Spotlight better than the Search Box?
They both pretty much do exactly the same thing.
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.
Ban on Galaxy Nexus U.S. Sales Upheld, Software Patch to Circumvent Forthcoming
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spotlight better than the Search Box?
They both pretty much do exactly the same thing.
Apple isn't even offering licenses to Android manufacturers. As Steve Jobs said, Apple's strategy is thermonuclear war, which is anticompetitive at best, and grossly monopolistic at worst.
Google was friendly with Apple, and even today (tries its best to) remain friendly with Apple, but the mere act of starting to compete with its own platform made Apple angry.
In reality, Apple owns thousands of patents, Google owns thousands of patents, and each Android manufacturer owns thousands of patents. Each of these parties could be infringing on hundreds of patents from all the other manufacturers. It's just a matter of who chooses to sue over what that gets on the news.
The patent system is broken. Apple, Nokia, and Motorola are just players that are abusing it, though Apple is one of the more aggressive companies. Google, HTC, and Samsung seem to be on the defense right now - only using litigation to defend against other litigation. Who wins in the end? Nobody, except for the lawyers.
Last edited:
Nothing is perfect. A mistake was made with the iPhone 4. It is now fixed in the iPhone 4S. No case needed and it looks the same as the 4.
It is just still slippery and falls out of your hand.
software development
I seriously wonder how many people with a lot of opinions on patent infringement know how many shades of gray there are for software patents?
I am a professional programmer and I know that if you were coding features for a major platform it would be a pretty tricky mess to not accidentally violate software patents. I still do not believe that it is stealing to code similar functionality as long as you do it from scratch, but if you copy lines of someone else's code and compile it that, I believe, is stealing.
I wish that the US would ditch software patents but we never will.
I seriously wonder how many people with a lot of opinions on patent infringement know how many shades of gray there are for software patents?
I am a professional programmer and I know that if you were coding features for a major platform it would be a pretty tricky mess to not accidentally violate software patents. I still do not believe that it is stealing to code similar functionality as long as you do it from scratch, but if you copy lines of someone else's code and compile it that, I believe, is stealing.
I wish that the US would ditch software patents but we never will.
Yeah, he screwed up in a big bad way. It's something you think they'd pick up in testing, too. I mean it happens so...freaking...often when the antenna is exposed, I'm honestly surprised they didn't.
Apple using Google maps and google search generates 100's of millions of $$ for Google directly from Apple and via adverts (google's business model).
Yes, very friendly...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/06/09/apple-is-about-to-reduce-googles-revenues/
What's amazing is that Apple's marketing is so fantastic that the iPhone 4 & 4S have sold record amounts despite these design flaws. I guess a cramped hand(awkward way to hold it) is price of admission to iOS.
Perhaps it's late and I'm not thinking clearly, but I can't see how this is anything but bullish behavior by Apple.
Apple using Google maps and google search generates 100's of millions of $$ for Google directly from Apple and via adverts (google's business model).
Yes, very friendly...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/06/09/apple-is-about-to-reduce-googles-revenues/
It was mutually beneficial. The iPhone couldn't have taken off so quickly without Google's products - Google Maps was one of the main selling points of the original iPhone. If Google's intent was to kill off iOS, they would have ended the Maps deal long before Apple would have been ready with an alternative.
The difference between the strategies of Google and Apple is that Google wants to bring its products to all platforms, while Apple just wants its platform to dominate the market.
system wide search
Palm Pre's WebOS was the first mobile phone with system wide search, by the way....Apple implemented Spotlight on the phone after WebOS had hit the streets. The first Apple OS with Spotlight was Tiger.
Google at that time also had a desktop wide search that you could install onto your computer.
Palm Pre's WebOS was the first mobile phone with system wide search, by the way....Apple implemented Spotlight on the phone after WebOS had hit the streets. The first Apple OS with Spotlight was Tiger.
Google at that time also had a desktop wide search that you could install onto your computer.
But I'm sure if you look at the patent filing dates, Apple go there first which is why they got the injunction.
Yes, it was surprising it was not picked up. However part of the reason is that this antenna problem ONLY happened in weak signal areas (4 bars or less) AND if you touch that little 1mm black gap on the lower left side.
Otherwise it was fine...esp if you did field testing with cases on to hide the phone. I got a feeling they knew before it was too late and took the risk. Worked out fine in terms of revenue for Apple.
That is valid and you are correct I am sure. That does not mean, however, that in my opinion it is right (not that anyone really needs my opinion, lol).
Two things can do the same thing but each have a patent. It isn't what they do, it is how (the process) they do it.
Whatever, just let him choose what he wants. I still agree with the last statement; how much you admire the company should not be a factor in choosing your device. I hate Microsoft, but I still choose the XBOX over the PS2, Windows over Linux, and Age of Empires II over Civilization.
The bond was reported as being only a couple million, even if the figure did appear to be low. I guess Apple could still pursue the case and attempt to prove past infringement/damages up to that point. What some people on here don't understand is that no infringement has been proven in these cases. Saying something is likely to infringe on a likely valid patent isn't the same as testing that in court. If a company backs off and redesigns, the motivation to maintain that case may drop off.
Patents require much more information when determining or testing validity.
Apple could probably continue pushing the case arguing past infringement, but they'd have to prove that an infringement actually occurred. In HTC's case, they changed whatever brought on the accusation via a workaround. At that point there is no way to claim that the device will do irreparable harm to Apple. Apple may no longer feel the case is even worth pursuing at that point. What do you think they'd really see out of it? Claims are that HTC's volume isn't that great compared to Samsung and Apple. Are they really going to waste legal resources to try to claim retroactive licensing fees? How well do you really feel that would work out for Apple? What makes you think this is about anything other than keeping these products off the market? They're more likely trying to delay and limit devices rather than extract damages.
I don't think anyone even knows what is being sued on with half these articles anymore. Apple seems like they're just going to delay Samsung products whenever possible.
They would claim this whether they believed it or not.
Spotlight had a long list of bugs under Tiger ranging from issues with externally connected drives to program stability issues during memory paging and a long list of other issues. Some of them improved under Snow Leopard and Lion, but spotlight was never well designed, especially in its original implementation. It's just been patched many times to be acceptable.
I tried to do the "death grip" on my iPhone 4 and on the ones at the Apple Store, but it doesn't do anything. I remember tons of people on this forum stating that this is also the case with them. It's probably just a problem on a few iPhones.
Yes it is mutually beneficial I agree with you. It also is business. MS still make office for the Mac. Has done so for 30 years and more.
But Google want to dominate with it products, don't kid yourself. I wish for the old days: Apple makes OS and Google makes Maps and Search stuff, which they are free to to give to other platforms.
But Google crossed that line and moved into OS...so Jobs decided years ago to move into Google's territory and make Maps. No hard feelings huh?
With Google moving into OS, where Apple has 30 years experience on them, Google is bound to infringe a few patents.
We all would be better off if Apple and Google went back to their old ways. That was a creative coupling.
That's my problem with this patent mess. I would understand if patents protected specific implementation (algorithm or whatever) but to allow patents to be used to ban others from implementing whatever they want is just ridiculous. As a software developer now I need to know where exactly my software is allowed to search? Is the following command illegal now?
> grep "Apple is Evil" *.txt
It does search in multiple sources (files). There is very little difference between this command and "system-wide" search. After all, all information in computers is stored in 0s and 1s in files. And every search does exactly the same - searches data from one or more files. The actual implementation may include many layers of software but in principle that's all there is to it.
So I do not understand Apple's claim that they invented a search from multiple sources. This claim is just ridiculous.
My experiences have been it'll weaken the signal if you put a finger near the gap, within half an inch or so. If I'm using my iPhone without a case, I have to hold it between my thumb and index finger to guarantee a perfect phone call.
Right. It's not terrible, but it's bad enough that it's a good talking point to bring up whenever someone mentions the supposedly unerring quality Apple supposedly adheres to. Just like any company, they have their incredibly stupid goofups.
I have to disagree. The native search box in Windows is so slow and nearly useless.
Whereas Spotlight finds things i want very fast and finds applications, files and organizes them nicely.
But this is off topic somewhat. Just saying that I have no problems with the ongoing litigations. It is just normal run of the mill stuff. Most consumers don't see it day to day, but it happens all the time.
The case would still go forward because Samsung would still be liable for infringing. They can't go Back in time.
You are probably talking about Windows XP era search. Even then it could be fast if you added needed directories to the list of directories that had to be indexed. In Windows 7, the search is instantaneous. The results are shown and updated as you type. At this moment the system does not do the actual search it just fetches the results from index files that are constantly updated by search engine.
The bugs aren't anywhere near as irritating these days. I recall figuring out workarounds for others as spotlight had a tendency to crash many applications during periods of heavy disk activity.
I'm aware of the frequency of corporate litigation, and I wish the Apple enthusiast sites had some better topics. The writers don't know much about litigation. Most of the readers know next to nothing. The articles themselves are poorly detailed, and no one would possibly draw real conclusions from them on who is right.
I don't fully agree with you here. Apple wants to encompass as many things as possible wherever they make sense. They wouldn't necessarily stay out of cartography simply out of respect for Google. Apple will go for whatever markets benefit them.
I think you fellows need to come in to the 21st century.
I already had the discussion with my wife who wanted a new iPod Touch, but I showed her what was going on in this dispute. Once you have all of the facts, you can make an informed decision. Further, the kids are happy they are getting big 7" screens as opposed to the little 3.5" screens on their iPod Touch.
My music has already been compatible with Google Music Manager, and I already listen to it on my Galaxy Nexus which has a better D/A, and I will continue to use iTunes on my iMac, Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, and Mac Mini. Further, my kids get all of their music off of iTunes. Using Google Music Manager its all very seamless, provided its DRM free, which it mostly is.
My Marantz AV7005 processor has already replaced my Apple TV functions and I need to now download the Android app for my Harmony Link remote.
I'm glad I didn't buy a NEST thermostat like I was planning to a couple months back.
The transition is easier than one would think.
----------
iTunes music is no problem. Google Music Manager will accept AAC files, but not DRM files. DRM files are a problem as it is because if you synch 3-4 iDevices to your Mac and it has DRM files, and some of those files are shared between playlists, you can't put it on all of those devices.