Hopefully this will spur other manufacturers into creating something original instead of an iPhone for people who want an iPhone but don't want something with an Apple logo on it.
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.
Apple Reportedly Disrupting iPhone Competitors With Legal Threats Backed Up by HTC Suit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been around on this site since 2003. Honestly, I don't recall anyone ever claiming Apple invented the concept of a dock/taskbar, either here or anywhere else. Do you have a few links?
Also, do you have a quote from an Apple exec or a press release where Apple claims it created that concept?
I understood what you were saying. I wasn't actually arguing against you, but rather joining in with what you were saying. I was arguing against all the people I've seen out there who bring out these very broad concepts and claim it counts as prior art. I assumed that's what you meant too.
(EDIT: I just went back and re-read my post. I worded it badly. Wherever I say "you" it should be read as a generic "someone." I didn't mean it to be directed at you personally but now I see how that was mis-communicated. Sorry.)
So, basically.
Anyone suing Apple are obviously just some rotten patent trolls, or just can't compete so goes for money grab from lawsuits, and their products sucks anyways.
Apple suing anyone is obviously a good thing since Apple must protect their IP, and everyone else are just copycats, leeching off Apple inventions, and Apple's products are just better anyway so it's justified.
Got it.
Anyone suing Apple are obviously just some rotten patent trolls, or just can't compete so goes for money grab from lawsuits, and their products sucks anyways.
Apple suing anyone is obviously a good thing since Apple must protect their IP, and everyone else are just copycats, leeching off Apple inventions, and Apple's products are just better anyway so it's justified.
Got it.
Based on the number of patents HTC holds related to this technology, that is unlikely. But, absolutely, if Apple is poaching others' IP, it should face the same consequences. At the same time, when it comes to technologies that are required in order for products to meet industry standards (GSM, for example), Apple and other companies are entitled to fair licensing terms (which are at the heart of several other current cases involving Apple).
Or, OTOH, Apple sucks because it shouldn't be allowed to hold any software patents, and if it does, it should not use them to protect its IP. Furthermore, Apple should allow all other companies complete access to its IP in exchange for licensing of their products, which are licensed by everyone else for well-established fair monetary terms without the requirement of giving up a company's own IP. Finally, Apple is only widely admired in the business community as one of the top industry innovators because SJ's Reality Distortion Field has brainwashed the whole business community into believing his lies that Apple may have actually invented a different way of doing things. Oh, and it should tell its' shareholders to go to H-E-double hockey sticks because it has no responsibility to protect their investments. Got it.
It seems you haven't seen the latest numbers. Apple doubled iPhone sales, but Android grew ten times over the same period. When that trend continues, the iPhone will be toast in a year from now.
And what is the ultimate advantage of Android and why will the industry gather behind Android and not behind the iPhone? Simple: Everybody can build hardware with the Android OS, and there are no limits to what software you want to write for and deploy on it. Apple could have had that position if they had been smart about it, but no, Steve Jobs wanted to repeat the very same mistakes he had made with the Macintosh: Instead of making the Mac the industry standard, he made it a proprietary niche platform. Now he did the same with iPhone OS. Sure, it's a lucrative niche (at least today), but a niche is a niche and there are natural limits as to how big a niche can become.
In two to three years from now, Android will hold a market share in the entire mobile phone AND "Slate" market that Windows now has in the PC sector. The iPhone and the iPad will be rather insignificant niche products just like the Mac.
People just don't like complete vendor lock-ins and the accompanying restrictions, but Steve Jobs refuses to admit that reality.
In Android land, you don't have this limits, and together with Google's financial backing, this will eventually make the platform the winner.
I always love the way that people on forums seem to think they would make better business decisions than Steve Jobs, a man who is more successful in business terms than most other people on the planet.
No, MS only promised to develop Office:Mac for another five years, and that was two years ago. And the Mac only became the success it is today because Microsoft developed Office for it in the first place. And, not to forget, Apple would have disappeared into void long ago if Microsoft and Apple hadn't settled their lawsuit and Microsoft's money had saved it when Apple was close to bankruptcy. (I know that Fanboy-version of history is completely different, but I won't go there.)
If Adobe stopped developing for the Mac, their entire user base would switch to Windows in a heartbeat. It's as simple as that. Their users need Adobe software more than they need Macs, and I know of many agencies in Germany that have switched away from Apple a long time ago. Adobe nowadays primarily develops for Windows and even Linux already has a 64-Bit Flash plugin while something like that still cannot be seen for the Mac. That should tell you something about their priorities.
What would Mac users do if Adobe dropped their product support? There are no alternatives.
What would you do when Microsoft dropped Office for Mac? Use iWork? Ha. Hahaha.
Apple's survival strategy lies within their iPhone/iPod/iPad gadgets, and they know it. They think that unlike a real computing platform, they can control their gadgets and protect them from competition. Well, why I agree that their survival as a corporation is bound to the gadgets, I also think that they are completely mistaken with the latter. But they didn't learn any lessons from the Mac vs Windows disaster - and for Apple, this was a disaster. Windows might have been a Macintosh rip off, but it is technologically ahead of the Mac and it is infinitely more successful.
Just like the Roman Empire, Microsoft uses a "divide and rule" approach, while Apple wants it all for themselves. And that never worked for anybody on the long run.
That might work the other way around when Apple finally get around to buying Adobe!
Actually, Apple got microsoft into a position where getting them to go out of business was another round of courts away. ONLY OVER QUICKTIME! Apple had $1bill in the bank, oh no. So close to going out of business.
Apple is seen as the creative leader because of Final Cut studio. It doesnt matter what is happening now, its what is happening in the future. I make a lot of websites for 'creative' students, they are all in serious love with their mac! The youth hostel Im staying at has over 50% macs.
I use iWork! Its actually really good, pages replaces the unctionality of Publisher and Word. I made a computing class coo at a keynote, and all I did is use templates.
Define "Technically more advanced". Apple fully leverages a new back end hardware standard. They use a modern implementation of Unix. If youre talking about things like Direct X, well Apple has an equivalent for each feature. Even if its only a recent change.
Remember what happened to the Roman Empire? They got taken over by rebelious religious groups.
The 64-Bit plugin for Linux hasnt gotten past Beta 1, and Mac OSX doesnt need to use a 64-bit plugin because it doesnt require the use of NSPlugin Wrapper. Wheres Windows 64-bit plugin? Priorities huh? Lets all change to Linux! Windows sucks bleargh. bleargh. blreargh. /Abnoxious behaviour to prove a point.
I suggest you read a history of Apple Vs Microsoft that has a reliable source.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DDF-4A9A-9515-531B0CA0C29C.html
What does Norway have to do with anything that I wrote?
It's not that Apple shouldn't defend their IP. They're free to do that if they wish. But there's some major double standards when it's OK for Apple to do it, but when anyone sues Apple for the same reasons it's really bad, and the company that is suing is obviously just doing it because they can't compete with Apple.
They have just as much right to defend their IP as Apple have, regardless of their markedshare/position. If it's increasing or decreasing is irrelevant.
Why? What's wrong with the latest one, the style shape and size is perfect I think, software updates are all it needs!
Yes Winni, you are quite right, the Fanboy version of that period of computing history is very different. However, to think that you've got it nailed to the point of pre-empting a discussion with your "but I won't go there" is, dare I say, a little arrogant. The truth may well be somewhere in between.
The most strange thing is that you seem to think that Microsoft somehow wanted to save Apple. Like we should be thankful for them. Thank you Microsoft, for saving Apple by kicking it when it was down and imposing your browser on it and your buggy, security hole ridden, CPU churning productivity suite on it for many years. Microsoft has always been (perhaps not so much recently) about Embrace-Extend-Extinguish. Look at Netscape. Look at Operating Systems and IBM, look at Yahoo! Look at hotmail. If you think Microsoft wouldn't have leapt at the opportunity to annihilate Apple then and there, I think you're fooling yourself.
Nobody in their sane mind would claim that the i-Devices are a "real'' computing platform. They are convenience consumer devices. I do not expect to be doing my physics simulations on it. Why should I? Your perspective is a bit strange to me.
Also I might just mention that with a US market cap 4/5 of MS's, they hardly need a "survival" strategy.
Just one question: What are you on?
steve jobs got canned from his own company after being considered more successful in business terms than most other people on the planet. as the adage goes, old habits die hard.
LOL... thanks for the laugh.
What's a US market cap? They have different market cap somewhere else? And what has market cap to do with company needing a survival strategy or not? If Apple want to keep a significant "US market cap" they need to deliver. Any crack in their shield suggesting something else and the market cap is gone even faster than it was gained.
I completely agree. Companies need to take existing tech and leapfrog it, not just create copycat devices. Of course at the same time these copycat devices create competition, which forces Apple to lower prices while continuing to leapfrog the competition all over again. How exhausting, but necessary for the evolution and innovation of products over time. There will always be leaders and followers, as well as, companies that can gather ideas together in ways that seemed improbable before.
Apple has always been ahead of its time and I don't see it slowing down any time soon.
Ah, so you purposely ignored the intent of the comment, which was to say that Steve Jobs, as CEO of NeXt, had already licensed Sun's version of PowerPoint, thus giving Apple that license and giving Apple the opportunity to build a new application from it.
That's fine, you are little different from any of the other anti-Apple Zealots out there.
Do we know for a fact that those licenses transferred from NeXT to Apple in the acquisition?
HTC sent their folks to collect all the iphone patents they could, gave them to their engineers and said get busy. HTC didn't spend tens of millions doing r&d to make their iphone knock-off did they?
And this law suit doesn't stifle innovation. That makes no sense at all.
I saw the Droid at a Verizon kiosk. The camera set up is a total rip-off of the iphone. Totally! And Google doesn't even care cause they are only interested in collecting your click traffic and selling your profile to advertisers.
I heard the whole story on a BBC podcast yesterday. Wow! Free Google sh**. Not by a long shot. Android is a conduit to an elaborate master plan/business model.
And this law suit doesn't stifle innovation. That makes no sense at all.
I saw the Droid at a Verizon kiosk. The camera set up is a total rip-off of the iphone. Totally! And Google doesn't even care cause they are only interested in collecting your click traffic and selling your profile to advertisers.
I heard the whole story on a BBC podcast yesterday. Wow! Free Google sh**. Not by a long shot. Android is a conduit to an elaborate master plan/business model.
!
Apple has been around for 30 years so get your time right.
As for the roots part. WTF!
And the ipad was never meant to be a netbook. As a matter of fact Apple doesn't need to make a cheap laptop when the sells of their current, more pricier stuff is selling like hot cakes. So there.
It is the trashy pc industry that has saturated the market with laptops and so it was inevitable that they would have to cannibalize their current tech to keeps some sales going. So, introduce the netbook. And the after market netbooks will kill the sells of new netbooks. WATCH!!! You telling me I won't be able to find a nice netbook for $60.00? I wouldn't touch it cause I have a unibody macbook but for that netbook ilk...
Apple has been around for 30 years so get your time right.
As for the roots part. WTF!
And the ipad was never meant to be a netbook. As a matter of fact Apple doesn't need to make a cheap laptop when the sells of their current, more pricier stuff is selling like hot cakes. So there.
It is the trashy pc industry that has saturated the market with laptops and so it was inevitable that they would have to cannibalize their current tech to keeps some sales going. So, introduce the netbook. And the after market netbooks will kill the sells of new netbooks. WATCH!!! You telling me I won't be able to find a nice netbook for $60.00? I wouldn't touch it cause I have a unibody macbook but for that netbook ilk...
You are entitled to feel however you like about Apple. But understand that having their legal department follow up on infringed patents in no way prevents the company from investing the proper time and resources in improving their hardware and their software.
People also need to realize, that if Apple did not attempt to enforce their rights as patent holder, they stand to LOSE THOSE RIGHTS entirely. That's right, if Apple just "lets it all go" for the sake of not expending negative energy, the courts take that into consideration and figure that Apple didn't really feel that patent was enforceable anyway.
While your statements might sound good from some esoteric metaphysical standpoint, they're disaster from a business standpoint.
I just found this article on Jonathan Schwartz's blog (yes, the former CEO of Sun Microsystems), and I think it is an interesting read, especially for those who believe that Steve Jobs invented everything:
http://ow.ly/1gc7s
http://ow.ly/1gc7s