Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 8, 2013, 06:50 PM   #126
SockRolid
macrumors 65816
 
SockRolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Almost Rock Solid
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
You're so wrong - but so self righteous about it - it's hilarious.
I'm so right - just quoting facts - it's hilarious.
__________________
Sent from my iPad Simulator
SockRolid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 10:39 AM   #127
winston1236
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ><
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risco View Post
It's a done deal, you don't mess with Apple or it's lawyers.
After all, that is their only innovative department at this point.
winston1236 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:06 PM   #128
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
The button-free all-glass interface.

You know, like the original 2007 iPhone. Remember the impact that phone had?
Yeah, it's still the phone everyone else is ripping off.

Oh, and speaking of rip-offs, here's the original Android rip-off of Palm / BlackBerry:

Image

And here's that photo on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:An...rly_device.jpg

Android (even before they were bought by Google) simply copied the best currently-available
smartphones. And that meant copying Palm / BlackBerry. Chiclet keyboard and all.

Of course, the first iPhone obsoleted all that legacy 20th century design-think. So, naturally,
Google immediately began copying iOS' UI and their hardware partners immediately began copying
iPhone's hardware design. Still are.
Android/Google write the OS not manufacture the HW..I have a G1 the first production Android phone, it looks nothing like an iToy.
GermanyChris is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 04:49 PM   #129
gnasher729
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by saotomefirst View Post
Man, I don't know in the rest of the world, but this is illegal here in Brazil. You can't register an image or other odd symbol as part of a trademark's name - though it's ok to do it for the trademark itself.The name must be readable, and although you do recognize as "Apple", the technology company, it could also be interpreted as "apple", fruits, for instance.
Apple wouldn't have to register anything (maybe wise to register "Apple Phone"). Just print the Apple symbol instead of the i in iPhone.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 11:26 PM   #130
eneris
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
This Gradiente iPhone launched in 2012 (Android) is not the first iPhone launched by Gradiente.

Just to remind!

Gradiente iPhone with WAP
Launched: early 2000

More information with pics: Gizmodo
eneris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 01:46 PM   #131
SockRolid
macrumors 65816
 
SockRolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Almost Rock Solid
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
Android/Google write the OS not manufacture the HW..I have a G1 the first production Android phone, it looks nothing like an iToy.
But when iPhone became popular, instantly, everyone started copying Apple.

Google was forced to give up Android support for the Chiclet keyboard their hardware partners copied from Palm / RIM. Even Palm and RIM were forced to go all-glass.

But that's all Google and their hardware partners needed to do. Dump something, anything, out there that looked kind of like an iPhone. Because Android's sole purpose, it's raison d'Ítre, is to prevent Google from being shut out of the mobile market. To make sure that Google can make money from ads on post-PC devices. Mission accomplished.

96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. They simply can't afford to be locked out of the fastest-growing computing market in history: mobile. And that's why Android is free. Not because of altruism. Because free is almost as good as, well, good. And "almost good enough" was enough to prevent Microsoft / Palm / RIM, any one of them, from taking over the mobile market and shutting Google out.

I imagine Larry Page and his staff laughed out loud when Samsung was found guilty of copying Apple. Because what else could Samsung do? What else can any Android handset maker do? They can either copy Apple well, and get sued, or copy Apple badly and ship a lousy product.

You're either a leader (Apple), or you're a follower (Samsung), or you're lost (Microsoft.)
__________________
Sent from my iPad Simulator
SockRolid is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 02:02 PM   #132
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
But when iPhone became popular, instantly, everyone started copying Apple.

Google was forced to give up Android support for the Chiclet keyboard their hardware partners copied from Palm / RIM. Even Palm and RIM were forced to go all-glass.

But that's all Google and their hardware partners needed to do. Dump something, anything, out there that looked kind of like an iPhone. Because Android's sole purpose, it's raison d'Ítre, is to prevent Google from being shut out of the mobile market. To make sure that Google can make money from ads on post-PC devices. Mission accomplished.

96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. They simply can't afford to be locked out of the fastest-growing computing market in history: mobile. And that's why Android is free. Not because of altruism. Because free is almost as good as, well, good. And "almost good enough" was enough to prevent Microsoft / Palm / RIM, any one of them, from taking over the mobile market and shutting Google out.

I imagine Larry Page and his staff laughed out loud when Samsung was found guilty of copying Apple. Because what else could Samsung do? What else can any Android handset maker do? They can either copy Apple well, and get sued, or copy Apple badly and ship a lousy product.

You're either a leader (Apple), or you're a follower (Samsung), or you're lost (Microsoft.)
None of what you talking about has anything to do with Android..thats the problem with your premise..the equivalent of what your saying is Linux copied Mac..

You ought not comment on things you know little about
GermanyChris is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 02:54 PM   #133
SockRolid
macrumors 65816
 
SockRolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Almost Rock Solid
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
None of what you talking about has anything to do with Android..thats the problem with your premise..the equivalent of what your saying is Linux copied Mac..

You ought not comment on things you know little about
Illogical and specious response. Sophistry.

You're ignoring the basic facts: Android's sole purpose is to generate ad revenue for Google.
96% of Google's revenue comes from ads, and they can't afford to miss out on the post-PC revolution (like Microsoft is.)

And how do you get mobile users' eyeballs on ads? By getting as many devices on the market as possible running Android.

And how do you get as many Android devices on the market as possible? By dumping the OS for free to any vendor who wants to build a device.

And what two things happen to your OS when all you care about is ad revenue above all else? Can you guess?

You're right! #1 is fragmentation. First: OS fragmentation. The most widely used flavor of Android is Gingerbread 2.3, from 2010, with a 45.4% slice of the Android pie. Followed by Ice Cream Sandwich 4.0.x from 2011, with 29.0%, then Jelly Bean 4.1.x with a paltry 12.2% share after 8 long months of availability.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androi...te_of_adoption

And that's just the software side of the forking problem. There are several Android hardware manufacturers (of which only Samsung is profitably selling Android handsets), each of whom have their own oddball screen size(s). A nightmare for would-be developers to code to. One-size-fits-all is a poor and rather ugly choice. Handling each different screen geometry as a special case is a nightmare but it would look much better. Flip a coin.

But the real killer is the app store fragmentation issue. In China there are over 70 Android app stores. All competing against Google Play. Yes, Google has always had a "China Problem." But with respect to Android, it's fatal.

Source: http://paidcontent.org/2011/12/08/41...in-his-market/

#2 is forking.

Amazon created their own closed, proprietary version of Android with great success. (And it is very likely contributing, single-handedly, to Gingerbread 2.3's massive slice of the Android version adoption pie.) Open Handset Alliance? Who needs it?

Amazon just wanted a cheap iPad clone that could act as an at-home sales terminal for Amazon media and goods. No need to continually re-code their apps to handle anything after Gingerbread. No need for that Google profit layer. Ripped out and replaced by an Amazon profit layer.

Who knows? Maybe Samsung will agree that forking Android is the best solution. Open Handset Alliance? They need Samsung more than Samsung needs them.
__________________
Sent from my iPad Simulator

Last edited by SockRolid; Feb 11, 2013 at 03:03 PM.
SockRolid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 03:07 PM   #134
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
Illogical and specious response. Sophistry.

You're ignoring the basic facts: Android's sole purpose is to generate ad revenue for Google.
96% of Google's revenue comes from ads, and they can't afford to miss out on the post-PC revolution (like Microsoft is.)

And how do you get mobile users' eyeballs on ads? By getting as many devices on the market as possible running Android.

And how do you get as many Android devices on the market as possible? By dumping the OS for free to any vendor who wants to build a device.

And what two things happen to your OS when all you care about is ad revenue above all else? Can you guess?

You're right! #1 is fragmentation. First: OS fragmentation. The most widely used flavor of Android is Gingerbread 2.3, from 2010, with a 45.4% slice of the Android pie. Followed by Ice Cream Sandwich 4.0.x from 2011, with 29.0%, then Jelly Bean 4.1.x with a paltry 12.2% share after 8 long months of availability.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androi...te_of_adoption

And that's just the software side of the forking problem. There are several Android hardware manufacturers (of which only Samsung is profitably selling Android handsets), each of whom have their own oddball screen size(s). A nightmare for would-be developers to code to. One-size-fits-all is a poor and rather ugly choice. Handling each different screen geometry as a special case is a nightmare but it would look much better. Flip a coin.

But the real killer is the app store fragmentation issue. In China there are over 70 Android app stores. All competing against Google Play. Yes, Google has always had a "China Problem." But with respect to Android, it's fatal.

Source: http://paidcontent.org/2011/12/08/41...in-his-market/

#2 is forking.

Amazon created their own closed, proprietary version of Android with great success. (And it is very likely contributing, single-handedly, to Gingerbread 2.3's massive slice of the Android version adoption pie.) Open Handset Alliance? Who needs it?

Amazon just wanted a cheap iPad clone that could act as an at-home sales terminal for Amazon media and goods. No need to continually re-code their apps to handle anything after Gingerbread. No need for that Google profit layer. Ripped out and replaced by an Amazon profit layer.

Who knows? Maybe Samsung will agree that forking Android is the best solution. Open Handset Alliance? They need Samsung more than Samsung needs them.
And none of this has anything to do with what you originally posted..

Which is:

"The button-free all-glass interface.

You know, like the original 2007 iPhone. Remember the impact that phone had?
Yeah, it's still the phone everyone else is ripping off.

Oh, and speaking of rip-offs, here's the original Android rip-off of Palm / BlackBerry:

Image

And here's that photo on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:An...rly_device.jpg

Android (even before they were bought by Google) simply copied the best currently-available
smartphones. And that meant copying Palm / BlackBerry. Chiclet keyboard and all.

Of course, the first iPhone obsoleted all that legacy 20th century design-think. So, naturally,
Google immediately began copying iOS' UI and their hardware partners immediately began copying
iPhone's hardware design. Still are."
GermanyChris is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:06 PM   #135
SockRolid
macrumors 65816
 
SockRolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Almost Rock Solid
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
And none of this has anything to do with what you originally posted..

Which is:

"The button-free all-glass interface.

You know, like the original 2007 iPhone. Remember the impact that phone had?
Yeah, it's still the phone everyone else is ripping off.

Oh, and speaking of rip-offs, here's the original Android rip-off of Palm / BlackBerry:

Image

And here's that photo on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:An...rly_device.jpg

Android (even before they were bought by Google) simply copied the best currently-available
smartphones. And that meant copying Palm / BlackBerry. Chiclet keyboard and all.

Of course, the first iPhone obsoleted all that legacy 20th century design-think. So, naturally,
Google immediately began copying iOS' UI and their hardware partners immediately began copying
iPhone's hardware design. Still are."
And nothing you have said contradicts my original statement.

I apologize for bringing up Android's many serious flaws, but you mentioned Android first.
__________________
Sent from my iPad Simulator
SockRolid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:20 PM   #136
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
And nothing you have said contradicts my original statement.

I apologize for bringing up Android's many serious flaws, but you mentioned Android first.
Actually you did..in the android ripped off of BB..

android is SW and SW only google make no HW at all..

Therefore Android doesn't rip off a phone design, Sammy, HTC, Sony et.al. might but not Android.

Last edited by GermanyChris; Feb 13, 2013 at 05:04 PM.
GermanyChris is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:22 PM   #137
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
Actually you did..in the android rip off of BB..

android is SW and SW only google make now HW at all..

Therefore android doesn't rip off a phone design, Sammy, HTC, Sony et.al. might but not Android.
Indeed.

And Android was designed to be device independent. It's an OS that's meant to be executed on a variety of devices.
samcraig is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 02:04 PM   #138
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premiŗ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
But when iPhone became popular, instantly, everyone started copying Apple.

Google was forced to give up Android support for the Chiclet keyboard their hardware partners copied from Palm / RIM. Even Palm and RIM were forced to go all-glass.

But that's all Google and their hardware partners needed to do. Dump something, anything, out there that looked kind of like an iPhone. Because Android's sole purpose, it's raison d'être, is to prevent Google from being shut out of the mobile market. To make sure that Google can make money from ads on post-PC devices. Mission accomplished.

96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. They simply can't afford to be locked out of the fastest-growing computing market in history: mobile. And that's why Android is free. Not because of altruism. Because free is almost as good as, well, good. And "almost good enough" was enough to prevent Microsoft / Palm / RIM, any one of them, from taking over the mobile market and shutting Google out.

I imagine Larry Page and his staff laughed out loud when Samsung was found guilty of copying Apple. Because what else could Samsung do? What else can any Android handset maker do? They can either copy Apple well, and get sued, or copy Apple badly and ship a lousy product.

You're either a leader (Apple), or you're a follower (Samsung), or you're lost (Microsoft.)
Good story, not real, but good
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 04:36 PM   #139
igorleandro
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
I lived in Brazil until 2009. No, there was NEVER EVER an iPhone from Gradiente. They are by the way a dying company, struggling with changes in markets, and they are just trying to make as much money from this as possible.

They should sell it for a reasonable price and try to get into the supply chain for Apple. That would be the smart move.

Erm... never mind... their products were never that great to start with, and I don't think Apple would want Gradiente to work for them.

I hope they loose on the appeal.
igorleandro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2013, 09:08 AM   #140
entatlrg
macrumors Demi-God
 
entatlrg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
But when iPhone became popular, instantly, everyone started copying Apple.

Google was forced to give up Android support for the Chiclet keyboard their hardware partners copied from Palm / RIM. Even Palm and RIM were forced to go all-glass.

But that's all Google and their hardware partners needed to do. Dump something, anything, out there that looked kind of like an iPhone. Because Android's sole purpose, it's raison d'Ítre, is to prevent Google from being shut out of the mobile market. To make sure that Google can make money from ads on post-PC devices. Mission accomplished.

96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. They simply can't afford to be locked out of the fastest-growing computing market in history: mobile. And that's why Android is free. Not because of altruism. Because free is almost as good as, well, good. And "almost good enough" was enough to prevent Microsoft / Palm / RIM, any one of them, from taking over the mobile market and shutting Google out.

I imagine Larry Page and his staff laughed out loud when Samsung was found guilty of copying Apple. Because what else could Samsung do? What else can any Android handset maker do? They can either copy Apple well, and get sued, or copy Apple badly and ship a lousy product.

You're either a leader (Apple), or you're a follower (Samsung), or you're lost (Microsoft.)
Well written and well said.
entatlrg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 04:48 AM   #141
AppleInTheMud
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vojens Denmark
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risco View Post
Brazil is not one of those countries.
And so isnt the US
AppleInTheMud is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple to Open First Retail Store in Brazil on February 15 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 23 Feb 8, 2014 08:47 AM
Apple Worked to Open Brazil Retail Store Ahead of World Cup MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 5 Feb 7, 2014 11:30 PM
Apple Officially Loses 'iPhone' Trademark Dispute in Brazil, Appeals and Lawsuits Coming MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 38 Feb 19, 2013 07:16 PM
Firm Launches 'IPHONE' Brand of Android Phones, Touts Trademark Ownership in Brazil MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 264 Feb 5, 2013 11:50 PM
Apple owning your iPhone rickmave Wasteland 19 Sep 29, 2012 11:08 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC