Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Most Apple products are priced highly competitively, even considering the extremely high build and interface quality of those products. Only the computers come to mind as an example of a product which might be more expensive than somewhat comparable competing commercial products, and even in those cases the build quality is never comparable.

Oh come on, we're beyond this already. Apple has about the same build quality as most larger manufacturers. I never had seen a difference. :rolleyes:

Apple is higher priced for two reasons - they spend about 5 times as much on advertising than most competitors because they know thy CAN then push that cost to the consumer, given the hype they self create. :)

That's not a bad thing necessarily. It also creates a great 3rd party market for things such as the app store, where the consumer actually can benefit from in some way from the price premium. Of course, it can go the other way to, where a lot of content providors just hate Apple because of that hype / arrogance.

Tony
 
Hopefully this whole thing will result in everyone realizing how absolutely ridiculous the current state of Patent law is, and trigger some kind of patent reform initiative.

Tony
I really hope so, its getting to the point where innovation is stifled because of this crap.
 
Žalgiris;11500315 said:
Apple bought FingerWorks some time ago and they have patents on multiple multi-touch gestures. Multi-touch as a whole is everyones. Get you facts straight.

Fingerworks has patents on how to detect certain gestures on a keyboard surface, using a combination of capacitance and pressure.

AFAIK, none of it is about touchscreens on displays.
 
Oh come on, we're beyond this already. Apple has about the same build quality as most larger manufacturers. I never had seen a difference. :rolleyes:
In regard to what? Computers? Nonsense. If so, you clearly want to believe a fiction or just lack first hand experience with the products. In regard to consumer electronics? Apple comes out ahead nearly every single time, and in the cases where build quality is close (e.g. some competing smart phones are quite well made) product quality tends to lag in various areas. Smartphones is one of the few categories for which I can think of reasonable examples (though it is interesting to note that these examples aren't cheaper).

Apple is higher priced for two reasons - they spend about 5 times as much on advertising than most competitors because they know thy CAN then push that cost to the consumer, given the hype they self create. :)
Another false statement. You can search the post history here at MacRumors to see how Apple's advertising expenses compare to their competitors and you'll find this is not true (unless you're comparing dollar amount of Apple, a large company, to dollar amount of a smaller company, but that's pretty silly—they spend very little as a ratio to their profits).

And even if that were true, it is completely off the mark. There are plenty of expenses that go into Apple products which competitors don't necessarily concern themselves with to the same extent (e.g. R&D, although that is another area where major competitors spend more). Mostly they just want their products to be profitable, and they've got some room to work with because their costs are actually lower than most competitors (e.g. bulk purchases and purchase agreements).

That's not a bad thing necessarily. It also creates a great 3rd party market for things such as the app store, where the consumer actually can benefit from in some way from the price premium. Of course, it can go the other way to, where a lot of content providors just hate Apple because of that hype / arrogance.
Setting aside the inaccuracy of your earlier statements, how about some solid examples of these two observations? I'd be curious to see what you have to say. There are many reasons why the App Store is successful and premium products certainly plays into that, but I wouldn't imagine by a long shot that it is a chief factor, and the content provider nonsense? Who? Who that matters on a large scale?
 
Right exept I could have sworn I read somewhere Apple didn't invent multi touch. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Multitouch isn't one single invention. There are dozens and dozens of patents related to Multitouch, and Apple owns quite a few of them.
 
Nonsense

No big surprise here:
  1. Apple was a latecomer to the mobile phone business. Other companies have considerable patent portfolios in this area - Apple doesn't.
  2. Apple thinks they "invented" multi-touch - Apple didn't.
I love my iPhone, but Apple didn't invent any of it, or if they did, their inventions were miniscule in the grand picture.

This is nonsense, Lets discredit Henry Ford for the invention of the automobile since a cart with 4 wheels already existed. Ford redefined transportation just as Apple redefined mobile computing...they both installed engines into the pre-existing carts.

Now, all the losers want to sue instead of innovating to be competitive. Wouldn't make sense that if you already own the patent, you should be ahead of the game. Imagine if the inventor of the basketball tried to sue Michael Jordan since he made so much money using it in his career. Can you see how non-sensical this is getting?

Are patent system and the Eastern district of Texas are destroying innovation in America.
 
A picture tells a thousand words about IP

Google: "Here is the Phone of the Future"

google-android-phone-prototype.jpg


Apple: "No this is"

169290.jpg


Google: "Oh yea, well me too!"

bfaa675a4b6e2bfa400x400.jpg
 
Apple knows they are guilty and are hoping to be able to lawyer their way out.

Huh? I'm sure Apple's guilty of plenty things, but what exactly are you talking about? Patent infringing? Every company does. It's not right, and they shouldn't, but they do. They see an idea, and implement it themselves. Microsoft did it, and now windows is far more popular than what inspired it, so, it can work out pretty well.
 
This is nonsense, Lets discredit Henry Ford for the invention of the automobile since a cart with 4 wheels already existed. Ford redefined transportation just as Apple redefined mobile computing...they both installed engines into the pre-existing carts.

Now, all the losers want to sue instead of innovating to be competitive. Wouldn't make sense that if you already own the patent, you should be ahead of the game. Imagine if the inventor of the basketball tried to sue Michael Jordan since he made so much money using it in his career. Can you see how non-sensical this is getting?

Are patent system and the Eastern district of Texas are destroying innovation in America.


ford didn't invent cars, they were invented in germany. he created mass production
 
Considering that Apple develops both the hardware and software, in the phone, mobile music player, tablet, desktop and portable computer markets, it's not really surprising if they're the most sued. It would be more newsworthy if they weren't.
 
This is nonsense, Lets discredit Henry Ford for the invention of the automobile since a cart with 4 wheels already existed. Ford redefined transportation just as Apple redefined mobile computing...they both installed engines into the pre-existing carts.

Now, all the losers want to sue instead of innovating to be competitive. Wouldn't make sense that if you already own the patent, you should be ahead of the game. Imagine if the inventor of the basketball tried to sue Michael Jordan since he made so much money using it in his career. Can you see how non-sensical this is getting?

Are patent system and the Eastern district of Texas are destroying innovation in America.

I recomend you go look up what henry ford really invented. Cars were out a long time before Henry Ford came along.
There were steam powered cars before Ford.
Ford did not invent anything. He perfect mass production for cars and drove down the cost.
 
Ford did not invent anything.
Ford invented plenty. He just didn't invent the car.
That aside, it is a pretty good example in discussing Apple. He took something which already existed and refined it, making it accessible to the masses in a way never before conceived of. That was an exceptional accomplishment and it cannot be discredited by observing that he did not actually invent the automobile.
 
* Organizing application icons in a grid layout had been done before on a phone before the iPhone
* Having applications icon on a quick bar was also done before thhe iPhone.

There isn't much original about the iPhone 'home screen'.


Google: "Here is the Phone of the Future"

google-android-phone-prototype.jpg


Apple: "No this is"

169290.jpg


Google: "Oh yea, well me too!"

bfaa675a4b6e2bfa400x400.jpg
 
It's been done before on palm. The interface still looked a lot different and you certainly didn't do finger-dragging to scroll between pages and such. The main thing that looks like a copy, this time, is that they tried to emulate precisely the look and feel of iPhone's, which was indeed different than previous app launching screens.

There's the case of having icon desktop displays, then there's the case of trying to make it look almost like the other person's phone from a small distance away. There's quite a few design decisions that could cause that to happen.

Look at the Mac, Amiga, and Windows. While yes, Apple was there first, if you looked at an Amiga or a Windows screen (even from a distance), the difference in the look of the interface is pretty obvious. Just having a GUI and an icon-driven app launching display wasn't enough to make those look identical.

This goes from the precise look of the screen display, to the design of the hardware around said display.
 
Last edited:
* Organizing application icons in a grid layout had been done before on a phone before the iPhone
* Having applications icon on a quick bar was also done before thhe iPhone.

There isn't much original about the iPhone 'home screen'.

You totally missed the point. Look at the first Google phone, then look at the final one, and tell me Google has even a slight bit of dignity.

Fact is, everybody said a touch screen phone would fail, Apple introduced a touch screen phone, and bam, everybody jumps on the bandwagon.

Take off the Google Goggles and see reality.
 
What can you really say about this?

The first reply kind of sums it up for me: What a sad world we live in.

Patent law is so ridiculous, and basically designed as a way for a group of lawyers to ensure a nice living for themselves while the "big boys" feud back and forth about whatever products they create and sell.

You can look at this two ways, really, and both are equally valid, IMO.

On one hand, you can lament that fact that Apple has to funnel so much money into paying legal fees that could have been better spent working on the next "insanely great new thing" for consumers like us. (After all, if you take all the money they spent on lawyers and had Apple spend it, instead, on something like free MobileME and cloud computing services for all Mac and i-device owners? I bet it'd cover YEARS of ability to provide it.)

On the other hand? Seeing how many times Apple leveraged patent law to their advantage in the past? You could argue that turnabout is fair play, and Apple SHOULD have to pony up some big money to defend themselves, since they've instigated so much of it before.

All I know is, in today's world, it's practically a given that any sufficiently large company will have to play these games in a court of law, sooner or later. And IMHO, ALL of us wind up losers except for the attorneys -- because it's expensive for both parties fighting over it, AND more importantly, it never winds up improving things for the customer when it's all said and done.
 
* Organizing application icons in a grid layout had been done before on a phone before the iPhone
* Having applications icon on a quick bar was also done before thhe iPhone.

There isn't much original about the iPhone 'home screen'.

That wasn't really the point the poster as making. The point was that the initial Android OS and the initial Android-based device, in look, feel and functionality, were clearly inspired by BlackBerry. It was the release of the iPhone and with it the early incarnations of iOS and multitouch that drove much of the development in Android.
 
Last edited:
The biggest patent troll on the planet is "lawyering up" to defend itself against other patent trolls. This could be entertaining if it wasn't so sad and absurd.

Apple: Taking MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to a new level.
 
That device is a concept device or prototype. Google were going with whatever the stye was *at the time*.

Secondly, there were plenty of touch screen phones BEFORE Apple introduced the iPhone.

Start looking at reality.. yea right.. you make it sound like Apple released the first ever touch screen... I hope you really don't mean that...

I'm not a particular fan of Google, I'll use whatever their offerings appeal to me. If there's better, I'll use the alternative.

You totally missed the point. Look at the first Google phone, then look at the final one, and tell me Google has even a slight bit of dignity.

Fact is, everybody said a touch screen phone would fail, Apple introduced a touch screen phone, and bam, everybody jumps on the bandwagon.

Take off the Google Goggles and see reality.

That wasn't really the point the poster as making. The point was that the initial Android OS and the initial Android-based device, in look, feel and functiomality, were clearly inspired by BlackBerry. It was the release of the iPhone and with it the early incarnations of iOS and multitouch that drove much of the development in Android.

Yes, I understand now, but since Android was designed as a platform for other manufacturers to take up, Google were pitching the O/S to the current phone designs at the time. Google needed to show that Android was capable of deploying to whatever style of phone was in fashion at the time. Between the first image and the iPhone, things had changed, Google were merely keeping up with the current fashion.
 
Last edited:
This is nonsense, Lets discredit Henry Ford for the invention of the automobile since a cart with 4 wheels already existed. Ford redefined transportation just as Apple redefined mobile computing...they both installed engines into the pre-existing carts.
Not to get off topic here, but Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile.
He created the assembly line process for building cars in mass quantities.
Everyone who has ever paid attention in history class knows that Karl Benz (Mercedes-Benz) invented the first gasoline powered car.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.