Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Antitrust Investigation of Apple Led Nortel Patent Purchase

dethmaShine said:
On another note, if I need to check that Google+ is a ripoff of Facebook, I wouldn't be checking the source code - instead the UI layout which is more important. HTML is not a programming language - so code can be easily manipulated and CSS helps a lot. It's no big deal. That's not saying that Google changes some algorithms and dumps Facebook's code with in. It's just that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Hope you mind me saying that.

Yes, I hate the Skype plugin but we will see where it goes. Sounds like a good idea and something big in the works.
Click to expand...

I didn't say source code. I'm talking about the HTML5 output (the "open" Google would never give you the source code because Apple is evil, after all). I really really suggest you listen to this if you want to get a better idea. You're acting like Google+ is pretty standard HTML5 that you'd see on a blog when it isn't.

This is highly relevant to the discussion because it directly relates to how Google designed the service to be used and as a result how people will probably end up interacting with it. You can't just say how the widget is built is irrelevant because I only look at the pretty interface. You're arguing for your own ignorance. I'd hope we'd be more open to actually looking at what is going on instead of making snap judgements because the page layout is roughly similar.
 
NAG said:
Here is the layout on the main page of Facebook and Google+ as far as I see them. Initial impression is that Google+ is much more strict with how many vertical lines there are. Facebook seems to be more willing to throw junk on the screen.

Notable differences are Google+ lacks applications (which I see as a positive). Google+ has a more persistent sharing UI on the navigation bar. Facebook's feed controls are limited to "magic" and most recent. Google+'s is by Circle/feed group. We'll see if Google needs to automatically remove a lot of the "Bob found a chicken" type feed entries or not. Currently, Google doesn't as Circles good a good enough job of filtering the beta/low level of content on the service.

Essentially, Facebook's strategy to deal with noise is to automatically ignore most of it. Google+'s seems to be to group people together so you can easily pay attention to different groups of people as you need. We'll see which one is better.

Additionally, all the people who say Google+ is a clone, I strongly suggest you look at the html code. Google is doing some interesting stuff and it isn't Flash based, as far as I can see. Facebook seems to be relying heavily on third party plugins (e.g. the new Skype plugin and forcing you to use Flash for Youtube videos).
Click to expand...

Thank You.

Facebook and it's Flash underpinnings are the main reason my Safari crashes at least 3X a week, more so than any other site or program and I've noticed the latest version of Safari identifies Flash directly as the culprit in the crash message.

But Facebook doesn't really care because Flash works so much better on PCs and they think they are "The *****" right now.

I will have to check out Google+
 
What you have to think is "would it be better or worse to not have competition from android."

I think we need the competition, it makes for a better iphone and ios.
 
NAG said:
I didn't say source code. I'm talking about the HTML5 output (the "open" Google would never give you the source code because Apple is evil, after all). I really really suggest you listen to this if you want to get a better idea. You're acting like Google+ is pretty standard HTML5 that you'd see on a blog when it isn't.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I wrote it that way. I always meant HTML code. I have subscribed to Marco and Dan at 5by5 and it that podcast was quote comprehensive and informative as I am not into web-development. But still hear and learn bits and pieces from everywhere.

This is highly relevant to the discussion because it directly relates to how Google designed the service to be used and as a result how people will probably end up interacting with it. You can't just say how the widget is built is irrelevant because I only look at the pretty interface. You're arguing for your own ignorance. I'd hope we'd be more open to actually looking at what is going on instead of making snap judgements because the page layout is roughly similar.[/QUOTE]

That is different to my discussion. I am afraid it bothers you some how. Obviously the implementation is different and I must say Google has done a commendable job on it. The basic sharing and posts implementation is very similar - including the layout and the way you do it, but I do feel that Google has an edge and they are going to be far superior as Facebook is more like - casual instead of something more particular or professional.

I am not making any snap judgements. My major issue with Google+ was that the entire thing looks like a freakin Facebook with a different colour scheme and that's about it. I don't where I was wrong with my statement.
 
gaz81 said:
Interesting stuff, although you could go back to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto

The first computer (I think) that used a graphical interface.

The paragraph is interesting:

-------------

In 1979, Apple Computer's co-founder Steve Jobs visited Xerox PARC, where he was shown the Smalltalk-80 programming environment, networking, and most importantly the WYSIWYG, mouse-driven graphical user interface provided by the Alto. He reportedly was not impressed by the first two, but was excited by the last one, and promptly integrated it, first into the Lisa and then in the Macintosh, attracting several key researchers to work in his company.[4]

----------

I'm sure lots of companies have used other companies ideas.
Click to expand...

Everytime someone brings this is up I think...
"Dude, have you used a Xerox Photocopier?" Even the new ones are really bad to use most of them are Windows boxes with a really really bad interface on top. Even simple like photocopying a single sheet of paper can be a pain. Let alone trying to get one to work on your network.

Xerox Alto produced some really really amazing ideas but the only useful thing the company did with them was sell visiting rights.

Also amusing Smalltalk messaging is the basis of Objective-C so maybe they weren't as disinterested as they made out.
 
iDisk said:
Google's eric schimdt, poached ideas and plans from APPLE AS HE SERVED ON THEIR BOARD. He not only betrayed Apple, but Steve too. He and Googles, "don't be evil" mantra, is bull.... Google wants to destroy the iPhone, but Apple won't let them... Did Apple enter into the "search" business? Nope.. But Google decided to betray a friend and tech partner and enter the phone business.

They betrayed Apple, on many levels, and You don't do that to Steve Jobs.

They being Google "violated the alliance"
Click to expand...

iDisk said:
  • He did work for Apple.
  • He "willingly" resigned.
  • He took the information he found out while working at Apple, and used it to release a touch base equivalent Android device.
  • He basically, stole.
  • Google has no original thinking, and no culture.

I don't mind competition, but there copying and competing, much like how Microsoft did with Apple's OS.

When Google can innovate, and compete, then we can talk. Again, this and their useless influence to ask for an investigation over these patents, proves to me, that google can't innovate. Notice how Microsoft, is struggling hard to have a functional mobile OS.. why? because they can't copy Apple's success, they need to become innovative (which isn't in the company DNA), so they will continue to struggle. But at least Microsoft isn't jumping the copying ship on this front, much like Google has done.

Again loyalty is big to Apple, don't bite the Apple that feeds you. Google will learn the hard way about this.

Apple is a company of artist, where raw sand comes in one end, and comes out the other, as silicon art.
Click to expand...

genovelle said:
Google was secretly working on several projects that being on Apple's board afforded their CEO access to Apples secrets. Then the fact they duplicated much of what apple and jumped right into the market as a competitor means he should have long left the board. It was a sneaky low move.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theorists + Fanboys = some whimsical stories
 
HyperZboy said:
Thank You.

Facebook and it's Flash underpinnings are the main reason my Safari crashes at least 3X a week, more so than any other site or program and I've noticed the latest version of Safari identifies Flash directly as the culprit in the crash message.

But Facebook doesn't really care because Flash works so much better on PCs and they think they are "The *****" right now.

I will have to check out Google+
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? Because I only use Safari and I go on Facebook way more then once a day and I never had a crash. I think there some thing wrong with your computer....
 
Heh. Maybe google should've taken the patents seriously, instead of bidding the Brun's constant, Meissel-Mertens constant and pi

($1,902,160,540, $2,614,972,128, and $3.14159 billion were Google's bids)
 
When the inevitable lawsuit Apple files against Google for copying multi touch displays (after the patent is granted for that) what will the Android lovers say?
 
GLS said:
When the inevitable lawsuit Apple files against Google for copying multi touch displays (after the patent is granted for that) what will the Android lovers say?
Click to expand...

They'll cry foul and talk about how Apple is evil and how Apple copies Android. What else do you think they'll do? :p
 
mentholiptus said:
It's a success because it's ubiquitous. People want an affordable smartphone, and it probably runs android. it's free to vendors (for now) because google makes money of all the advertising it pushes on it's unsuspecting end users. Not because it's the best. It's the new windows running on an emachine.
Click to expand...

could you please not make such BS and decide other peoples mind? thanks

I went from IOS to android, because android suited my needs and i got bored of IOS.

IOS 5 was the nail in the coffin for me, why? because i was sick of the lack of customisation, lack of format support, the restricted access to Iphone file system ie i can't look at the files and folders on my mac, i can't just drap and drop folders etc.

and I'm sure other people choose android instead of IOS, because there own reasons, not yours :rolleyes:
 
erzhik said:
die hard Apple fan, aren't you?

Youtube was like pocket change for Google.

Just because you think Android blows, 500,000 activations per day say otherwise. And do you even know what eco-system is? Didn't think so.

I mean, no offense, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but posting such stupid opinions on a public forum shows lack of any common sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the BS coming out of your mouth?

They aren't unique activations first off. Second, they only have activations because Apple isn't playing in their sandbox yet. WTF do you think is going to happen when Apple gets on TMobile and other carriers. Wait till iPhone 5 on Verizon...lots of Verizon users are waiting for the new phone.

Yes, I know what an eco-system is...it's what Android DOESNT HAVE.

Common sense dictates that they know a losing platform and it's the Google/MS one. They are run by sales/engineering types that have no direction or innovation. That's why they are getting their collective @$$e$ handed to them by Apple in tablets, phones, OS, eco-system, apps, etc.
 
iDisk said:
  • He did work for Apple.
  • He "willingly" resigned.
  • He took the information he found out while working at Apple, and used it to release a touch base equivalent Android device.
  • He basically, stole.
  • Google has no original thinking, and no culture.

I don't mind competition, but there copying and competing, much like how Microsoft did with Apple's OS.

When Google can innovate, and compete, then we can talk. Again, this and their useless influence to ask for an investigation over these patents, proves to me, that google can't innovate. Notice how Microsoft, is struggling hard to have a functional mobile OS.. why? because they can't copy Apple's success, they need to become innovative (which isn't in the company DNA), so they will continue to struggle. But at least Microsoft isn't jumping the copying ship on this front, much like Google has done.

Again loyalty is big to Apple, don't bite the Apple that feeds you. Google will learn the hard way about this.

Apple is a company of artist, where raw sand comes in one end, and comes out the other, as silicon art.
Click to expand...
do you mean how like apple "stole" ideas from the jail break community and android itself ?

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-steal-jailbreak-2011-6#improved-notifications-1


http://www.cultofmac.com/cydia-dev-apple-stole-both-my-idea-and-my-icon-for-wifi-sync/99951



how about the stuff apple "stole" from windows?http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/...ole-windows-966&current=2&last=1#slideshowTop


Listen, all the companies do it, if you think apple has never done it, then your deluded. :rolleyes: they all "borrow" ideas. I wouldn't call it "stealing" i would call it an "evolution" of technology.
 
Last edited:
the stupidity in this thread is astounding. I dont think some of you fanboys will be happy until Apple has the only smart phone and you are paying 1500 bucks for it.
 
bbplayer5 said:
the stupidity in this thread is astounding. I dont think some of you fanboys will be happy until Apple has the only smart phone and you are paying 1500 bucks for it.
Click to expand...

Ssshh! You'll get banned with that talk. Er,... for the record... Apple is wonderful! Apple fanboys are wonderful! All hail Chairman Jobs!
 
stevensr123 said:
do you mean how like apple "stole" ideas from the jail break community and android itself ?

....

Listen, all the companies do it, if you think apple has never done it, then your deluded. :rolleyes: they all "borrow" ideas. I wouldn't call it "stealing" i would call it an "evolution" of technology.
Click to expand...

Including the Jailbreak Community ("borrow" that is).
Who are for the most part publishing that way because their App uses Apple's unpublished API's. So it's really hard to know who's borrowing from who. I suspect it's pretty even both ways, and a few have been well rewarded for their efforts.

Yes it's evolution of technology.

kdarling said:
Xerox did later create the Star, based on PARC's Alto work.

It was introduced in 1981, three years before the Mac.

25,000 Stars were sold, which at their price ($16,000+) was amazing.
Click to expand...

Which is why their current range of products is freaking frustrating. They had the brightest minds and inspired so many other to do good things. Yet still can't make a product that doesn't angrily beeps at me and requires 6 different pages of UI to make it do very common things.
 
Macs In LA said:
Google gives away their OS in order to get market share. That is pretty anti-competitive as well.

Now Google has to pay for the IP that is contained in the OS they give away. Seems like there is actually a market being established here, not an anti-competitive practice.
Click to expand...

Competing on price is anti-competative? Looks like our entire system of free markets in "un-competative". What you're thinking of (if you're thinking at all) is "dumping", lowering the price of your goods below the cost of manufacture to drive competitors out of the market. Let me see, what is the cost of manufacturing a copy of some software... hmm, it's zero! And as we call all see Apple is being driven out of the phone market by Google.
 
nutjob said:
Competing on price is anti-competative? Looks like our entire system of free markets in "un-competative". What you're thinking of (if you're thinking at all) is "dumping", lowering the price of your goods below the cost of manufacture to drive competitors out of the market. Let me see, what is the cost of manufacturing a copy of some software... hmm, it's zero! And as we call all see Apple is being driven out of the phone market by Google.
Click to expand...

So your saying the wage costs of the Android team is also Zero?
No wonder it's so easy for other companies to employ away their talent.
:cool:
 
nutjob said:
Competing on price is anti-competative? Looks like our entire system of free markets in "un-competative". What you're thinking of (if you're thinking at all) is "dumping", lowering the price of your goods below the cost of manufacture to drive competitors out of the market. Let me see, what is the cost of manufacturing a copy of some software... hmm, it's zero! And as we call all see Apple is being driven out of the phone market by Google.
Click to expand...

The definition of "dumping" is not limited to pricing below marginal cost.
 
The PI thing may be a fabrication.

tekker said:
They bid pi and the distance to the sun... I think it's safe to say that they didn't want the patents that bad.
Click to expand...

Based on the filed court documents, the bidding proceeded to $4.5 bn USD in $100 million USD increments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back