Google Looks to Distance Android from Apple vs. Samsung Ruling

BaldiMac

macrumors 604
Jan 24, 2008
7,410
7,153
Except in the same video he shows off 2 devices, one of them being the device that everyone says Android was like before iPhone. So I'm just pointing out that both devices existed simultaneously.
Except this was your claim:

"These were both of the Android prototypes that were being used before iPhone, not just the one with the keyboard. Android was originally intended to go on a whole variety of form factors."

Bold added.

Your "source" doesn't support any of these statements.
 

.Joel

macrumors member
May 10, 2005
87
36
You do play semantics games. You don't admit it though. Why can't i do what you do?

Secondly, the people who agree with the oracle case are well versed in the details? You spend hours on here talking about just how little the posters here know, but conveniently the ones who agree with you are experts?

What makes you think they're forming unbiased opinions in the oracle case, and uniformed opinions in the Samsung case?

......

If i had a penny for every time you put someone on your ignore list when you were wrong I'd be rich. You've been doing it for years. Heck you now probably only see posts from people who stroke your ego! Whatever makes your day, knight. Whatever makes your day....
boronathan, why do you waste your time responding to him? He's a self-confessed forum troll.

 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
boronathan, why do you waste your time responding to him? He's a self-confessed forum troll.
Yes because obviously if you want to actually troll, you put it in your forum profile right there for everyone to see.

Congratulations on finding me out detective! :rolleyes:

(do some people really think they are clever ? Maybe I should remove that remark since some people can't get passed the first level here...).

It's actually funny that people bother to actually check user profiles, I didn't even think there were people that did that. :eek:
 

bbplayer5

macrumors 68030
Apr 13, 2007
2,949
546
Because Jobs supossedly stole ideas decades ago tou can't support Apple in this trial? Really?
Um basically, yes. Its hypocrisy... end of story. Apple literally patented a friggen shape... A SHAPE...

This does NOTHING but hurt the consumer, and supporting it breeds apathy. The iPhone is already far behind android hardware wise and total volume. You will not see Apple innovate if they keep winning these ridiculous court battles.

Hopefully Samsung gets this thrown out. Not to mention, Google is now suing Apple big time! They have all the Motorola patents that Apple is abusing and refusing to pay licensing for.
 

LagunaSol

macrumors 601
Apr 3, 2003
4,798
0
So? Doesn't dispute the fact that it's a large touch screen phone, I see that argument made here a lot, "Apple did it better than the competition, so somehow that means Apple did it first".
Who exactly is claiming that Apple did "large touch screen phones" first? Weak straw man argument.

What Apple did is change the way we interact with large touch screen phones. And that's what Google was quick to duplicate.
 

boronathan

macrumors 6502
Jul 23, 2012
326
0
Who exactly is claiming that Apple did "large touch screen phones" first? Weak straw man argument.

What Apple did is change the way we interact with large touch screen phones. And that's what Google was quick to duplicate.
Probably the same ppl who say they want nfc and now are saying they don't: in other words no one.

You gotta just learn to ignore the ppl who pose these ridiculous baseless strawmen, with no evidence to back up what they claim is happening.
 

SPUY767

macrumors 68020
Jun 22, 2003
2,025
112
GA
Really? I thought they were found not guilty in court just a couple weeks back. How can you still claim Google stole from Sun or Oracle?

...if this thread has taught me one thing, it's that anything that happens in court is indisputable.
I just like to stir the pot. If you read most of my comments, they walk a fine line between trolling and accuracy.
 

Dr McKay

macrumors 68040
Aug 11, 2010
3,419
41
Kirkland
Who exactly is claiming that Apple did "large touch screen phones" first? Weak straw man argument.

What Apple did is change the way we interact with large touch screen phones. And that's what Google was quick to duplicate.
I was referring to the people that claim that Apple did something first, and then after being shown evidence that Apple werent the first for that particular thing, they'll say "Yea well thats crap compared to Apple's XXX"
 

LagunaSol

macrumors 601
Apr 3, 2003
4,798
0
I was referring to the people that claim that Apple did something first, and then after being shown evidence that Apple werent the first for that particular thing, they'll say "Yea well thats crap compared to Apple's XXX"
Again, who are the people that claim Apple did "large touch screen phones" first? I've not seen that particular argument.
 

macnerd93

macrumors 6502a
Nov 28, 2009
677
87
United Kingdom
Yes, good philosophy. Is the same one the Soviet Union used when making cars and toasters. Is good enough, why look for improvement. 10 years later, you look like dinosaur. :rolleyes:
hmm well quite a few car manufactures still live by that philosophy today. Take the VW Golf. Sure, improvements have been made over the years, but the recipe is still the same.
 

theluggage

macrumors 601
Jul 29, 2011
4,372
3,094
I guess it doesn't. But remember, Android started development in 2003, while the iPhone started in 2005.
That's not at issue - the question is whether Android had a major course-change from a Blackberry-like key/scrollwheel-driven UI to a touch-centric UI after the iPhone was demonstrated, or if they were working on touch all along and Apple pipped them to affordable hardware.

That video shows, 10 months after iPhone, that while the apps shown supported panning and scrolling via touch, Android was still relying on buttons for its major UI, and using a non-touch-friendly menu system.
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,559
11,975
in fact, the more and more i read these threads, the more and more I'm convinced apple is 100% right and Samsung, and pretty much everyone else has copied them.

nobody had touch screen phones before Apple. Therefore, it's clear everyone whos' created a touch screen phone after apple is 100% copying them and should be forced to go back to pre-touch screen devices.

I'm well aware that touchscreen enabled handheld devices existed years prior to apple's entrance into the mobile device market.
thats completely irrelevant. Google clearly copied apple by enabling their OS support of touchscreen.

I hope Apple goes after Microsoft next. And perhaps Casio, Palm, Garmin, Oh and don't forget General motors too, since they copied Apple by putting touchscreen in a car as early as 1985

I think that google, being so evil, should have told all the hardware vendors who were working on making touchscreen's, "sorry, We wont program Android to ever support touchscreens, cause Apple clearly invented it" and walked away from the modern mobile device era completely.

it's worked for RIM so far.


/s
 
Last edited:

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,637
40,734
USA
Again, who are the people that claim Apple did "large touch screen phones" first? I've not seen that particular argument.
Well now you have to define large. Because I think you'll find that everyone complains how LARGE Android phones are. Maybe Samsung was first ;)
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,559
11,975
Well now you have to define large. Because I think you'll find that everyone complains how LARGE Android phones are. Maybe Samsung was first ;)
Large is relative.

Ask any guy :eek:

Apple might ahve been the first to gain significant market penetration (i'm full of these puns), but they weren't the first to do a handheld device with a fullscreen touch screen. it's not unreasonable to think that the convergence of PDA and Cellphone would bring these technologies together.

the iphone in thoery is little different than the large handheld PDA's that came for years before it. It just added the Cellular antenna into the design. And as for "smart phone + PDA merger, Again, there were those who did it before them.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,637
40,734
USA
Large is relative.

Ask any guy :eek:

Apple might ahve been the first to gain significant market penetration (i'm full of these puns), but they weren't the first to do a handheld device with a fullscreen touch screen. it's not unreasonable to think that the convergence of PDA and Cellphone would bring these technologies together.

the iphone in thoery is little different than the large handheld PDA's that came for years before it. It just added the Cellular antenna into the design. And as for "smart phone + PDA merger, Again, there were those who did it before them.
Well the Palm III had a cellular antenna ;)
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,559
11,975
Well the Palm III had a cellular antenna ;)
yeah yeah yeah.

But Apple had to have done it first! :rolleyes:

sorry. I'm in an overly sarcastic weird mood today.

The point I've been trying to get accross from the start. From day 1. From the day apple released it's first product.

Apple itself is not building devices in a Vacuum. The market, the other technological advances, and the consumers have directly influenced the direction that mobile technologies have gone.

There was no magical Silo around Apple headquarters that allowed them to build a device that nobody in the world ever dreamed of ever seeing.

The simple fact of the matter was that technology was heading in that direction for years before Apple entered the market. As technology got better, more affordable, and easier to implement, Companies ahve always tried to be first out of the gate with a design that sell. Some do very very well, Some bomb and fail miserably.

Just because some fail, doesn't mean that they aren't innovative. Just because some are insanely popular doesn't mean they invented the market.

The simple fact: People wanted a mobile platform that could integrate their lives. to take the 2, 3 and heck, some people used to carry 4 or 5 different devices with them everywhere. People wanted to take this, merge it into one device, and make it connected. Apple wasn't the first. Heck, RIM wasn't even the first true "smartphone".

What Apple did, and did very well, was listen to what people complained about with multiple different attempts at this merger, learned, took technologies from around the world, And made a product that hit home with users.

But for them to start claiming exclusive rights of the use of some of these technologies just because they thought of patenting it first absolutely drives me up the wall.

I'm a firm believer that patents should never be awarded on the outcome of a task, but on the execution of said task. If you can create a method to complete a task, it's the method thats patentable. Not the task. But thats just the start of whats wrong with the Patent system.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,637
40,734
USA
Agree 100%. And that's what I've been saying as well on these forums. But some prefer to think I am anti-Apple for doing so. It's cool. If some choose to see what I post as anti-Apple just because I can look at the big picture (along with having first hand knowledge of the industry) then so be it.

Having worked for one of the major phone manufacturers in my distant past I can confirm what you've written. I saw many phones in the pipeline before the iPhone came out that were similar. I give credit where credit is due with Apple listening to the gripes of the industry and marketing their iPhone very very well. But those that think the industry wasn't heading that way are just flat out wrong. Does that mean these phones I saw in the pipeline would have been as "slick" as an iPhone with iOS - can't say. And some would argue that as slick and cool as iOS was at launch - it still lacked a lot of features common in even the cheapest of phones. But we'll never be able to determine playing the what if game. The timeline is what it is. And here we are.

And yes - access to cheaper components was also important to the introduction of more touchscreen phones. Not JUST because Apple created one.

yeah yeah yeah.

But Apple had to have done it first! :rolleyes:

sorry. I'm in an overly sarcastic weird mood today.

The point I've been trying to get accross from the start. From day 1. From the day apple released it's first product.

Apple itself is not building devices in a Vacuum. The market, the other technological advances, and the consumers have directly influenced the direction that mobile technologies have gone.

There was no magical Silo around Apple headquarters that allowed them to build a device that nobody in the world ever dreamed of ever seeing.

The simple fact of the matter was that technology was heading in that direction for years before Apple entered the market. As technology got better, more affordable, and easier to implement, Companies ahve always tried to be first out of the gate with a design that sell. Some do very very well, Some bomb and fail miserably.

Just because some fail, doesn't mean that they aren't innovative. Just because some are insanely popular doesn't mean they invented the market.

The simple fact: People wanted a mobile platform that could integrate their lives. to take the 2, 3 and heck, some people used to carry 4 or 5 different devices with them everywhere. People wanted to take this, merge it into one device, and make it connected. Apple wasn't the first. Heck, RIM wasn't even the first true "smartphone".

What Apple did, and did very well, was listen to what people complained about with multiple different attempts at this merger, learned, took technologies from around the world, And made a product that hit home with users.

But for them to start claiming exclusive rights of the use of some of these technologies just because they thought of patenting it first absolutely drives me up the wall.

I'm a firm believer that patents should never be awarded on the outcome of a task, but on the execution of said task. If you can create a method to complete a task, it's the method thats patentable. Not the task. But thats just the start of whats wrong with the Patent system.
 
Last edited: