Apple Suing Motorola Over Design of Xoom Tablet

[rjohnstone]

HTC from what I have read was pretty good about honoring warrenty on unlock phones depending. But I believe you could not relock those bootloaders as it had a physical fuse change happen to boot loader and if that was changed well it showed it was unlocked not matter what firmware you were running.
But like you said they were pretty good about honoring things no matter what you did firmware wise you could never break. Like you could never kill the power button.

Moto uses efuse on many of their phones. Once you unlock it, it's unlocked forever and the efuse is permanently blown. (unless of course you got your hands on the SBK file, but that will take an act of god to get).
The Xoom on the other hand could be restored to factory and then relocked.

 

[divinox]

I totally agree with you. MSFT's partnership with Nokia was an excellent move for both companies and it could very well be highly successful. Especially on a global scale where both companies indeed have an excellent brand recognition. And lets be honest. Both companies are immensely successful because they have been offering great products irrespective of their inherent limitations. After all which product or service does not have its own drawbacks.

Having successful companies cooperating and competing with each other is good for everybody. I believe as consumers we should always be against measures that aim to stifle competition and innovation. Even companies that blatantly copy offer a service because they make new features and innovations, even in a distorted form, accessible to millions of people that would otherwise be completely unaware of them of simply inaccessible due to financial constraints.

I surely expect windows to take a significant share of the mobile market (30-40% easily, id like to say >60%****, but that would bring out to many fanboys on both sides). Even if they fail with wp7 (which i doubt), W8 is around the corner with pad-to-desktop integration, and one does not need to think very hard to see that this convergence will soon include the "windows phone 8".

MSFT has tons at stake here. MSFT has tons of money. MSFT has stamina. They succeeded with Xbox, and i am sure they will succeed with windows phone. They can not afford not to.

Does this mean the end of Apple? Surely not. It just means that Apple has to stay with its coring-strategy, and prioritize gaining dominance over one segment rather than fighting for (pointless) market shares. This is good for Apple (period), and good for the Applefreaks that like the iExperience. Things going right i guess Apple can see a 10-15% share overall in 2015 (pads, (smart)phones, laptops, desktops etc.). And before some Apple-nut gets all wild, this would be HUGE. (Yes, you read it right - huge).

Nokia-stocks sure look juicy atm. Guess ill buy a few once the worst of this economic crisis blows over. Worst case scenario MSFT (or someone else) buys their ip. That alone would almost cover the investment given the current stock price.

Disclaimer: I do not own Nokia stock. I do not want you to buy Nokia stock. (I want stock price to stay down!)

**** This is not counting china-end devices or the likes. Android (and Android-like) OSs will dominate that for years to come.

 

[Meandmunch]

There does come a point where were beginning to split hairs right? Landscape format, LCD screen, touch interface, all racing to be as thin as possible, nothing looks as good or sensible as black bezel... This should be a battle about software (which it actually shouldnt be) but these form factors look this way because thats the way they logically should look.

 

[Melab]

Moto uses efuse on many of their phones. Once you unlock it, it's unlocked forever and the efuse is permanently blown. (unless of course you got your hands on the SBK file, but that will take an act of god to get).
The Xoom on the other hand could be restored to factory and then relocked.

None of the devices with eFuses in them have been unlocked as far as I know.

 

[divinox]

Gee damn. Reading that page, and seeing what PARC has made...



...basically shows them as the true inventors of the modern computer. Apple and MS both rode their coattails. Shame Xerox was too damn stupid to capitalize on all the neat stuff they made.

Researchers at parc are legends, some living some dead. Read up on Weiser e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weiser

Once you read up on the history, and how real innovation looks all these law-suits come across as exactly as silly as they actually are. Heck, i should just browse through my books covering parc and patent every damn thing. Trolling for life.

(As for Xerox, they invented tons of other stuff too, read up on that story as well.)

 

[rjohnstone]

None of the devices with eFuses in them have been unlocked as far as I know.

The Atrix is unlocked.

The new AP20 boot loader that came with the recent 2.3.4 update (5.4.91) however does not allow downgrading via RSD.
You will brick the phone if you do it.

Thankfully you can simply fastboot flash any system image you want as long as you don't touch the boot loader.

 

[Melab]

The Atrix is unlocked.

The new AP20 boot loader that came with the recent 2.3.4 update (5.4.91) however does not allow downgrading via RSD.
You will brick the phone if you do it.

Thankfully you can simply fastboot flash any system image you want as long as you don't touch the boot loader.

Atrix doesn't use eFuses. And eFuses really don't make a device any harder to hack.

 

[Glideslope]

You're playing a role, don't you?

Manage Risk not Innovation, and I don't Play.

 

[inkswamp]

You're nit picking inconsequential details...and missing the main point. You don't get it, do you? Apple/SJ like the dictator, is desperately trying to maintain a house of cards which it must control absolutely. As has been pointed out here more eloquently than I they lack a long-term stable, growth-oriented, competitive business model. They are right smack dab where they were in the late 1980's; a technologically advanced platform heavily reliant on proprietary hardware and interfaces thumbing its nose at industry standards dictating how users and suppliers will interact. They must learn to compete in the main stream and not on their own track or they will be eclipsed once more.

I own three minis, have owned five MacBooks, a MacPro, two iPhones and an iPad because they are the most useful right now. However, because someone (?) at Apple has dictated it as a photographer I have to take a MacBook Air with me on travel because the iPad does not have a functional keyboard, visible file structure and interact with external mass storage..and has a proprietary hardware interface as well. I'm not up on the details but I suspect a number of the new tablets have these functions already.

This technical arrogance has sunk them once and it appears they haven't learned.

Rich

It's not nitpicking details when the original post completely misses the point of the 1984 ad. The 1984 ad wasn't about corporations controlling all of us. It was about the attitude that computers were meant for businesses and masses of corporate drones, not the individual, which was an attitude primarily pushed by IBM at the time. Apple's viewpoint was that the real focus should be on home users and the individual.

You can argue that Apple has become an evil, controlling corporation (although I disagree) but that's not germane to the point I'm making. Apple has followed through on the promise of that 1984 ad and continues to be the most successful tech company catering to home users. They faltered in the 90s, but the last 10 years has seen them get back on track and kick ass.

And saying technical arrogance sunk them is preposterous. They're still around. And the Mac is better than ever. They weren't sunk. And furthermore, their problems came less from arrogance and more from business naiveté. Last time around, they didn't protect their ideas from competitors and were copied and left in a position where they couldn't fight back. This time they have protected their ideas and are fighting back.

 

[rjohnstone]

Atrix doesn't use eFuses. And eFuses really don't make a device any harder to hack.

It most certainly does.
sys/firmware/fuse/ReservedOdm
100000000000100010003000040000 = 3 blown AP20 bootloader efuse
Default is 0
1 = unlocked with old bootloader
3 = unlocked with new AP20 bootloader

efuses have nothing to do with hacking.

The Atrix had a signed bootloader and Fastboot OEM was disabled.
That all changed with 2.3.3 for the Hong Kong and Taiwan (HKTW) Atrix.
It just happened that the HKTW build was able to unlock other versions of the Atrix as well.

 

[Melab]

It most certainly does.
sys/firmware/fuse/ReservedOdm
100000000000100010003000040000 = 3 blown AP20 bootloader efuse
Default is 0
1 = unlocked with old bootloader
3 = unlocked with new AP20 bootloader

efuses have nothing to do with hacking.

The Atrix had a signed bootloader and Fastboot OEM was disabled.
That all changed with 2.3.3 for the Hong Kong and Taiwan (HKTW) Atrix.
It just happened that the HKTW build was able to unlock other versions of the Atrix as well.

I mean the boot ROM is configured with eFuses. But, if I understand what you're saying, the new bootloader disables the hardware-based signature checks.

 

[wikus]

You're nit picking inconsequential details...and missing the main point. You don't get it, do you? Apple/SJ like the dictator, is desperately trying to maintain a house of cards which it must control absolutely. As has been pointed out here more eloquently than I they lack a long-term stable, growth-oriented, competitive business model. They are right smack dab where they were in the late 1980's; a technologically advanced platform heavily reliant on proprietary hardware and interfaces thumbing its nose at industry standards dictating how users and suppliers will interact. They must learn to compete in the main stream and not on their own track or they will be eclipsed once more.

I own three minis, have owned five MacBooks, a MacPro, two iPhones and an iPad because they are the most useful right now. However, because someone (?) at Apple has dictated it as a photographer I have to take a MacBook Air with me on travel because the iPad does not have a functional keyboard, visible file structure and interact with external mass storage..and has a proprietary hardware interface as well. I'm not up on the details but I suspect a number of the new tablets have these functions already.

This technical arrogance has sunk them once and it appears they haven't learned.

Rich

 

[Melab]

Image

I think it was a combination of poor business and arrogance.

Keeping their technology to themselves works until another option comes along that is more flexible.

 

[gnasher729]

I can't blame Samsung for taking some design cues from the iPad. The similarities between the iPad and the Tab are not worthy of being exclusive rights. Samsung sees that people like simplicity in the product and made their tablet simplistic.

You mean "Samsung saw that people liked the iPad design and copied it".

 

[rjohnstone]

I mean the boot ROM is configured with eFuses. But, if I understand what you're saying, the new bootloader disables the hardware-based signature checks.

Sort of...
The old bootloader had the signature checks disabled as well with the software patch from the HKTW build.
This patch did not blow the fuse that prevents downgrading to 2.2.x builds. It was deemed safer for newbs.
You could run 2.3.4 with the old bootloader, but the long term effects of this are still unknown.

The new AP20 bootloader prevents downgrading the firmware where as the old one didn't.
The AP20 bootloader is a one-way ticket.

 

[Melab]

You mean "Samsung saw that people liked the iPad design and copied it".

People like simplicity of iPad -> People buy iPad -> Samsung makes Tab simple -> Tab is a basic design that anyone could come up with

The parts that Apple claims Samsung copied are not worthy of being exclusive rights. I see I should have been clearer.

Sort of...
The old bootloader had the signature checks disabled as well with the software patch from the HKTW build.
This patch did not blow the fuse that prevents downgrading to 2.2.x builds. It was deemed safer for newbs.
You could run 2.3.4 with the old bootloader, but the long term effects of this are still unknown.

The new AP20 bootloader prevents downgrading the firmware where as the old one didn't.
The AP20 bootloader is a one-way ticket.

How can it not be downgraded if it allows for unsigned kernels? The old bootloader was patched without failing a signature check by the hardware?

 

[Sedrick]

So, nobody else is allowed to make a tablet now? Kriste. It's not enough to let Xoom fail on it's own, Apple has to drink it's blood too?

I'm really starting to not like Apple co.

 

[gnasher729]

People like simplicity of iPad -> People buy iPad -> Samsung makes Tab simple -> Tab is a basic design that anyone could come up with

The parts that Apple claims Samsung copied are not worthy of being exclusive rights. I see I should have been clearer.

Reading the court decision, some things that the decision was based on (rough translation by me):

"The defendant copied the distinctive design features of the iPad. For the viewer it is therefore an almost identical product. This is especially true when we take into consideration that the target audience will not see both products at the same time and will not compare them directly, but will rely on memorized impression. With this background, identical features are more important than deviations. "

"In relation to the iPad and iPad2 the consumer will especially remember the minimalistic design and the clear form, for which products of the plaintiff are well known, and which have been extremly successful since their launch. This form is completely copied by the defendant. Since the defendant took all the relevant design elements of the iPad 2, at least an indirect danger of confusion is unavoidable. "

Several people in this thread made comments along the lines of "there are only so many ways how you could design a tablet". Truth is, there are only so many ways how you could design a tablet that looks like an iPad. If you remove "must look like an iPad" from your design goals, there is suddenly an enormous range of possibilities. All these design possibilities have two things in common: 1. Apple can't sue you. 2. They don't look like an iPad. As an example, the back of the Samsung tablet makes an impression that is identical to that of the iPad (it is different viewed side by side, but as the court said, that is not what matters, it is the overall impression). For a possible design that is just totally different and would make it impossible for Apple to sue, see this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXXji5-vew4

 

[inkswamp]

More like...

 

[chrono1081]

I can agree about the J-Tech one, it does look really close to an iPad, but the Motorola Xoom one I don't think should have any merit. It doesn't feature any similarities other than a black bezel.

 

[TMay]

Related: HTC making surprise announcement tomorrow

Rumor of possible deal with Apple.

That in itself would change the dynamics of Android as HTC has notably been the most profitable of the Android OEM's.

 

[divinox]

Reading the court decision, some things that the decision was based on (rough translation by me):

"The defendant copied the distinctive design features of the iPad. For the viewer it is therefore an almost identical product. This is especially true when we take into consideration that the target audience will not see both products at the same time and will not compare them directly, but will rely on memorized impression. With this background, identical features are more important than deviations. "

"In relation to the iPad and iPad2 the consumer will especially remember the minimalistic design and the clear form, for which products of the plaintiff are well known, and which have been extremly successful since their launch. This form is completely copied by the defendant. Since the defendant took all the relevant design elements of the iPad 2, at least an indirect danger of confusion is unavoidable. "

Several people in this thread made comments along the lines of "there are only so many ways how you could design a tablet". Truth is, there are only so many ways how you could design a tablet that looks like an iPad. If you remove "must look like an iPad" from your design goals, there is suddenly an enormous range of possibilities. All these design possibilities have two things in common: 1. Apple can't sue you. 2. They don't look like an iPad. As an example, the back of the Samsung tablet makes an impression that is identical to that of the iPad (it is different viewed side by side, but as the court said, that is not what matters, it is the overall impression). For a possible design that is just totally different and would make it impossible for Apple to sue, see this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXXji5-vew4

I dare you to come up with three. My only requirement is that your design makes sense at the most basic of all levels.

Go!

p.s. This will be thrown out, and rightfully so. had they filed in e.g. Sweden the judges would've just laughed. This law suit is as retarded as pants corp. slamming jeans'r'us for selling pants with two legs, some pockets and a zipper up-front. Really.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I think Steve invented the alphabet too. Next thing you know he'll be suing all the schools for teaching kids to read and write.

 

[rjohnstone]

How can it not be downgraded if it allows for unsigned kernels? The old bootloader was patched without failing a signature check by the hardware?

Kernels and bootloaders are two different things. You can swap kernels all day long once you unlock the bootloader (old or new), you just cannot downgrade using RSD any more with the new bootloader.

You must now use fastboot and flash system images (custom ROMs) if you wish to downgrade your OS. A little more complicated than RSD.

No more factory restore option to lower versions with the new bootloader as they flash an incompatible boot image. This instantly bricks the phone.

The hardware checks are still there, the lock is just permanently bypassed via the unlock package that was signed.

 

[farmboy]

Image

Copy? There are only so many ways you can design a tablet.

BS. Why not a big honkin' tablet like the old MS pen-based tablet? Why not a swing out keyboard like HP had? Why not a 12"? Why not a pico projector? Why not a big plastic or metal frame around the glass. Why not a silver bezel or frame, a screen cover, square corners, long and skinny, two or more hinged pieces, viewable from both sides, a mousing device, optical drive, drop-in battery, etc? There are thousands of options.

Apple comes out with a big iPhone (remember the derision--you should, you were there).

Then, miracle of miracles, they all chose to make a touch screen device by bonding a piece of glass to a radiused-corner one-piece shell, of approximately the same dimensions and thickness, with a large black bezel of approximately the same size. All independently developed simultaneously.