Apple's Continued Patent Offensive Poses Risks for Shareholders

[fmaxwell]

But isn't the article saying that if Apple continues what it is doing, then companies will create workarounds that won't violate Apple's patents and will hurt Apple in the long term?

Analysts say all kinds of things -- and they are often wrong. The analysts don't discuss the fact that man-hours spent creating workarounds is time that Apple's competitors are not developing new features that might give them a competitive advantage over Apple.

If you want to create a better smartphone than an iPhone, your best bet is to license the most compelling, patented features of the iPhone and work from there. As Sir Isaac Newton wrote "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

And if you're going to take the moral high road, then tell me why iOS5's notifications looks similar to Android's notification?

Because the ones in Android worked better than the ones in the older iOS. So Apple started with the Android drawer concept and significantly improved upon it. For example, you get a tiny icon in the status bar in Android letting you know that you have a new email. With iOS5, you can see a preview of that message along with others.

So what? Apple isn't suing Android phone makers for putting a status bar at the top, much as has been done in OS X for over a decade. They aren't suing them for using icons to represent applications, as was done in the Mac since its inception. Apple's lawsuits are aimed at new concepts, such as having the OS recognize a phone number, email address, or postal address whenever one appears in a block of text (such as an email) and allowing the user to touch the item to open a relevant application, such as a maps application.

 

[Renzatic]

Because the ones in Android worked better than the ones in the older iOS. So Apple started with the Android drawer concept and significantly improved upon it. For example, you get a tiny icon in the status bar in Android letting you know that you have a new email. With iOS5, you can see a preview of that message along with others.

This makes no sense to me. Android had a better notification system. Apple took it and improved upon it. It's a different implementation of a similar concept, so it's all good. But if Google does the same, then it's the morally correct thing for Apple to sue the hell out of them for copying?

It's kinda like a row of icons in a grid formation. They've been around forever, but you'll see people throwing out pictures of the Android app drawer and screaming it's a blatant ripoff of the springboard til they pass out from lack of oxygen. But Apple comes out it's more similar than different notification drawer, and it's "Well, iOS already had notifications. So it's not really copying".

As if icons arrayed in a grid were a new concept in 2007.

Apple's lawsuits are aimed at new concepts, such as having the OS recognize a phone number, email address, or postal address whenever one appears in a block of text (such as an email) and allowing the user to touch the item to open a relevant application, such as a maps application.

This isn't a new concept. Unless your experience with computational devices begins and ends with iOS, you'll realize that OSes and browsers have been able to identify the syntax of email addresses, phone numbers, names, and whatever else in blocks of text long before 2007. They've even been able to convert them to links, which you can then click to open the program most appropriate for them.

It's new only in the sense that you're now touching the text directly with your finger, rather than using a mouse to guide a cursor to it.

 

[Oletros]

But she also said people were saying this that weren't there. But at least two sources were there that were saying this. One being Andrew Munn the other being from Steven Levy's source/sources which he had access inside Google.

No, they weren't there.

The intern arrived at Google way after the first Android was released and Steven Levy wasn't there. Curiously, that Sooner/Dream has NO name attached to it.

But well, you can trust more an intern or a writer than the engineer that worked from the beginning in it.

P.S. But they can be contacted an asked about that


----------

If you want to create a better smartphone than an iPhone, your best bet is to license the most compelling, patented features of the iPhone and work from there. As Sir Isaac Newton wrote "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

And what are those most compelling patented features?

 

[linuxcooldude]

But well, you can trust more an intern or a writer than the engineer that worked from the beginning in it.

I would trust the software engineer over an intern. But when when several different people inside the company start saying simular stories, it sparks my interest and like to ask more questions. Especially when some might look out for their own best interests.

 

[Oletros]

I would trust the software engineer over an intern. But when when several different people inside the company start saying simular stories, it sparks my interest and like to ask more questions. Especially when some might look out for their own best interests.

What several different people? Only one, an intern

 

[linuxcooldude]

More then one. Levy interviewed different people from inside Google.

Over two hundred interviews with Google employees, past and present. Also the founders of Google as well as former CEO.

http://books.google.com/books?id=V1u1f8sv3k8C&pg=PA369&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 391

 

[kdarling]

More then one. Levy interviewed different people from inside Google.

I think he meant that only that former intern has ever claimed that Android was meant to compete with RIM... an idea that makes zero sense.

To me, with decades of production and development experience, it's clear that the Android team thought they had plenty of time to first come out with a keyboard driven HTC-made phone to compete with Windows Mobile on Blackjack/Q style devices.

After they got a foothold with carriers with that one, then they'd move on to completing their touch version to compete with Windows Mobile on more touchscreen devices like the Tilt, XV6800, etc.

Ironically, while the Android team seemed to move too slowly, Jobs was clearly worried that the cell phone shows in early 2007 would beat Apple to the punch, as all throughout 2006, companies were showing off capacitive all touch designs.

Jobs must've felt that he had no choice but to break the usual secrecy, and show off the iPhone in January 2007, six months before it was even ready for sale. He could not take the chance that someone else a few weeks later would show off such a device before he did.

As it turned out, they were both wrong. Apple didn't have to move as fast as they had thought, and Android had to move much faster.

 

[Oletros]

More then one. Levy interviewed different people from inside Google.

Over two hundred interviews with Google employees, past and present. Also the founders of Google as well as former CEO.

http://books.google.com/books?id=V1u1f8sv3k8C&pg=PA369&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 391

Yes, Levy interviewed a lot of people, all of them said that? Can you cite one that said that thing, because Levy doesn't say who said that, even he didn't said from where they had this information.

The engineer cited on that part say that from the start it was agnostic and they didn't to change I think she is credible.

I think he meant that only that former intern has ever claimed that Android was meant to compete with RIM... an idea that makes zero sense.

Dianne Hackborn say that they target wasn't RIM, but Windows Mobile as you say always.

 

[Rocketman]

Google has an interesting corporate goal, which has been communicated by several division heads to a skeptical audience.

To make the internet better.

Not make search better, although that is their central business model.

Not make phones better, although that has garnered significant uptake and mind share.

Not make email better although they have ubiquitous adoption.

Not make cloud better although they are a leader there.

etc, etc, etc.

One should trust that the words are meant in earnest whether or not the process or the results match.

That said, it explains a certain degree of leaning on IP or copying. They think they are helping.

Hmmmmm. Happy new Google (year). Buy goog, aapl, mcd. (you can't get a Big Mac from a torrent)

Rocketman

 

[linuxcooldude]

Yes, Levy interviewed a lot of people, all of them said that? Can you cite one that said that thing, because Levy doesn't say who said that, even he didn't said from where they had this information.

The engineer cited on that part say that from the start it was agnostic and they didn't to change I think she is credible.

You can take it at face value. I'm just saying I'm not always going to rely on just once source of information.

Levy is not always going to break down who says what to whom. It would make the book hard to read and follow.

I think he meant that only that former intern has ever claimed that Android was meant to compete with RIM... an idea that makes zero sense.

A lot of things that companies do, does not make sense. Sometimes perhaps to you or me. But might make sense if we seen the big picture of what these companies are trying to do. But they generally will not make it public knowledge.

 

[DeathChill]

I shot Steven Levy an email and he said this:

I interviewed a number of Android/Google people on the record about this --including Dianne-- and my account was pieced together from those.

I also do not see where Dianne said anything from In The Plex was false in that post. She simply said that it didn't create a mad rush to change Android after the iPhone was announced, not that it didn't cause any changes at all. I also find it telling that she did not say anything about Andrew Munn's point about the drawing system being optimized for a system that wasn't touch based and there being no time for a rewrite when Android's direction changed.

 

[Oletros]

Dianne has answered my mail and the thing wrong on Levy part is the implication that they started with one platform and then changed to the other after the iPhone was presented.

She say that Android was agnostic from the very start and the two platform were developed at the same time, the only thing that was different is that hardware associated like capacitive screen had a shipping schedule long er that the other prototype.

 

[DeathChill]

Dianne has answered my mail and the thing wrong on Levy part is the implication that they started with one platform and then changed to the other after the iPhone was presented.

She say that Android was agnostic from the very start and the two platform were developed at the same time, the only thing that was different is that hardware associated like capacitive screen had a shipping schedule long er that the other prototype.

Yeah I think I know what you mean: it was all the same code base but short term it would be focused on Blackberry-like devices and long term they were going for touch screen. Pretty much what Levy said, I believe.

So yes, this is what I have been saying.

 

[Oletros]

Yeah I think I know what you mean: it was all the same code base but short term it would be focused on Blackberry-like devices and long term they were going for touch screen. Pretty much what Levy said, I believe.

So yes, this is what I have been saying.

No, they were focused since the beginning in the two prototypes and from the beginning was touch screen aware.

So no, they didn't change anything AFTER the iPhone was released like it is said

 

[DeathChill]

No, they were focused since the beginning in the two prototypes and from the beginning was touch screen aware.

So no, they didn't change anything AFTER the iPhone was released like it is said

Huh? They were building two prototype versions: Sooner and Dream. Sooner was getting much of the focus until iPhone was announced, which is when Dream would become the focus. Sooner was dropped because the iPhone had completely changed the market and would no longer be competitive.

 

[Oletros]

Huh? They were building two prototype versions: Sooner and Dream. Sooner was getting much of the focus until iPhone was announced, which is when Dream would become the focus. Sooner was dropped because the iPhone had completely changed the market and would no longer be competitive.

And this is what Dianne says is wrong. There was NO focus on one of them.

But without Levy recordings or an official statement of Hackborn the only thing we can do is trust the one we want

 

[DeathChill]

And this is what Dianne says is wrong. There was NO focus on one of them.

But without Levy recordings or an official statement of Hackborn the only thing we can do is trust the one we want

That sounds strange that there would be no focus when Steven Levy would specifically point out that Sooner was getting much of the focus early on and that it was dropped when the iPhone was announced.

Regardless, Sooner was dropped when the iPhone was announced, which is what I was saying anyways.

EDIT: By the way, could you post exactly what you and her said? It'd be easier to decipher that way.

 

[Oletros]

That sounds strange that there would be no focus when Steven Levy would specifically point out that Sooner was getting much of the focus early on and that it was dropped when the iPhone was announced.

Regardless, Sooner was dropped when the iPhone was announced, which is what I was saying anyways.

EDIT: By the way, could you post exactly what you and her said? It'd be easier to decipher that way.

Hi, I can't really make any official statements about this. We were working on Sooner and Dream at the same time, they really weren't two different developments, they were both running the same Android platform.
The code names were what they were -- Sooner was intended to be the first device, using a modification to an existing hardware design so it could get out quickly; Dream was what we really wanted to do but its schedule was a lot longer because the hardware was all new with a lot of things that hadn't shipped before (from the hinge for the flip screen through the capacitive touch screen to things like the accelerometer). At a certain point (I am pretty sure before the iPhone was announced) it was decided to drop Sooner as a product because the schedule for it didn't really make sense and focus only on Dream.

 

[DeathChill]

Hi, I can't really make any official statements about this. We were working on Sooner and Dream at the same time, they really weren't two different developments, they were both running the same Android platform.
The code names were what they were -- Sooner was intended to be the first device, using a modification to an existing hardware design so it could get out quickly; Dream was what we really wanted to do but its schedule was a lot longer because the hardware was all new with a lot of things that hadn't shipped before (from the hinge for the flip screen through the capacitive touch screen to things like the accelerometer). At a certain point (I am pretty sure before the iPhone was announced) it was decided to drop Sooner as a product because the schedule for it didn't really make sense and focus only on Dream.

Very interesting information! However, I am reading as in the base platform was Android (of course!), but Sooner was designed around hardware akin to a Blackberry (so interaction methods would be different). This is what I was saying.

I am a bit wary of her "I am pretty sure" because I am certain you would recall if a project as big as the iPhone caused changes in your own projects. I also noticed a certain amount of anger towards Apple in her post, so I am not certain she is unbiased in this respect. I guess we really won't know what exactly happened; it all depends on who we want to believe.

 

[Oletros]

I also noticed a certain amount of anger towards Apple in her post, so I am not certain she is unbiased in this respect.

Well, I suppose that if you here a lot of times that you're a copycat, that you have steal something, etc, etc you finally would be angry.

But yes, we really don't know what exactly the reality was

 

[DeathChill]

Well, I suppose that if you here a lot of times that you're a copycat, that you have steal something, etc, etc you finally would be angry.

But yes, we really don't know what exactly the reality was

I agree that would be irritating! Regardless, good times!

 

[kdarling]

Very interesting information! However, I am reading as in the base platform was Android (of course!), but Sooner was designed around hardware akin to a Blackberry (so interaction methods would be different). This is what I was saying.

What she is saying is that there was always one Android base code that ran on both non-touch (Sooner) and touch (Dream) hardware devices.

As for the RIM reference that the intern came up with, that's (as I keep saying) ridiculous, but typical of what someone new to smartphones might say. No one would've thought of going up against RIM at the time, because RIM had a lock on true push and enterprise security.

These were Blackberrys at the time, just starting to move from trackwheel to trackball:


This was Sooner and the WM phones it would compete with:


Sooner was meant to be like WM, with its cursor pad, Home, Menu and Back buttons.

I am a bit wary of her "I am pretty sure" because I am certain you would recall if a project as big as the iPhone caused changes in your own projects.

She didn't say it caused a change. She was simply using it as a time reference.

I also noticed a certain amount of anger towards Apple in her post, so I am not certain she is unbiased in this respect.

Where? I didn't see any.

 

[NTACvOS]

Every android phone in existence had multitasking before the iPhone.

No offense to you as you are merely parroting, but this is an ignorant point, almost to the extreme.

iOS has had multitasking since day one - it is inherent to the OS.

Then somewhere along the line somebody wanted a task switcher and some political rule changes to allow different app behavior, equated those wants with multitasking, and that got us to today. Presence or lack of a task switcher (amounts to a "recently used apps" list as much as anything) has nothing to do with multitasking. The political rules - like allowing Pandora to play in the background just like the iPod app (gasp!) had been doing were only a matter of form - not function.

I blame Android-ites for this as their only method of consideration for features is comparing lists of features, rather than cosidering how something works and what real needs are made from. Some features are better left out, or saved for later...not so hard to understand really. Microsoft never got this either, though.

-Matt

P.S. Device performance and battery life suffered - I still wish it could be optional. Feature list monkeys never consider ramifications.

P.P.S. The only argument i see for inclusion of this feature is as an alternate way of find the one app you want as nowadays we walk around with so-o-o many apps. Again, this has nothing to do with multitasking.

 

[Oletros]

P.S. Device performance and battery life suffered - I still wish it could be optional. Feature list monkeys never consider ramifications.

Perhaps those "monkeys" considered it and they thought the "performance" penalty was low with the benefits it had.

Perhaps the ignorant and monkey are not hem, but the one insulting people when they simplify and say multitasking instead of 3rd party apps multitasking.

Glad to have you here to say that it only was a app switcher, you seem to know that the API's for 3rd party multitasking were there from the beginning of iOS

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Now who in their right mind would care about shareholders? Their the reason your jobs are in chins.