The widespread is good, but it has a lot to do with the quality. Because there are a lot of other mobile operating systems that Apple isn't afraid of.
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
The widespread is good, but it has a lot to do with the quality. Because there are a lot of other mobile operating systems that Apple isn't afraid of.
That's what I'm saying though, Android now is what windows mobile was before (except android doesn't suck). It will soon be in just about everything in one way or another.
That said, I really don't think Apple is afraid of anyone, because just like the iPod, they've staked out their area in the mindshare of the cellphone world and they are extremely comfortable there.
Check out the Consumer Report customer support ratings. Would you rather be cool or satisfied, in your case I'm not sure, but most people would go for the latter.
According to everything I've read lately, sales of Android-based phone are slowing down faster than expected. There was apparently a big burst of sales during the holidays and now it's died off. Even yesterday, analysts were distancing themselves from earlier predictions and I keep seeing all these 2-for-1 deals with Android phones. You don't do 2-for-1 deals when phones are selling well. You do it when nobody is buying.
Regardless, Steve Jobs is on record saying they intended to protect their patents. I don't think this is as impulsive and emotional a move as you imagine it to be.
Then you won't mind that Apple joined the ranks of an elite group of companies with a Market Cap of over $200B. Rather than going backwards, it appears Apple has pioneered the computer industry into an all-new paradigm in design and usability.
And of course you choose to distract from the statement that, however it happened, Apple gained access to Sun's 'PowerPoint' software and built a new app upon it. It matters not who owned the company, but rather what the company possessed when Apple purchased it.
Ok, I will accept that it's Finnish, not Norwegian; however, that does not counter the allegations that Apple itself is making that Nokia is trying gouge Apple both monetarily and technologically which is why Apple has refused Nokia's terms for licensing the communications technology. Now, whether or not either statement is true will have to be determined by the courts, but I personally don't believe Nokia is fully innocent in this case.
Two sentences which are unrelated.
And you don't admit that you made a statement that was simply
wrong. Whether Apple stole or bought Keynote is irrelevant.
Steve Jobs did not own NeXT.
Are they? You don't deny that Apple's market cap has exceeded $200B, nor do you deny that Apple has led computer usability into all new paradigms. It seems to me that the two are very closely related, since if Apple had not done the second, Apple could not have done the first.
And I will emphasize that it matters not, since Steve Jobs was the CEO and essentially the sole operator of the company, whether it was owned by investors or not.
I want to modify that - as far as the public was concerned, Steve Jobs ran and owned NEXT. Its the same way today. Yes, technically Apple is owned by the board of directors and shareholders, but when people think of Apple or Next, people do not think of <insert name of leading shareholder>, they think of Steve Jobs since he is the CEO. The public doesnt see the shareholders as owners or controllers - they are an invisible group of people.
Thats the way most companies operate - while a board of directors are the ultimate owners - the CEO is the one that everybody sees as the controller. The word owner is just the wrong title - but we know who we are talking about.
Another patent lawsuit joins the party.
And this one looks like they have some pretty major patents (*).
For example, trying a different network automatically if the first one isn't available? That's core to flipping between cell and WiFi.
And having a background app watching for incoming phone calls, that alerts the user without terminating the current app right away? How did they get that one?
(*) I haven't looked deeply at them yet.
And this one looks like they have some pretty major patents (*).
For example, trying a different network automatically if the first one isn't available? That's core to flipping between cell and WiFi.
And having a background app watching for incoming phone calls, that alerts the user without terminating the current app right away? How did they get that one?
(*) I haven't looked deeply at them yet.
I've looked at these in quite a bit of depth, and would love to comment, but I can't.
I've looked at these in quite a bit of depth, and would love to comment, but I can't.
Can you at least say which side you're on?
Can you at least say which side you're on?
None, yet. But if I end up on it I would end up on the defense.
I'm a better engineer
Yea, but thats hard to type up in clear rational points like your legalese posts that I look forward to reading. I dont think I could understand your engineering posts!
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)
Do you not realise that the 2 for 1 offers are done by the mobile operators with the idea of recouping costs in a 2nd line subscription? They don't just give them away without being able to recoup their costs.
Android seems to be doing fine (in the U.S) at least too.
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/10/comscore-android-gains-on-the-iphone/
RIM seem to be doing well too (or is that also down to those evil BOGOF offers too)
inkswamp said:
Do you not realise that the 2 for 1 offers are done by the mobile operators with the idea of recouping costs in a 2nd line subscription? They don't just give them away without being able to recoup their costs.
Android seems to be doing fine (in the U.S) at least too.
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/10/comscore-android-gains-on-the-iphone/
RIM seem to be doing well too (or is that also down to those evil BOGOF offers too)
That is not how Apple describes the events in its complaint. Apple tells that Nokia offered licensing terms based on monetary compensation not zero times, not once, but twice: on the offset of the negotiations, and before taking the case in to courts. In between Nokia offered two models of licensing deals with some of the monetary competition replaced with cross licensing. This is common practice in the business rather than Nokia wanting specifically Apple technology.
The recent events have made me to see the Nokia/Apple case in different light as well, it's increasingly evident that it is precisely Apple who wants to take the cases with it's main competitors to courts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming them for doing so: that's just one way of negotiating and Apple has the right to negotiate hard if they so wish.
However "Nokia not being fully innocent" seems quite Apple fanboyish statement, I don't think that in the courts Nokia would able to gain licensing fees beyond what's generally considered fair in the business, much less one with cross licensing. Much less will they be able to gain favorable judgment if the court decides that they indeed tried to extort unfair terms at some point during the negotiations.
I still think Apple is trying to use patent lawsuits to essentially kill any potential competition in the touchscreen "smart" cellphone space. This is a TERRIBLE idea, and one company historically got into legal hot water over this type of action: the famous US v. United Shoe Machinery Company cases.
I've looked at these in quite a bit of depth, and would love to comment, but I can't.
I looked a little closer at those patents and got a BIG surprise... which I'm sure you already know about...
Almost all the patents were originally assigned to PalmSource, which was spun off by Palm years ago and was later acquired by Access (the company that did the mobile web browser Netfront, among many other things).
So it looks like they're Palm and Bellcore patents... good ones too... that were bought up and are now being used by a newly created Texas patent troll company.
Am I on the right track?
So how exactly did that commercialization thing work out, by the way? Did Sun actually put their money where their mouth is and start selling Looking Glass after JS's little cockpunch to SJ? Or is Schwartz just trying to pretend that he has a big peepee and get a few more hits on his blog?
Many Americans, maybe. It's like saying that Canada is a Mexican country because one of the languages is French. You'd have to be either utterly ignorant or the happy side of a double handful of bud washed down with a quart of shroom tea.
They aren't trying to kill competition, they are trying to end competition using their patented technology. Why does apple have to build the future of cellphones while the rest get to take what they like best? It's not exactly hard to come up with your own ways of implementing features so they don't infringe.