lol....which runs on Android. Split screen is an Android thing. Only recently did Apple copy that feature.
No, it isn't, Android can't do that without hacks.
Even the newest and greatest Pixel C can't.
lol....which runs on Android. Split screen is an Android thing. Only recently did Apple copy that feature.
So what can't Android do exactly? Android is open source.No, it isn't, Android can't do that without hacks.
Even the newest and greatest Pixel C can't.
Exactly, Google doesn't care about innovation, that's why slowly implements those features, the only reason why Google is the most valuable company is because of YouTube, yahoo mail is still great, and i continue using more Bing, it's a lot faster and it doesn't go after revenge websitesThis is actually crazy! Windows and iOS both have split screen multitasking, but stock Android doesn't.
What's weird, too, is sometimes things are added to Google's Android after Samsung has introduced them (even if it's so close that both companies must have been working on features at the same time).
Examples being:
S-voice (on the Galaxy S3, May 2012) followed by Google Now (Android 4.1, June 2012)
Supporting Fingerprint Scanning (on the Galaxy S5, April 2014) followed by Android 6.0 (October 2015)
Samsung Pay (Galaxy S6, March 2015) followed by Android Pay (May 2015)
64-bit chip (Galaxy Note 4, September 2014) followed by native 64-bit Android Lollipop (November 2014/Announced June 2014)
So what can't Android do exactly? Android is open source.
OEM's can add all the features they want.
They do this by skinning or theming Android to add features that stock Android does not have.
Samsung does this and calls it TouchWiz. Other OEMS call the skin\overlay different names.
So it's not a hack. It is to add features.
Pixel C is a tablet running Android. Not quite a phone like we were discussing.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Android is open source.....Most Android devices bootloader can be unlocked and you have FULL access to the kernel to change whatever you want to in the OS.That's only an half-truth. There are a lot of binary blobs loaded on the kernel, Google Apps, pretty much essential, are closed-source, and most OEM's, including TouchWizz's Multiwindow functionality is also closed-source.
So, Android is NOT open source, Android Open Source Project is open source!
To their particular devices, not to Android.
One device doesn't change all.
It's an hack, because Samsung does one way, LG does another way, Sony does in yet another way, and when Google will do, will do in another way!
No Nexus or the Pixel C have multiwindow functionality!
Heck, even a simple feature, like Reachability, so usefull on "big"-screen devices (Apple, Samsung, LG, etc. agree on that!), isn't present on Android! And, for example, Nexus devices don't come with that.
Android is a very poor OS. Only gets okay with forks (and not "skins") from OEM's or CyanogenMod. The problem with these forks is that they are only used by a small subset, and that shows when Programmers are involved, so it's more an Hack.
Hacks were possible on iOS for a long time, too:
First I have ever heard that split screen is required for multitasking. Split display/window is something else.
btw: iOS multitasking is still very poor. On the other hand, it works really well on Android where I can share just about any data between apps running at the same time. On iOS, that is minimally implemented.
the simultaneous execution of more than one program or task by a single computer processor.
That is a good thing....it's called choice
Jailbreaking IOS is a hack because you have to use an exploit to bypass native security which compromises the device.
No it is not by passing security or a hack. It is done using the manufacturer's own tools and website.Unlocking the bootloader is also an hack, you have to use an exploit to bypass firmware security.
Thing is firmware security is a joke on most androids.
No, that's called fragmentation.
Ah! And iOS multitasking is poor because of what?
You really don't have a clue, do you? iOS inherits UNIX multitasking from OS X since day one!
Sigh. Another thread derailed. The case is not about TouchWiz or split-screens. It's about limiting design patent awards.
Latecomers who want more info should refer to my post #93, or to this more in-depth link at Foss Patents, or this link at Foss about its supporters.
The questions being asked of the Supreme Court have enormous ramifications for the technology industry.
Moreover, if the century old law allowing a jury to make a manufacturer give up all its profits because of a few design patents (out of tens of thousands of patents used in a modern smartphone) is allowed to stand without adding common sense apportionment, then Apple could easily end up in the crosshairs themselves.
Most of iOS split screen is PIP writ iOS style. If you do, let's take it to another thread or jump on one of the old ones on this topic.
You want to post hateful negative things about it. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Have you looked at the iphone offerings from Apple's website?
All companies have product fragmentation in an effort to offer more choice to consumers.
Apple sells iPhone 5s, iphone 6, iphone 6+, iphone 6s, iphone 6s+ and soon the iphone 5se
This has been going on for years. How many billable hours do you think the lawyers on both sides have racked up by now?
Lots, but at the behest of the clients (Samsung and Apple). The point is, there is much more incentive here for the clients to keep going than for the lawyers (as opposed to the argument against class actions where the plaintiffs' lawyers agree to be compensated at a percentage of the total award and the numerous plaintiffs split the rest--which can suggest a greater incentive for the plaintiffs' lawyers to encourage the litigation and which is a different discussion altogether). Even if Apple's legal fees are $200 million+ to date (which I seriously doubt they are even 10% of that), Apple still nets $400 million, which is more than the lawyers. Hence my question: how are the lawyers the real winners?
you really have clue huh? It was in response you post about fragmentation. Do you get it now?Do you think what you wrote makes any sense?
[doublepost=1454777551][/doublepost]
Yes, I have the full idea. I don't fall on Android fanboys BS…
And what's the problem in that? They all run iOS 9.
Lawyers will still get paid no matter what.
Do you think what you wrote makes any sense?
[doublepost=1454777551][/doublepost]...
Samsung's sales really skyrocketed after the lawsuit started in 2012 and all accused features were removed. Although they did so to avoid further potential infringement, I would say differentiating their smartphone from Apple products benefitted Samsung greatly.
I appreciate your analysis, but on the issue of the 1880s law, it's not SCOTUS's job it re-write it. SCOTUS can, ultimately, only apply the law as written (unless there is some argument that it is somehow unconstitutional). If SCOTUS ignores the law as written, that is so-called judicial activism. The Circuit Court was correct on this issue: it is Congress' job to change the law if it is outdated. That's how the separation of powers is set up in the Constitution. Samsung, Facebook et al. should be lobbying Congress for the change they seek.
Actually, Samsung's sales took off around Q2 of 2010.
If you're trying to attribute Samsung's mobile ascendancy to differentiation (larger screens?), I can also point to one data point, such as Android's maturation or the quick fall of Nokia and RIMM or the fact that Samsung outspent Apple 6 to 1 in marketing.
By ignoring the big picture, you're also doing disservice to all the other facts, such as Samsung's ppt which outlined hundreds of details that they believed made iPhone superior; most of which made it into their phones.
The simple truth is, Samsung did in fact slavishly copy Apple and benefit enormously by it. Just because the law can't recognize and protect Apple for every minor detail that was copied, doesn't change that fact.
The below site does a good job of highlighting the obvious....
http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan
By ignoring the big picture, you're also doing disservice to all the other facts, such as Samsung's ppt which outlined hundreds of details that they believed made iPhone superior; most of which made it into their phones.
The below site does a good job of highlighting the obvious....
http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan
Remembering how radically different the iPhone seemed when it first appeared, and then how radically look-alike Samsung's versions were soon afterwards, you'd have to be a real Hater not to side with Apple on this one.
and? Sincerest form of flattery. First to market generally doesn't mean much. If you are successful, you will be copied.
FALSE. I spent one Saturday morning checking the list for fun. Out of 126 suggestions for improvement, only a dozen were directly "copied" from the iPhone design, and those included things like making a bigger Hangup button and showing the type of a Bluetooth connection. Hardly earth-shattering or unique designs.
Any site that includes junk like that debunked picture with wall icons that belong to the (non-Samsung) store, is not doing a good job.
First off, it wasn't that radically different from designs Samsung (and others) already had in R&D, or had shown as prototypes. That's why Apple's lawyers worked to make sure that such prior art was never shown to the California jury. (Overseas, where such evidence was not hidden from courts, Apple lost every time.)
As for the remark about having to be a "real Hater", well that must be much of the country, as not only is the technical industry not siding with Apple, but neither are mechanical firms, small business organizations, and many law experts (Hypocritically, neither does Apple itself when it's been asked for awards it thought were too high.)
Some of the organizations who filed briefs siding with the request for a Supreme Court hearing include:
and
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
- Computer & Communications Industry Association
- Dell, eBay, Google, Facebook, HP, Newegg, Pegasystems, Vizio
- Systems Inc (makes mechanical systems)
- National Black Chamber of Commerce (small businesses)
- Hispanic Leadership Fund
- National Grange of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry (farmers)
The supporters are NOT anti-Apple. They're worried about how an antiquated law meant for simple products, should be applied in today's highly integrated devices.
- 37 IP law professors from Universities like Stanford, including previous Apple witnesses
I'm not sure what your point is... There should be no protection at all for innovative ideas?
...