himself, Jobs wasn't into the idea of spreading and sharing innnovation unless his own company was the sole beneficiary.
However, I think it's great that Google did continue with Android. Everyone needs competition. Otherwise I think Apple would've been quite content to trickle out updates over a much longer time period, and we'd be nowhere near the point we are now.
I'm getting old and impatient. I want incredible advances NOW
Or, my ecosystem has published roadmaps - so no need for 40 pages of posts giving different interpretations of what using a slightly different font on a poster means.
Really, you have to admit that the "WWDC decoration" threads couldn't have been imagined even by a genius like Molière.
----------
It was cheap - a bit under $3000.
I wouldn't know what "an Apple feels like".
I'll answer for him.
One of the best public sources for Android info has been Dianne Hackborn, a well respected developer (*) who went to work for Android after Google bought it.
She has written detailed explanations of such things as why there was lag at first (partly from cross window security, which is what allows widgets). She also responded on a blog with this interesting comment on the UI history, when someone made a comment about Android being targeted to a different kind of device before the iPhone came out. As she put it:
"From a software perspective, Sooner and Dream were basically the same -- different form-factors, one without a touch screen -- but they were not so different as this article indicates and the switch between them was not such a huge upheaval."
--
(*) When someone says, "Apple / Palm / Google invented such and such", it's not quite accurate. Companies enable and market tech, but it is individuals who do the actual inventing of features that we love.
People don't realize that it's often the same group of developers that we see over and over again. Quite often you'll see a developer move between various companies until they find one that will use what they create. (Think of the Apple folk who left for Palm, to work on the Pre. Then some came back to Apple, others to Google.)
Yes, and to add to your post, this is an email from Dianne regarding Sooner and Dream:
1. At Apple, lawyers don't invent technology or design gadgets.
That may or may not be different at Samsung.
2. Innovation takes time, there were were long periods of "non-innovation" between the iPod, the iPod Nano (many don't count this one as innovative, but i'd say it was an important step in the direction of the iPhone), the iPhone, the MacBook Air (which has now, together with the unibody MacBook Pro, become the standard design for laptops, see for example HP Envy) and the iPad.
3. They have to defend their innovations, because it is much easier to steal someone else's innovations than to create your own.
With real innovations, it is often thought that something is impossible - until the innovator shows the world that it is not!
Ask a child to create fire with only two pieces of wood (and other necessary stuff) and it won't have a chance, because it doesn't know that you have to rub the pieces of wood together for a LONG time and will stop after 1 minute due to being bored.
Show the child how it is done, that it takes patience - and the child will be much more likely to be able to create fire.
Knowledge of what is possible and how it is done enables competitors to clone products in a very short time, if i remember there have been chinese iPhone 5 clones BEFORE the iPhone 5 was released - because some pictures leaked on the web months in advance.
Or take a look at iTunes 11.
The way the albums are display, with backgrounds that take the colors from the album artwork, is just beautiful.
It probably took Apple months to design this - not simply writing the code, but coming up with "Hey, wouldn't that look cool?" and approval, writing the code and testing that it looks good and better than other possible alternatives of showing albums.
Someone at panic recreated the effect in a few hours, because writing the code is not that difficult and because iTunes gave him the idea.
Imitation is so much easier than innovation and that is why Apple has to sue other companies.
Apple simply doesn't want to be the design agency for the world.
I like how this post completely ignores everything KDarling says and goes off on some random defensive tangent as a means to save face. But I digress...
Sad as it is, when you have companies suing each other over the radius of a curve, you really don't have any other choice. You can thank our tech industry's overly litigious nature for this grim necessity.
Most people only notice the huge things. An iPod. An iPhone. An iPad. They rarely ever notice the thousands of little innovations made elsewhere that made the above mentioned products possible. Apple is not the island of light in the vast sea of grey drudgery this whole purple prose post of yours makes it out to be.
Without the iPad. We wouldn't be enjoying this whole mobile revolution thing Apple kickstarted. Without the industry marching ever forward, we wouldn't have the iPad.
Also, I should add that innovation is a word that's severely abused and applied very selectively around here.
I should also add most people here, you included, don't seem to notice the difference between inspiration and theft. Well, you do. But it's usually incredibly one sided. Like the difference between foraging and looting.
FOR STEVE JOBS DEFIED THE WILL OF THE GODS AND GAVE THE GIFT OF FIRE TO MANKIND!
...wuh? WUH? What does this have to do with anything? This is so totally off the wall in comparison to the rest of your post, it's almost a complete non sequitur. I mean, if I go by the tone of the rest of what you've written, wouldn't someone making a fire after being shown how to do it constitute theft of intellectual property?
...ahh. There we go. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and the bastard just stole your innovative idea for gathering sustenance from the sea, and should be sued.
Also he's probably Chinese.
Anyway, it's not that it'd be very hard to clone the iPhone 5 before release. All you'd have to do is go off rumors alone, because there wasn't really all that much new about it. I mean it was an iPhone 4...but taller. No one needed an inside source of information to guess what it'd look like.
See what I mean about the over abuse of the word "innovation"? That's not a massive leap forward. It's a fluff feature. Window dressing. Sure, it's cool looking. Pretty nice in a lot of ways. But do you really think it took Apple months and months of R&D to produce? No. It was probably during a "wouldn't it be cool if..." brainstorming session.
Since it doesn't add functionality in any way, improve the way we interact with our technology, or make anything easier, it can't really be considered innovative. At least no more innovative than the Aero Glass effect in Vista.
Since this entire post is really a giant essay on you saving your wounded pride as the result of a KDarling educational onslaught, I won't kick you while your down. Instead, I'll say this:
Apple deserves a ton of credit for the wonderful things they've done. But they also tend to get far more credit than they deserve. You can appreciate everything they've brought to the world of technology without feeling the need to worship them unerringly.
Sad as it is, when you have companies suing each other over the radius of a curve, you really don't have any other choice. You can thank our tech industry's overly litigious nature for this grim necessity.
Most people only notice the huge things. An iPod. An iPhone. An iPad. They rarely ever notice the thousands of little innovations made elsewhere that made the above mentioned products possible. Apple is not the island of light in the vast sea of grey drudgery this whole purple prose post of yours makes it out to be.
Without the iPad. We wouldn't be enjoying this whole mobile revolution thing Apple kickstarted. Without the industry marching ever forward, we wouldn't have the iPad.
Also, I should add that innovation is a word that's severely abused and applied very selectively around here.
I should also add most people here, you included, don't seem to notice the difference between inspiration and theft. Well, you do. But it's usually incredibly one sided. Like the difference between foraging and looting.
FOR STEVE JOBS DEFIED THE WILL OF THE GODS AND GAVE THE GIFT OF FIRE TO MANKIND!
...wuh? WUH? What does this have to do with anything? This is so totally off the wall in comparison to the rest of your post, it's almost a complete non sequitur. I mean, if I go by the tone of the rest of what you've written, wouldn't someone making a fire after being shown how to do it constitute theft of intellectual property?
...ahh. There we go. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and the bastard just stole your innovative idea for gathering sustenance from the sea, and should be sued.
Also he's probably Chinese.
Anyway, it's not that it'd be very hard to clone the iPhone 5 before release. All you'd have to do is go off rumors alone, because there wasn't really all that much new about it. I mean it was an iPhone 4...but taller. No one needed an inside source of information to guess what it'd look like.
See what I mean about the over abuse of the word "innovation"? That's not a massive leap forward. It's a fluff feature. Window dressing. Sure, it's cool looking. Pretty nice in a lot of ways. But do you really think it took Apple months and months of R&D to produce? No. It was probably during a "wouldn't it be cool if..." brainstorming session.
Since it doesn't add functionality in any way, improve the way we interact with our technology, or make anything easier, it can't really be considered innovative. At least no more innovative than the Aero Glass effect in Vista.
Since this entire post is really a giant essay on you saving your wounded pride as the result of a KDarling educational onslaught, I won't kick you while your down. Instead, I'll say this:
Apple deserves a ton of credit for the wonderful things they've done. But they also tend to get far more credit than they deserve. You can appreciate everything they've brought to the world of technology without feeling the need to worship them unerringly.
Numbers added in red for clarification
[1]Everywhere!
And suddenly Apple is seen as not innvative, while somehow Samsung is.
The larger screens of Android phones are seen as an "innovation", how insane is that?
Or having a stylus?
Those things are either evolution (but then how would you explain the Dell Streak with a 5" display from 2010? The missing link?) or back-to-the-roots, PDAs had styluses/styli (whatever) for years, just remember the Apple Newton.
[2] The fire thing is just something i like to mention to explain how something can be seen as impossible, while it actually needs just really much work.
Without very good knowledge of physics, one wouldn't be able to just come up with "Let's rub two sticks together" to start a fire.
This suddenly changes when he has been shown how it works and that it is possible.
People like to say that something wasn't innovative, that it is trivial and so very obvious - but they forget that the knowledge that something is possible will have changed their perception of the difficulty of achieving something.
Doing something for the first time makes it easier to do it again for everyone who follows.
This argument is more fitting for stuff like slide-to-unlock being seen as trivial, but then it also fits when someone says that there's no other way to design a smartphone than the iPhone-way. Or a notebook the MacBook-way.
[3]This has nothing to do with the components used INSIDE the phone i mentioned, but the looks.
By the way, this is the phone i meant.
The Goophone i5 looks that way so people can show off to their friends, "Hey, i got an iPhone".
And this thing was released before the real thing was even announced.
It's so much easier for cheap companies to profit from someone else's work than to create their own innovative or at least interesting product.
Would anyone have cared about the Goophone i5 if i didn't look like an iPhone 5? It's just some year 2010-technology phone with probably shoddy build quality.
If laws aren't enforced or aren't enforcable (China), product piracy will spread like a weed.
And if there's a company that's number 2 in the market by profits, which tries to copy your products, you HAVE to sue them.
Apple didn't start this, Samsung did!
They were the ones creating a smartphone that looked like the iPhone 3G/3GS, while every other smartphone manufacturer on the planet (except China) had their own designs, you could dinstinguish phones from Nokia, HTC and Apple from 30 feet away - but spotting the differences of a Galaxy S and iPhone 3GS was much more difficult.
Samsung is/was just like the manufacturer of the Goophone i5, they wanted to profit from the image of the iPhone, so they "hired" Jony Ive as their designer.
[4]Again, this is not meant to show innovation, but how easy it is to copy a feature once you have been shown that said feature is 1. possible and 2. interesting enough to implement it.
This feature is the face of iTunes 11, probably one of the most often used non-productivity softwares, so while they probably came up with the feature in a brainstorming session, there's no way this was implemented and shipped two days later.
Adding or changing big stuff like this usually takes weeks and costs tens of thousands of dollars, when you have a big company.
Even when Steve was still around - who would have probably said "That's great, i like it" - implementing this would have taken weeks, because that's the way Apple works.
361 posts on an Apple v Samsung thread it's shocking
You are not defined by your phone, you are not Apple. Apple is not a person and they don't love you therefore don't require your defense.
You are not defined by your phone, you are not Samsung. Samsung is not a person and they don't love you therefore don't require your defense.
===================================================
Apple is not the great ray of hope and Samsung not the darkest abyss.
Samusing is not the great ray of hope and Apple not the darkest abyss.
====================================================
Android in not better or worse than iOS it's different. Android is like Ubuntu it's open source but only developed by one company, does that jibe with the spirit of FOSS? iOS is closed source and therefore only developed by one company does this jibe with spirit of 1984?
You are not defined by your phone, you are not Apple. Apple is not a person and they don't love you therefore don't require your defense.
You are not defined by your phone, you are not Samsung. Samsung is not a person and they don't love you therefore don't require your defense.
===================================================
Apple is not the great ray of hope and Samsung not the darkest abyss.
Samusing is not the great ray of hope and Apple not the darkest abyss.
====================================================
Android in not better or worse than iOS it's different. Android is like Ubuntu it's open source but only developed by one company, does that jibe with the spirit of FOSS? iOS is closed source and therefore only developed by one company does this jibe with spirit of 1984?
They also sell great life insurance. Thats what you look in a tech company.
Yeah .. that's what you get for biting the hands that feed you with supplies.
I would still buy Samsung products. Just like Apple does
Last time I checked, Samsung makes great plasma TV, good memory chips, storage, fridge, and even the best Android products around.
Apple does not even make a TV, or relatively speaking Apple does not make a single product by themselves.
If you think Samsung is the biggest patent troll, than you're looking it wrong. See the logo in the back of your iPad? Yeah .. that's more like it.
Would you make the same bizarre commentary about GE. They do everything from finance to healthcare to technology, etc.
No until GE makes a SmartPhone that is a clone of the iPhone (like the Galaxy S1)