I understand they are different policies, yet they are both policies that leave customers guessing and in a lurch in some respects. When people attempt to use fragmentation as an argument I don't really see the point. The fragmentation sometimes has to do with the equipment and it's design target rather than Google's ability to enforce roll outs. So what if you are on the latest IOS for your Ipad1, it's horrible. Same can and will be said for any other device that starts to lag behind IOS. You will start to see fragmentation in Apple Tablets between Ipad1 and the next. I guarantee. And please, don't try to tell that you won't be able to get an ipad one in a years time...it will just be second hand and horribly under powered. That is a part of the Apple ecosystem, if you will.
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's Larry Page Claims Steve Jobs' War on Android Was 'For Show'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I understand they are different policies, yet they are both policies that leave customers guessing and in a lurch in some respects. When people attempt to use fragmentation as an argument I don't really see the point. The fragmentation sometimes has to do with the equipment and it's design target rather than Google's ability to enforce roll outs. So what if you are on the latest IOS for your Ipad1, it's horrible. Same can and will be said for any other device that starts to lag behind IOS. You will start to see fragmentation in Apple Tablets between Ipad1 and the next. I guarantee. And please, don't try to tell that you won't be able to get an ipad one in a years time...it will just be second hand and horribly under powered. That is a part of the Apple ecosystem, if you will.
This is total BS. The lock on regular phones with keys served a completely different purpose than on touch screen phones; preventing accidental input so it had to be a somewhat complex sequence to reduce the possibility of accidentally inputing that sequence. Also, atleast every phone I've had will display a message telling you how to input the sequence if you at any time press a diffierent key than the next in the sequence. As if 1. Press the button with a key on it and 2. Press the action button corresponding to the on-screen word "Unlock" isn't obvious enough.
By the way, the action button was way more of a breakthrough when it was introduced than the slide to unlock was.
It's clear from your post that you're aware that Apple's patent is specific enough to not be a blatant rip-off of Neonode, that makes it simply ignorant of you to claim Android's version is a copy.
That is why this argument doesn't really hold water. It's second hand. Apple not supporting hardware that it no longer sells is not the same thing as Google not supporting hardware that is still being sold first hand, and is being advertised by both carriers and manufacturers as a new phone.
I get the similarity. iPad 1 owners will experience a lot of the same woes that Android users do. Certain apps may not run. But the differences are still huge.
There is a reasonable expectation that a tablet or a computer that was purchsed years ago and has since been discontinued by the manufacturer will no longer be supported at some point. There is a reasonable expectation that technology purchased in the second hand market will be outdated. There is also a reasonable expectation that a smartphone that is still being produced by the manufacturer and sold as new, first hand, will be supported for at least the life of the carrier contract.
Whether or not fragmentation significantly hurts the Android user experience is up to the individual. Some people (myself included) hate it, while others don't see it as a big deal. And that's fine. A lot of people really don't care. I'm just saying that fragmentation is a real phenomena with Android, and support for an old PowerPC isn't a relative comparison.
But it does hold water. How can you not argue that the devices resale-ability isn't a part of the decision to buy Apple devices. I don't know a single friend who doesn't resell his devices to make up for the "Apple Tax". I can say confidently that resale is a part of the apple experience. Easily at that.
We aren't talking about 10 years are we? We are talking about about 5 years. I would hope that a device costing me 800 dollars at some price points will last me 5 years, or I can resell it for a good enough price to offset my new purchase.
Its obviously not "total BS" - otherwise a) Apple wouldn't have wasted time patenting it and b) various Android handset manufacturers wouldn't have gone to the trouble to engineer workarounds. And, again, because some Android handset makers put a different "skin" on top of Android (ie. Touchwiz, etc.) - its more than possible that some phones are more of a "rip-off" than others.
The fact of the matter is that, while Apple's "Slide-to-Unlock" may not rank with invention of the stream engine or flush toilet in the great march of human ingenuity - it definitely does provide a neat, and certainly "unobvious" solution to a problem billions of people face every day.
When a phone is in a pocket or bag, it needs to be "locked" so that accidental contact doesn't inadvertently cause it to make calls, play sounds, etc. On the other hand, "waking" should require the absolute fewest possible steps (we don't want to have to press 1-2-3 while holding down the home button). It ought to be an action that a normal person, on using the phone for the first time can figure almost instantly. (No remembering to tap twice in the lower left quadrant.) It ALSO ought not to require the ability to read written instructions - like the example you just cited. What if you pick up a phone that has its default language set to Mandarin or Finnish? Even if you picked up a Vietnamese iPhone, I think most people could figure out the meaning of the right-facing arrow on the graphical button.
Its certainly possible that various Courts around the world will have the opportunity to rule definitively (as opposed to the Dutch court, whose ruling was only a preliminary hearing, without the chance for Apple to make a full presentation of its evidence) on the "Slide-to-Unlock" patents. But whatever way they ultimately rule, it will do little to diminish my respect for whatever thoughtful engineers at Apple came up with it.
Don't believe it? Google it, and you'll see.
Here's an example: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2011/11/02/bill-gates-and-steve-jobs-they-were-friends-but /
I leave it up to you to find the Videos in YouTube.
Relase value and fragmentation are not the same thing. If you think that you're going to sell a 5 year old computer for anything close to what you paid for it, or that a 5 year old computer should run the same OS version as a brand new one, dream on. 5 years is a LONG time in the ever-evolving computer world. According to Moore's Law, the number of transistors on a computer chip doubles every 5 years. A typical video game console generation lasts 5 years.
As far as 5 years of use, that hasn't been a problem for any Apple product I've ever owned. My 3rd gen iPod Touch doesn't run 5.1, but it still works. It still does everything it was advertised to do when I bought it. I'm happy. I got a good six years out of my Power PC before I felt I needed to upgrade to an Intel MBP.
Plus, there is a huge second market for Apple products, and they do typically hold a reasonable value for used, outdated tech. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that they hold their value better than any PC. That doesn't mean that Apple needs to update the OS for these old Macs. People who buy tech on the second hand market shouldn't expect Apple to keep them updated with the latest OS.
Fragmentation is when multiple devices currently sold on the first market are not keeping up with the latest and greatest OS. I'm not talking about older, first gen Androids that aren't sold anymore. This is about multiple Androids being sold brand new right now that each run different versions of the Android OS. It makes the Android community and marketplace more complicated, and creates different user experiences. People can argue all day about which method is better, I'm just saying that that isn't what Apple is doing by not updating the OS on some old PowerPC. You might as well say Ford is fragmented because some 1975 Mustang doesn't have an iPod port and a sunroof.
Oh, and resale value in no way factors into my decision to buy technology, although I understand why it does for some. I generally don't sell old tech. Typically I either keep it or it breaks. I use my Apple devices professionally, so the factor of resale value is easily trumped by the factor of how much it will help my company grow and make money. Resale is part of YOUR Apple experience.
But either way it's irrelevant. I certainly had resale value in mind when I bought my 2006 Subaru Forester. I'd like to see it hold it's value, but I'm not going to get all upset because the 2008 model was redesigned with an iPod port and in-dash GPS. I don't expect Subaru to come to my house and install those things on mine.
What you're talking about simply isn't the same thing as fragmentation. I understand your frustration however. My 3rd gen iPod Touch would no longer communicate with my MBP, because I upgraded iTunes. The latest version of iTunes won't speak with the outdated version of iOS on my iPod. I didnt get mad. The iPod is probably four years old. It still works with my PowerPC G5. Eventually I got an iPhone.
I sold the iPod Touch, and boy did it keep it's value.
Last edited:
Relase value and fragmentation are not the same thing. If you think that you're going to sell a 5 year old computer for anything close to what you paid for it, or that a 5 year old computer should run the same OS version as a brand new one, dream on. 5 years is a LONG time in the ever-evolving computer world. According to Moore's Law, the number of transistors on a computer chip doubles every 5 years. A typical video game console generation lasts 5 years.
As far as 5 years of use, that hasn't been a problem for any Apple product I've ever owned. My 3rd gen iPod Touch doesn't run 5.1, but it still works. It still does everything it was advertised to do when I bought it. I'm happy. I got a good six years out of my Power PC before I felt I needed to upgrade to an Intel MBP.
Plus, there is a huge second market for Apple products, and they do typically hold a reasonable value for used, outdated tech. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that they hold their value better than any PC. That doesn't mean that Apple needs to update the OS for these old Macs. People who buy tech on the second hand market shouldn't expect Apple to keep them updated with the latest OS.
Fragmentation is when multiple devices currently sold on the first market are not keeping up with the latest and greatest OS. I'm not talking about older, first gen Androids that aren't sold anymore. This is about multiple Androids being sold brand new right now that each run different versions of the Android OS. It makes the Android community and marketplace more complicated, and creates different user experiences. People can argue all day about which method is better, I'm just saying that that isn't what Apple is doing by not updating the OS on some old PowerPC. You might as well say Ford is fragmented because some 1975 Mustang doesn't have an iPod port and a sunroof.
Oh, and resale value in no way factors into my decision to buy technology, although I understand why it does for some. I generally don't sell old tech. Typically I either keep it or it breaks. I use my Apple devices professionally, so the factor of resale value is easily trumped by the factor of how much it will help my company grow and make money. Resale is part of YOUR Apple experience.
But either way it's irrelevant. I certainly had resale value in mind when I bought my 2006 Subaru Forester. I'd like to see it hold it's value, but I'm not going to get all upset because the 2008 model was redesigned with an iPod port and in-dash GPS. I don't expect Subaru to come to my house and install those things on mine.
What you're talking about simply isn't the same thing as fragmentation. I understand your frustration however. My 3rd gen iPod Touch would no longer communicate with my MBP, because I upgraded iTunes. The latest version of iTunes won't speak with the outdated version of iOS on my iPod. I didnt get mad. The iPod is probably four years old. It still works with my PowerPC G5. Eventually I got an iPhone.
I sold the iPod Touch, and boy did it keep it's value.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. I read it, but it doesn't really go anywhere. I understand what fragmentation is. As a developer I deal with it daily. We see it in Android products and plan accordingly. There is a very similar development occurring in IOS land which is gen1 Ipads are now failing to adopt the current IOS or reverting back to earlier versions. The more devices that come out, the more you will see a distribution of IOS's. How you describe the problem doesn't make the problem go away. Plain and simple. The first bit of evidence we are seeing in our testing is that anybody with the original Ipad will indeed be stuck with the current version and some are even rolling back to earlier versions.
I'm saying that discontinued technology not running the latest OS is not the same thing as brand new technology not running the latest OS. An iPad 1 not running iOS 5 is not a problem in the same way that a brand new off-the-shelf Android not running ICS. It is expected that outdated technology is going to be outdated. It is expected that new technology will be up to date.
From what I know, iOS 5 currently runs on every iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad that Apple is selling. Ice Cream Sandwich runs on what, two phones?
I'm not even trying to put down Android here, that's just the reality of it. Android is fragmented, for better or worse, and Apple is cohesive. These are common characteristics of open and closed source systems.
Fragmentation in the second market is true of any and all technology companies, and it is unavoidable and should be expected.
But their is a larger market than just "currently sold devices"
I see how your argument rests upon that idea, but the reality is, the pond is much bigger than "currently sold devices" and with ever new product cycle, that pond grows larger. If people were just throwing away their old devices like all the android phones essentially are...then I'd see where you are coming from, but unfortunately, I'm seeing the earlier products still sticking in their and being used as well as the "currently sold items."
You're right. We're both right. There is a larger market. There is a secondary market, and many people do continue to use old devices. In fact, it's probably a really large percentage too. For example, I myself have no plans to upgrade my iPad 2 to a 3, or my iPhone 4S to a 5 this year. I don't upgrade every year, as nice as that would be. It's too expensive.
But you seem to be saying that a company has an obligation to update the OS for devices for however long people use them. That just isn't realistic or practical. And it isn't the same thing as the current market being fragmented. I still use my old G5 tower for certain things, but I don't expect it to run Lion. For that matter, I still play Super Nintendo, but i'm not holding my breath for a new Mario Kart. If I buy technology I expect it to stay current for a reasonable amount of time, and I think we just differ with what that amount of time is.
I feel that Apple has done a fairly good job with this. From what I know, every iPod, iPhone, and iPad that Apple currently sells are all running iOS 5, which is more than I can say for Android. I was pretty impressed when my wife bought a 3GS in October and it ran the same OS version as my 4S.
But as is often the case with Android, buying a brand new piece of technology and finding out as little as six months later that there won't be any more OS updates is infuriating to me. It's especially aggravating in the case of smartphones because almost all today come with a 2 year contract. I don't feel it's too much to ask that my device will be up to date for at least as long as it's being sold from the manufacturer. But that's me, and that's partly why I like Apple.
To me, a retina display formatted app not running on an iPad 1 isn't nearly as big a deal.
So yeah, the pond is much larger than currently sold devices. But Apple and Microsoft and other OS manufacturers shouldn't be held responsible for the whole pond, just what they're currently selling and maybe what is still slightly current. Sooner or later everything will be outdated.
The aggravating thing for me is instead how quickly things become obsolete. I really don't need a new iPad every year. I see their need to keep a step ahead of the competition, but for customers, keeping up becomes too expensive. This is why I'm happy that they're still selling the iPad 2, the iPhone 4, and the iPhone 3GS. It helps devices stay current for longer. If there is no iPhone 5 release this year I wouldn't care one bit. In fact, I'd be a little relieved.
Nice talking with you.
We've been over this before. Knowing the history of things, makes it easier to know why other things are obvious or not.
Unlock gestures were common starting from the late 1990s. However, as an attempt at security, the unlock path was deliberately kept hidden.
It's therefore considered incredibly obvious to put a visual indication IF you don't care about security. In other words, if you took a normal group of touch programmers and said, "Hey we want to use slide-to-unlock like the Neonode, but it has to be easy for any user to do it", then it's virtually certain that some of the programmers would come up with what Apple did. I.e. the solution would be obvious to anyone experienced in the art.
The fact that Apple managed to get a patent on it tells us more about the USPTO policies and its lack of experience in the art, than anything else. Ever since a decade ago when patent examiners started having to spend much more effort to deny a patent than to grant it, the floodgates have opened to junk patents.
The moment a post falls back on insulting someone, it shows that it has no decent argument points.
That Dutch judge was smart enough to also notice that onscreen slide switches have been used in touch controls for decades... and that the Apple design is almost exactly that of a regular slide on/off switch from some 1990s industrial touch controllers where the user slid the switch left or right using their finger. (A visual feedback that follows your finger.)
Last edited:
Do you think that sort of strategy would foil a determined criminal for more than a couple of seconds?
Of course not. The only people likely to be frustrated by deliberately obscuring the unlock gesture are legitimate users. People who don't use their phone very often, or new users. Or, heaven forbid, people who might need to use the phone in an emergency (Grandma's keeled over. Lets use her Neonode phone to call an ambulance... oops, I can't make it turn on. RIP Grandma..)
I see your wrong-headed thinking every day in all sorts of horribly designed artifacts: clamshell packages, "child-safe" pill bottles; and the blizzard of useless passwords that beset every web users in the world.
Some people recognize true genius when they see it. Others, including most Android apologists - and apparently at least one Judge in the Netherlands - don't.
That's their loss.
Sorry, I shortened up the tale since it's been repeated here so often:
Originally touch unlock gestures were intended as passcodes... thus the term "unlock". Because of the popularity of touch PDAs, by the end of the 1990s, a mini-industry had sprung up providing various touch gesture unlock screens.
Much time was spent researching the best gesture ideas that would be both a) hard to guess for an intruder and b) easy to remember for the user. E.g. connecting dots in a certain pattern, or signing your name with your finger, or drawing an arbitrary geometric figure.
Within about five years, the whole unlock thing came and went, as it slowly became apparent that you could look for tiny scratches and even finger grease on a touch device, and pretty well figure out what the unlock gesture was. It was definitely not enterprise/military/government grade security.
Therefore most unlock companies and apps disappeared by 2002 (altho some are still in the handheld security business), when the Neonode decided to throw away the idea of security, and simply use a horizontal swipe-to-unlock for convenience. They even tried putting arrows on the screen for help.
Five years after that, Apple did the same thing: ignore security and use a slide button just for convenience.
To sum up: unlock gestures went from security to convenience. There were no "breakthroughs", just a slow progression and obvious changes.