I can see why Apple would get mad over those Tab cases. They look identical to the iPad 2's Smart Cover! Or is that just me?
Indeed. I wrote this in (two) other threads - but the thread are all related, so here goes...
The real "behind the scenes" issue is that, despite Apple being #1 and having amazing sales - they are worried about competition. And there's nothing wrong with that. But these lawsuits to try and stop sales is more designed to keep competition from being able to sell their devices and gain even more marketshare than it is about Apple being worried about whether or not the user can click on a phone number and have the phone dial. The lawsuit/patents are a means to an end.
linuxcooldude said:samcraig said:Indeed. I wrote this in (two) other threads - but the thread are all related, so here goes...
The real "behind the scenes" issue is that, despite Apple being #1 and having amazing sales - they are worried about competition. And there's nothing wrong with that. But these lawsuits to try and stop sales is more designed to keep competition from being able to sell their devices and gain even more marketshare than it is about Apple being worried about whether or not the user can click on a phone number and have the phone dial. The lawsuit/patents are a means to an end.
I disagree on that point. Back in 2007 Walt Mossberg did an interview with Steve Jobs. He said when he finally came back to Apple that they thought the only way Apple could succeed was if Microsoft failed. But Steve told them don't worry about beating Microsoft but concentrate on what Apple is doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scf6dV4FSf8&feature=fvwrel
So I think they are not trying to use this to beat their competition as much as protecting their own idea's and intellectual property.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.1; en-gb; Galaxy Nexus Build/ITL41F) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)
Your theory conflicts with this quote.
“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong … I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this”
Sounds like Jobs was going to be relentless when it comes to Android.
Also probably had to do with the fact Google CEO Eric Schmidt was on the board of Apple at one time, then surprise-surprise Android was released.
So frankly, this "Eric was on the board and released Android after spying on Apple bit!" is all pure fantasy on part of some forum goers.
ohh, I almost forgot, so much for innovation:
Bath tub??
http://asiajin.com/blog/2011/03/03/what-new-ipad2-case-reminds-japanese-bath-tub-lid/
Till Steve found the pinch to zoom capability from the iPhone incorporated into Erics own android OS prompted Steve to hide the iPad from Schmidt. Which luckily he did or else the gPad could of been the outcome of that.
Also probably had to do with the fact Google CEO Eric Schmidt was on the board of Apple at one time, then surprise-surprise Android was released.
Really? Pinch to zoom was shown on an HTC phone at early 2.010 and Schmidt resigned Apple board on August 2.009.
And pinch to zoom was not an Apple invention, it was shown prior to the iPhone release in other phones
Apparently Steve saw one being used when at Google offices at an earlier date before it was eventually released for Android.
Not sure of any other pinch to zooms, but considering the iPhone was one of the first to have the capacitive touch screen, don't see how the pinch to zoom would at all work effectively on any other type of screen.
I love the Samsung can't innovate topics yet most of Apples products are assembled with products Innovated by Samsung.
'Painters don't create; paint companies do'
'Musicians don't create; instrument companies do'
Your logic.
'Painters don't create; paint companies do'
'Musicians don't create; instrument makers do'
Your logic.
In summary, without creative design, layout and aspirations from Apple and other companies like them, Samsungs 'innovations', which are more linear transitions of Moore's law, would be worthless.
Not sure of any other pinch to zooms, but considering the iPhone was one of the first to have the capacitive touch screen, don't see how the pinch to zoom would at all work effectively on any other type of screen.
Till Steve found the pinch to zoom capability from the iPhone incorporated into Erics own android OS prompted Steve to hide the iPad from Schmidt. Which luckily he did or else the gPad could of been the outcome of that.
And I love that you used instruments makers as an example of something not being innovative or having creative design. I guess you consider craftsmen in all varieties not creative and/or innovative. That's unfortunate that you can see how wrong that is.
'Painters don't create; paint companies do'
'Musicians don't create; instrument makers do'
Your logic.
So I think they are not trying to use this to beat their competition as much as protecting their own idea's and intellectual property.
Also probably had to do with the fact Google CEO Eric Schmidt was on the board of Apple at one time, then surprise-surprise Android was released.
Hey, let's all attack the (misinformed) example and ignore the point!
This statement is a perfectly reasonable theory. At least as reasonable as the one posted by samcraig that he replied to.
In short, apple is nothing without those quality Samsung products.
No, that's not his logic.
his logic is that Apple and Samsung are musicians or painters
Completely wrong logic.
And I love that you used instruments makers as an example of something not being innovative or having creative design. I guess you consider craftsmen in all varieties not creative and/or innovative. That's unfortunate that you can see how wrong that is.
Which is absurd, since Samsung don't produce anything for an overall design that could be considered innovation. Some of the components Apple uses in its products come from Samsung (RAM, CPU etc, the CPU of which is not designed by Samsung anyway, but is simply manufactured by them); that is the extent of their involvement. Apple makes the decision of how best to utilise these components, innovating in terms of heat dispersion design, aesthetics etc. Samsung does not, and its completed products are quite obviously derivative of Apple's designs; they do not innovate.
Furthermore, that is not what his comment implied. His comment implied that Samsung innovate by supplying the parts, which are standardised throughout the industry, that Apple uses in its designs/products.
Completely wrong logic? Do you know what logic is?
btw, I consider craftsmen to be innovators and creative (when they develop a new design). Samsung, in relation to Apple, would be the equivalent of the wood cutters/metal smelters. My logic is sound, and not wrong just because you say it is. If it's wrong, explain it.
Completely wrong logic? Do you know what logic is?
If it's wrong, explain it.
Umm... no thats not my logic. Nice try though... really!
My logic is more like this... Lotus claims they have the best technology and best engines in their cars; however those engines are made by Yamaha/Toyota. So Lotus doesn't technically have the best engines... they source the best engines and slap on a Lotus Emblem. Yamaha did the design, Toyota built it (2ZZGE same engine in the Celica GTS, Matrix XRS, etc.), shipped it to Lotus, and Lotus assembled the car. Same as Apple does with Samsung parts.
Yes. Yes.
Apparently you don't know what logic is.
Yes, you're absolutely right, there is no innovation in semi-conductors and electronic parts. IPS panels, PVA panels, OLED, NAND Flash, they've always existed in nature and Samsung and other semi-conductor farms just grow them on trees.
Apple is able to make innovative products because the semi-conductor industry innovates new parts, new techniques to make parts more efficient/smaller and new technologies all together.
Get a grip.
----------
Completely wrong logic. Samsung is Gibson's to Apple's Les Paul.