Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Wins Access to Information on Android Development History and Motorola Acquisition Talks

I really get lost sometimes.

People say Android is fugly piece of crap and then the same people say Android is a knockoff of iOS.

Are they insunuating that iOS is fugly piece of crap?

I personally love switching between the two of them because they each provide a different smartphone experience. :D
 
unlinked said:
Be somewhat more specific in your claims. Google couldn't stop Amazon making the Kindle Fire or stop random Chinese companies making incredibly cheap and presumably crap Android tablets. What makes you think random hardware manufactures can not make Android products? Preferably post a link to something that backs you up.
Click to expand...

How's this for specific?

We define an "Android compatible" device as one that can run any application written by third-party developers using the Android SDK and NDK. We use this as a filter to separate devices that can participate in the Android app ecosystem, and those that cannot. Devices that are properly compatible can seek approval to use the Android trademark. Devices that are not compatible are merely derived from the Android source code and may not use the Android trademark.
Click to expand...

http://source.android.com/faqs.html#compatibility
 
IJ Reilly said:
How's this for specific?



http://source.android.com/faqs.html#compatibility
Click to expand...

Read it before using it as an argument...

Is compatibility mandatory?
No. The Android Compatibility Program is optional. Since the Android source code is open, anyone can use it to build any kind of device. However, if a manufacturer wishes to use the Android name with their product, or wants access to Android Market, they must first demonstrate that the device is compatible.
Click to expand...
 
aerok said:
Read it before using it as an argument...
Click to expand...

Reading is what you need to do. It says a manufacturer cannot use the Android trademark without permission from Google and you don't get their permission without meeting their compatibility requirements. Since this is what I said in the first place, the statement from Google backs it up 100%. Any other implications are yours alone. I'm not going to defend arguments I haven't made. Sorry.

In fact the example of the Kindle Fire proves the point. There's no evidence that Amazon has a license from Google to use Android and it's highly unlikely that Google would give them one. Consequently Amazon is not using either the Android trademark or the Android Marketplace. This was a subject of much discussion when the Fire was released. Google can't be very happy with this outcome.

Manufacturers without the heft of Amazon (meaning, pretty much everybody else) aren't going to have the option of going their own way. Either they release uncertified junk or they submit to Google's licensing requirements for Android. This is why I said the open source component of Android is essentially theoretical. Manufacturer's options are far more limited then they might appear.

----------
Rodimus Prime said:
Translation. The Android name is trademarked and not open source.
Does nothing to change the fact that the Android OS is open source.
Click to expand...

Right. But it does change the effective meaning of open source.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Reading is what you need to do. It says a manufacturer cannot use the Android trademark without permission from Google and you don't get their permission without meeting their compatibility requirements. Since this is what I said in the first place, the statement from Google backs it up 100%. Any other implications are yours alone. I'm not going to defend arguments I haven't made. Sorry.

In fact the example of the Kindle Fire is proves the point. There's no evidence that Amazon has a license from Google to use Android and it's highly unlikely that Google would give them one. Consequently Amazon is not using either the Android trademark or the Android Marketplace. This was a subject of much discussion when the Fire was released. Google can't be very happy with this outcome.

Manufacturers without the heft of Amazon (meaning, pretty much everybody else) aren't going to have the option of going their own way. Either they release uncertified junk or they submit to Google's licensing requirements for Android. This is why I said the open source component of Android is essentially theoretical. Manufacturer's options are far more limited then they might appear.
Click to expand...

It does not change the fact that Android is free and anyone can use it. Manufacturers are not limited at all, you are allowed to make an Android powered toilet if you want to. You just won't be able to have the Android market or call it the Android Toilet bowl
 
aerok said:
Thank you for the pictures...

But once again, where is the knockoff?
Click to expand...

In 2007, Android's user interface was not anywhere near Apple's user interface. Android was busy trying to copy and take a market share away from Blackberry; because BB was the top dog at that time for phones. When the iPhone came out in 2007, it totally revolutionized the phone industry and made every phone maker, whether is was hardware or software, rethink the way phones were used. Apple could have wiped out almost every smartphone in the country, but it was restricted AT&T. So, Android took advantage of that and released a hurried, crappy user interface to get a piece of Apple's success. I remember calling Verizon about getting the iPhone and they all were instructed to say, "We have an Android phone that is just like the iPhone. It has all the same functions like making your screen larger and adding apps that you can download from the android market...etc.".

Even Google, at one point, said they wanted to follow in Apple's footsteps. They wanted to release their version of whatever Apple releases...and that's why Google TV exists.

So, yep. They are a knockoff company. The only thing they really innovated was web searching. Other than that, I haven't seen anything original come from that company.
 
aerok said:
It does not change the fact that Android is free and anyone can use it. Manufacturers are not limited at all, you are allowed to make an Android powered toilet if you want to. You just won't be able to have the Android market or call it the Android Toilet bowl
Click to expand...

They are limited in precisely the way I described. If you believe in general that Android devices without access to the trademark or the Marketplace are likely to be commercially successful, then you are welcome to that belief. I don't happen to share it. Amazon has already demonstrated what kind of infrastructure needs to be in place to take advantage of Android's open source license outside of Google's licensing oversight. Perhaps you can think of another company with the resources to pull this off. At the moment, I can't.
 
iMaven said:
In 2007, Android's user interface was not anywhere near Apple's user interface. Android was busy trying to copy and take a market share away from Blackberry; because BB was the top dog at that time for phones. When the iPhone came out in 2007, it totally revolutionized the phone industry and made every phone maker, whether is was hardware or software, rethink the way phones were used. Apple could have wiped out almost every smartphone in the country, but it was restricted AT&T. So, Android took advantage of that and released a hurried, crappy user interface to get a piece of Apple's success. I remember calling Verizon about getting the iPhone and they all were instructed to say, "We have an Android phone that is just like the iPhone. It has all the same functions like making your screen larger and adding apps that you can download from the android market...etc.".

Even Google, at one point, said they wanted to follow in Apple's footsteps. They wanted to release their version of whatever Apple releases...and that's why Google TV exists.

So, yep. They are a knockoff company. The only thing they really innovated was web searching. Other than that, I haven't seen anything original come from that company.
Click to expand...

The whole story of how it looked was debunked many times, not going to waste my time on it again.

Only search? So clueless...

----------
IJ Reilly said:
They are limited in precisely the way I described. If you believe in general that Android devices without access to the trademark or the Marketplace are likely to be commercially successful, then you are welcome to that belief. I don't happen to share it. Amazon has already demonstrated what kind of infrastructure needs to be in place to take advantage of Android's open source license outside of Google's licensing oversight. Perhaps you can think of another company with the resources to pull this off. At the moment, I can't.
Click to expand...

Amazon did it... No other big company tried.

I could imagine a car using Android without the trademark... or even a brand name toilet.
 
^^ Nope, I'm not clueless...I'm well aware of what Google has done, and it started with web searching, and funny how you can say the whole story was debunked many times and you didn't even see it in person.

I get it though, you are a fan of Android and that's fine by me, but dozens of people I know who were hardcore Android fans have traded in their Android for iPhones and iPads and haven't regretted it yet. Also, since you think Android is not a knockoff and a great OS, why are you trading it in for an iPhone 5? And why get an iPad 3 when you have a BB Playbook? (Welcome to the Walled Garden that so many people are against)
 
Last edited:
iMaven said:
iOS = Original
Android = Knockoff
Click to expand...

So Apple is 100% original huh?

It took the iPhone until iOS5 to have a Notification Center, while Android devices had it since 1.5/6 (since day one basically)

Every tech company copies one another, no one is 100% "original"
 
iMaven said:
^^ Nope, I'm not clueless...I'm well aware of what Google has done, and it started with web searching, and funny how you can say the whole story was debunked many times and you didn't even see it in person.

I get it though, you are a fan of Android and that's fine by me, but dozens of people I know who were hardcore Android fans have traded in their Android for iPhones and iPads and haven't regretted it yet. Also, since you think Android is not a knockoff and a great OS, why are you trading it in for an iPhone 5? And why get an iPad 3 when you have a BB Playbook? (Welcome to the Walled Garden that so many people are against)
Click to expand...

Dude, I'm a gadget fan boy. Not once have I critisized the iPhone. I also happened to change tablet each year. I'm just not a blind fanboy like you are. I actually enjoy using all kinds of product, we do exist.

You seem to believe you're either an Apple or Android fanboy, that is a very silly assumption.
 
IJ Reilly said:
They are limited in precisely the way I described. If you believe in general that Android devices without access to the trademark or the Marketplace are likely to be commercially successful, then you are welcome to that belief. I don't happen to share it. Amazon has already demonstrated what kind of infrastructure needs to be in place to take advantage of Android's open source license outside of Google's licensing oversight. Perhaps you can think of another company with the resources to pull this off. At the moment, I can't.
Click to expand...

By that argument a lot of tablet like device (no matter the OS) requires a huge infrastructure behind them to be successful.

You forget there are things starting to come out that are based off of Android but do not need nor require as advance stuff as Android can fully offer.
There is a music player at the CTIA that was shown off that uses Android. It was a rather simple device and its OS was Android. Another company made a home phone (not a good one) that was based off of android but it pretty clearly to see that it was really not more than an experimental device.

Another thing we can look at is the Linux OS. There are a lot of devices out there that we use that are based off of that OS. The linksys routers for a while enter OS was based off of linux. Now it did not do to much but it was based off of the linux kernal.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
By that argument a lot of tablet like device (no matter the OS) requires a huge infrastructure behind them to be successful.

You forget there are things starting to come out that are based off of Android but do not need nor require as advance stuff as Android can fully offer.
There is a music player at the CTIA that was shown off that uses Android. It was a rather simple device and its OS was Android. Another company made a home phone (not a good one) that was based off of android but it pretty clearly to see that it was really not more than an experimental device.

Another thing we can look at is the Linux OS. There are a lot of devices out there that we use that are based off of that OS. The linksys routers for a while enter OS was based off of linux. Now it did not do to much but it was based off of the linux kernal.
Click to expand...

I think they do need a sizable infrastructure behind them, to support the development of apps at the very least. This is what Apple has built from scratch for iOS. Not a trivial task, and difficult to replicate.

Let's watch what happens with these unlicensed Android products, and see whether they have any commercial impact. Maybe it could happen, it just hasn't yet (Amazon aside). I don't know.

What I do know is that Google would like us to think that they are the "good guys" for open sourcing Android. A lot of people seem to buy the argument that open=good and that by itself is a sound reason for buying an Android product over an Apple product. From everything I've seen so far, the reality of what Google is doing is actually a lot more complicated. They are exerting just as much control over Android as Apple does over iOS, just in a different way.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Apple's "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft was dismissed. The reasons are complicated and probably don't need to be discussed here, but I don't believe Apple ever won any part of that challenge.



No, they did not.
Click to expand...

I left it vague because I seem to remember an article from the 90's about Microsoft making yearly payments to Apple to quash litigation.
Here's one, I'm sure there are others. http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/2007-03/msg02489.html
I think have the original saved on
my G4. :D

----------
KnightWRX said:
Read up on the cases. It has nothing to do with Apple winning the GUI cases (the only part they won was over a patent/trademark for the "Trash Bin").
Click to expand...
Here's a link, don't know if you would call it winning on apples part.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/2007-03/msg02489.html
Hey it was from the 90's so I couldn't remember much about it.
I'm sure there are better articles on what happened but I found this one pretty quick.
 
Last edited:
fourthtunz said:
I left it vague because I seem to remember an article from the 90's about Microsoft making yearly payments to Apple to quash litigation.
Click to expand...

That was a different matter entirely. This was part of the 1997 deal that ended longstanding litigation between Microsoft and Apple over multimedia patents and/or copyrights. We never knew the exact nature of the dispute but at the time it was said to be over Quicktime code. In the settlement, Microsoft agreed to "invest" $150m in Apple, continue to develop Office for the Mac for five more years, and the companies did a cross-licensing deal. Apple agreed to make MSIE the "default" browser on the Mac, and Bill Gates agreed to make an appearance on a big screen at MacWorld, where he was booed by the crowd. Probably some other cash changed hands, but no figure was ever announced.
 
IJ Reilly said:
That was a different matter entirely. This was part of the 1997 deal that ended longstanding litigation between Microsoft and Apple over multimedia patents and/or copyrights. We never knew the exact nature of the dispute but at the time it was said to be over Quicktime code. In the settlement, Microsoft agreed to "invest" $150m in Apple, continue to develop Office for the Mac for five more years, and the companies did a cross-licensing deal. Apple agreed to make MSIE the "default" browser on the Mac, and Bill Gates agreed to make an appearance on a big screen at MacWorld, where he was booed by the crowd. Probably some other cash changed hands, but no figure was ever announced.
Click to expand...

Actually, we don't really know.
All I said was that microsoft paid apple some money, and they did.
Much like they paid many other companies to avoid lawsuits.
Many people believe that Microsoft copied the Apple/Mac GUI
and I agree.
 
fourthtunz said:
Actually, we don't really know.
All I said was that microsoft paid apple some money, and they did.
Much like they paid many other companies to avoid lawsuits.
Many people believe that Microsoft copied the Apple/Mac GUI
and I agree.
Click to expand...

The GUI issue was taken to court many years before any of this. The case was dismissed. Apple lost. So on that point, we really do know. We also know that the 1997 settlement was connected to multimedia patents or copyrights. This was widely discussed at the time. What we don't know is precisely how it was settled except that Microsoft coughed up some cash and the two companies swapped some patents.
 
iMaven said:
In 2007, Android's user interface was not anywhere near Apple's user interface. Android was busy trying to copy and take a market share away from Blackberry; because BB was the top dog at that time for phones.
Click to expand...

The top selling US smartphones at the end of 2006 were Windows Mobile and Palm OS models, and even Palm was shifting to WinMo. (Overseas, Symbian was of course very popular.)

Blackberrys were popular in the enterprise, outside of Google's search interests. Their niche was considered untouchable (no pun intended), partly because of their half billion dollar patent for true push email.

Android was clearly targeted at Windows Mobile, which had both touch and non-touch versions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back