exactly. There are fanboys, there are sheep, and then there are people who (gasp!) actually like the iPhone because its an amazing product. Calling people sheep is pretty sheepy in itself...
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.
Google Claims a 'Hostile, Organized Campaign Against Android'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
exactly. There are fanboys, there are sheep, and then there are people who (gasp!) actually like the iPhone because its an amazing product. Calling people sheep is pretty sheepy in itself...
Lol! What? You mean like the permissions system, the widget system, the Intents system, the cloud to device messaging system, the live wallpapers, etc. that Android copied from iOS? Err - something doesn't quite make sense!
You just don't get it. The holder of a patent has either developed it to give themselves and edge, or bought it for the same reason. They don't even have to license it to another company, especially a competitor. In this case Apple bought the patents for $4+ billion, so they won't have to pay a license fee; keeping their own costs down. However, to recover their cost of owning the patents, charging a license fee is necessary. The stock holders, for one, would demand it.
A patent has value, whether it's development cost or purchase, and if a company wants to license it they can set their own price. However, if a competitor just goes ahead and uses the intellectual property without paying a license fee, then litigation is the owner's right to pursue. It's how business has ran since before this country was formed.
Not at all correct. If companies had no advantage in doing research and development, and they could all just steal from anyone who did come up with a fresh idea, then we'd still be doing computing on vacuum tube machines after walking to work. In the case of Google, all they need to do is come up with a way of making a phone without treading on the patents...in other words become inventive themselves.
Isn't THAT just the truth in a nutshell.
Google doesn't NEED these patents. All they need to do is come up with a way to to accomplish the same thing in a different way. They are whinning because they'd rather copy than innovate.
Also, Google's stockholders are not altruistic, they'd demand that Google recover the $4 billion investment had they won the bidding.
Actually, it's welcome to the world as it's been for the past 200+ years.
You summed it up perfectly. The question I'd like an answer to is "what part of most high tech equipment is license fees." Keep in mind the license fees include things like how a integrated chip is made, how they are encapsulated, How the assembly equipment locates and places the components on a board, and almost every tiny step from start to finish.
The OS isn't really THAT much of a copy of iOS, but it is inferior. The only real copy is the App Store and the whole home screen. They made it just to compete with Apple, though.
My other complaints are that it cannot sync to the computer nearly as well as the iPhone can, and Google insists on having Flash in there to make fun of Apple. We'll see who's laughing when Flash dies like Bluray did. Adobe is already making HTML5 creators.
Android.... stop crying. Nobody invite you to the game. You decided to be part of it. This is how they play long before you were a baby-droid. If they close some doors, you need to open others... welcome to OS unfair 101
Inferior being your personal opinion as opposed to a fact. Likewise, every time I have to deal with my wife's iPod Touch I want to throw it out the window - it's that limited and so inferior to me.
Home screen being a copy - you have got to be kidding me - or you never used a real, good Android phone!
Now you are just being funny - Sync? Really? And Flash doesn't even ship with Android so I am not sure 'insists' means anything there.
Its cute that you're crediting Apple with all these advances in hardware technology and cell networks. Really, it is.
Maybe I've never used a good one, but I've used one. They copied the idea of having all of the apps in a grid like in iOS.
And by inferior I mean that, for a fact, you cannot sync it with anything. Another fact is that it has less apps in the app store and is prone to viruses from the store. It is also a fact that they do not keep a consistent UI, like Microsoft.
Sure there are a lot of things that are a matter of opinion, but iOS has a lot of factual advantages. I guess with enough of a strong opinion, one could consider Android superior. I do respect your own opinion. I just hate it when some Android users (not you) ignore simple facts.
Please update arn
Update: And now, shots have been fired from both sides. Brad Smith, Microsoft's General Counsel, has shot off the following tweet: "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no." We're guessing the truth lies somewhere in between, as it always does.
Update: And now, shots have been fired from both sides. Brad Smith, Microsoft's General Counsel, has shot off the following tweet: "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no." We're guessing the truth lies somewhere in between, as it always does.
Or rather you think he's being sensible because he says things that are in line with your beliefs. There's no such thing as "consideration for others" unless it's beneficial for the business.
Apple advocates the best user experience because it's what they do well and Google advocate the openness because selling ads on others' information is what they do well. There's no goodwill in them.
Google blocked competition out of the "open" Android when their data collecting activity was in danger and they do not open source their search while advocating others to open up more. They are just as greedy and profit driven as others, and rightfully so.
The main difference about Google though, is that they advocate themselves as something angelic, especially to the geek crowd - use of Pi for bidding was one example which geeks loved. However I don't know if I really want to champion a company whose main revenue stream is selling ads based on the personal profiles, especially one who won't open up their core business yet accuses others of being "closed.."
One thing observable here is, there's surprisingly little animosity toward MS in this thread in general even though MS is the one who just forced HTC and others to pay big bucks and now asking Samsung to payoff too. I suppose this is a Apple centric forum after all.
Apps in grid is fundamental and basic notion that existed long before iOS. If you don't like that - there are 3D launchers that change that somewhat. That doesn't count as copy. Not by a long shot.
Cannot sync? My Atrix syncs with my Windows 7 machine without needing any additional software. DoubleTwist/Airsync have been syncing over Wifi in two clicks since some time now.
Android doesn't play the game of my way or highway - it's about choice and customization. But still there is only so much UI inconsistency as there could be when people use different themes on Windows desktop for instance - i.e. not that much. Sure the skin is different but basic notion and concepts are still same and all Android apps work the same way on any device.
I never said it doesn't sync, but the iTunes syncing does a lot more than the Droid syncing, and it supports Mac and Windows.
And by "in a grid" I mean specifically like on the iPhone. You turn it on, unlock it, and you see a full-screen grid of apps. The iPhone and the Droids are the only phones I have ever seen that on.
you have the answer...
Apple is a technology company that innovates and leads the way. (Apple I and II, Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, iPad, The AppStore - BTW, like it or not, even if there were references to AppStore somewhere else, the world did not know about 'The' AppStore until Apple came out with it, and now there is a bunch of me-too, this is a generic term, trying to ride, again, on Apple's success). To come up with that stuff you need brains and, these days specially, lots of money. Software-only innovation might still happen today with less money, up to a certain point (Facebook). Anyhow, that innovation (and making money while at it) is what keeps Apple going. They show what the future should look like to the rest of the industry, and then bring it there.
Google, on the other hand, got to the already existing search business when it was still the right time to get in, and got it good ultimately claiming most of the Ads Money. Now, in a very unfair way, and funny enough, supposedly in the name of end-users freedom, they try to copy every other company that is successfully innovating products and making money out of it, by bringing the me-too products for free using their deep search/adds money pockets. They just want to dominate every market they can and be the company making the more money, using some politician's tactics (keep them believing that we are Robin Hood), with 10% innovation (at best) and 90% copying. They don't do it for the end-user, they do it for themselves, and the money.
Apple is a technology company that innovates and leads the way. (Apple I and II, Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, iPad, The AppStore - BTW, like it or not, even if there were references to AppStore somewhere else, the world did not know about 'The' AppStore until Apple came out with it, and now there is a bunch of me-too, this is a generic term, trying to ride, again, on Apple's success). To come up with that stuff you need brains and, these days specially, lots of money. Software-only innovation might still happen today with less money, up to a certain point (Facebook). Anyhow, that innovation (and making money while at it) is what keeps Apple going. They show what the future should look like to the rest of the industry, and then bring it there.
Google, on the other hand, got to the already existing search business when it was still the right time to get in, and got it good ultimately claiming most of the Ads Money. Now, in a very unfair way, and funny enough, supposedly in the name of end-users freedom, they try to copy every other company that is successfully innovating products and making money out of it, by bringing the me-too products for free using their deep search/adds money pockets. They just want to dominate every market they can and be the company making the more money, using some politician's tactics (keep them believing that we are Robin Hood), with 10% innovation (at best) and 90% copying. They don't do it for the end-user, they do it for themselves, and the money.
That's not a grid like on the iPhone at all, if you are trying to say that Apple copied that. I'm not sure how to explain it, but the whole look is different. The iPhone and Droid both have the same type of design with a rectangular grid.
I am not sure what you are trying to say about sync. People would pay to get rid of the pig that is iTunes and I am unsure what it does that others don't.
Grid - again my HP iPaq also had it long before there was iPhone - I had to turn it on using a button same way as iPhone, I had to unlock it and I did see apps in a grid. Sure the screens weren't big but I am sure that's besides your point.
Finally someone who agrees with me, unlike the Google lovers and blind Google haters who hate them just for being giant and "evil". They simply do not innovate.
That would be aptly called pedantic. Unless you can specify exactly how app icons arranged in a grid are different from app icons arranged in a grid
(No magic doesn't qualify here - nor not having exact same icons!)
Widgets - another groundbreaking innovation from Google.
Oh, wait...
The Apple Newton had it long before there was an HP iPaq.
Last edited:
I don't know anyone who wants to get rid of iTunes, and by "sync" I mean how iTunes syncs your computer's music, videos, apps, addresses, notes, photos, purchase history, settings, and OS updates to your iPod/iPhone, and it keeps a backup that can be encrypted. I can just take my iPod Touch out of my pocket, connect it to my computer, and forget about it. When I want to use it, everything is already synced.
It works well with the other Apple products like Airtunes/Airplay on Airport (which syncs with the Mac) and soon iCloud (also syncs with the Mac). The whole thing is a nice, well built structure.