No, it isn't, Android can't do that without hacks.
Even the newest and greatest Pixel C can't.
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 Says U.S. Supreme Court Should Reject Samsung's Appeal Request
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, it isn't, Android can't do that without hacks.
Even the newest and greatest Pixel C can't.
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.
Motorola phones run stock Android and have similar features as TW. Sony phones run stock Android and has similar features as TW.
Pixel C is a tablet running Android. Not quite a phone like we were discussing.
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 websites
Google next will shutdown amateur websites and later internet freedom like PirateBay websites..wait?
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:
Last edited:
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.
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.
All Android OEMs can if they choose to skin or overlay Android. It is not a hack. It is software running alongside Android that add features. Yes...they all do it differently....so? That is a good thing....it's called choice. You don't like the way one OEM does it then choose another. That doesn't make it a hack.
Jailbreaking IOS is a hack because you have to use an exploit to bypass native security which compromises the device.
Adding a skin to Android does not bypass native security. In fact applications like Knox in TW actually enhances security.
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!
[doublepost=1454750088][/doublepost]
No, that's called fragmentation.
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 it is not by passing security or a hack. It is done using the manufacturer's own tools and website.
From everything you have posted it is very clear. You hate Android. You want to post hateful negative things about it. You have no idea what you are talking about.
[doublepost=1454765528][/doublepost]
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
Wow. Chuckle. Snicker.
Guess that's why we had to jb to get any kind of even semi useful mt until lately.Want to start the whole "iOS multitasking flat out sucks and has just started to grow a bit" discussion? 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.
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 all the supporters of Samsung's appeal.
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.
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 all the supporters of Samsung's appeal.
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.
Last edited:
Thanks for redirecting back to the topic.
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.
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.
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?
It's hopeless talking to a Apple fanboy like you. You post flat out misinformation. You don't even follow your own posts and people's responses to them.
Are you saying they shouldn't be paid? If so, why? My point was that the lawyers were asked to perform a service. The lawyers did not start this or ask for it to continue; Apple and Samsung did.
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
Still, a lot of legal types hope otherwise. The Supreme Court could rule on its legality or applicability or requirements:
- As you noted, decide it was unconstitutional, as it allows excessively high awards.
- Rule that there's no way that the design of say, the iTunes icon, was the entire reason someone buys a device.
- Agree that if a design patent is functional enough to prevent trade dress, then it's functional on its own as well, and thus is invalid.
- Decide that if used without common sense, the law can cause monopolies due to small design patents.
- Come up with multiple legal prongs that have to be satisfied first, same as has been done for utility patents.
Last edited:
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:
- 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)
- 37 IP law professors from Universities like Stanford, including previous Apple witnesses
Last edited:
I'm not sure what your point is... There should be no protection at all for innovative ideas?
Much of the country is not siding with Apple, and you know this how? Anyone who believes Samsung didn't copy Apple is being willfully ignorant.
I guess we agree on one thing; the law is outdated. Even a 5 year old can tell that Samsung copied Apple. If they didn't, please show me one Samsung phone that looked and operated anything like the iPhone before the iPhone. There's competition, and then there's blatant copying. Samsung did the latter.
There needs to be some. Take this "everyday" example: Walk into your local pharmacy (CVS, Walgreens, Walmart), walk to the OTC drug aisle and look at allergy meds, pain meds, other meds. The generic store brands looks very similar to the original OTC brands. So if I launch a new version of Tylenol, a generic look alike will be on the shelves within weeks. As a consumer I know by name the original vs. the generic. You can apply this to TV's, DVR players, computers, printers, etc...
If there is an exact copy of some portion the original developer / owner finds offensive (example: the number and alignment of mascara brush bristles), they sue. Not for hundreds of millions either. If found guilty, the offensive item is changed and commerce / development continues. This Apple / Samsung mess (and I mean that term) is monetarily out of control. The devices are not even the same. They have the same general appearance, but...
This needs to be heard if nothing other than to set realistic limits and boundaries.