Whats the point of Apple innovating and creating a new and "innovative" product if the likes of google, samsung, HTC etc are free to copy and sell it as a cheap alternative???
Starting to see the big picture yet?
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 Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Whats the point of Apple innovating and creating a new and "innovative" product if the likes of google, samsung, HTC etc are free to copy and sell it as a cheap alternative???
Starting to see the big picture yet?
The point is that if you don't make it, no one will buy it. Because it won't exist...
If Android didn't exist, we would probably still not be able to copy and paste on our iPhones, and forget folders in the home screen... Why innovate when there is no alternative for the consumer?
Because Android exists and is actually gaining ground, Apple is forced to innovate (and at a faster pace too!), and Apple innovating is good for YOU, the user.
Also, please use an actual Google Android phone and you will quickly see that the similarities are few and far between, and often end at obvious stuff like scrolling. Which we've had for decades.
Oh and Android had the notification curtain long before iOS. FYI.
It's easy to read some nuanced article and feel something, but actually using both systems on a daily basis, they are as different as Mac and Windows. Both have windows, and mice, and icons... But you'll quickly see that one is in fact a Mac, and the other Windows.
You're saying Apple's appeal to its customers is the uniqueness of their product features ?
There I thought Apple products appealed to its customers because of the polish, thought and design behind them. Silly me, I guess all this time, my MacBook Air and iPhone 4S have been enjoyable because Apple won't let others use questionable patents like "Slide back on incomplete swipe" in a photo gallery.
Maybe you just don't understand what about Apple products appeal to people if you think that Samsung/Motorola/HTC can just use a patent to implement it. No patent at all makes Apple products the way they are, they are much greater than the sum of their patents.
Are you joking? "Polish, thought and design" are just words that describe the way Apple innovates. These collection of innovations are either patented by Apple, licensed by Apple, or stole from another company.
Its like your de-bunking your own opinion and you don't even know it.
----------
But you just contradicted the poster I was quoting. According to him Apple is stagnant and is not innovating, yet you claim innovation is happening?
Which one is it?
Apple never implemented the GUI that Jobs and his team saw at Xerox. They thought that they couldn't sell it without overlapping windows and without lots of other things that you take for granted nowadays.
Larry Tesler doesn't give the impression Apple "stole" anything from Xerox. But since he worked for Apple for 17 years I suppose he's just a biased fanboy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ferle2Uovks&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Where you were wrong: You claimed that Apple had a choice between licensing its patents, and between using its lawyers to stop others from using them. That's not the choice that Apple has. The choice is between licensing them, and not licensing them. Lawyers only enter the game when someone uses these patents without licensing.
No one is claiming that Apple invented the concepts that make up the iPhone such as multitouch. This fact doesn't make the iPhone any less innovative. Innovation does not mean inventing something new.
Putting all those technologies in a mobile device is innovative. Apple took a big risk in putting those concepts in a mobile device.
Also, your claim that Apple patented things solely to stifle competition is disturbing. How do you know that that's what Apple wanted? And you would do the exact same thing. Apple invested hard time and money into developing the iPhone. Why wouldn't they try to protect the fruits of their labors as much as possible?
While I do feel some elements are so basic that they really should be a standard and not patented...why can't Google just come up with something a bit more original, rather than essentially copying what Apple did with the iPhone OS???? They have the resources to do it - so it just seems lazy to me.
Microsoft's phone and tablet software is unique and different compared to iOS (which makes me have a lot more respect for Microsoft compared to Google). This makes Microsoft a more worthy competitor IMO for taking the time to come up with a different UI that gives consumers a truly different choice.
Google Android could also be a lot more unique and different than iOs if they put in the effort - but I guess they just don't want to.
It seems to me that if you let companies copy (and be lazy), that's bad for consumers because products would all start to offer the same or similar experience based on what has worked in the past -- rather than encouraging companies to come up with something truly different and providing really different choices for consumers.
Microsoft's phone and tablet software is unique and different compared to iOS (which makes me have a lot more respect for Microsoft compared to Google). This makes Microsoft a more worthy competitor IMO for taking the time to come up with a different UI that gives consumers a truly different choice.
Google Android could also be a lot more unique and different than iOs if they put in the effort - but I guess they just don't want to.
It seems to me that if you let companies copy (and be lazy), that's bad for consumers because products would all start to offer the same or similar experience based on what has worked in the past -- rather than encouraging companies to come up with something truly different and providing really different choices for consumers.
Just like Google's version of "slide to unlock" looks nothing like the one you see on iOS. You slide from the middle and can an icon to the edge of a circle to unlock, or drag it left onto a camera in order to open the camera app... This is something that's been on Android for some time, long before Apple added the slide up to open camera to the iOS lock screen.
Again, we come to the conclusion that "improving" existing ideas breeds more advantages for the consumer. Apple came up with slide to unlock (or they saw it on the Neonode), then google improved it by adding a camera to the unlock screen, and then apple took google's idea of having a camera on the lock screen and put their own touch on it...
I remember people complaining in the beginning that the iPhone doesnt have real buttons and it was going to be difficult to dial, blah, blah, blah...
That complain is long gone, never again heard anyone complaining about it.
Apple risk it with a great instinct that it was going to succeed.
Their level of confidence wasn't that high when they release the first iPad; it was more or less an experimental product, which also happened to succeed.
Hmm....here we have Eric Schmidt telling Charlie Rose that with the iPhone Apple "brought in the Smartphone revolution, sort of invented it", and that Steve and the team he lead should get credit for doing it. Reading most of the posts here you'd think all Apple does is package other people's ideas/innovation and then take credit for it and patent the hell out of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg5mrwsWR1k&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Good luck on Google getting Congress and any Administration to create new laws to redistribute a corporations IP.
This is just a Google ruse to accelerate a change in patent laws, nothing more. By the time that happens, Apple will already be on the next disruption, curtesy of all of those fat profits on iPhones and iPads that Google is so envious of.
Best that Google change its business model if hardware is something that it wants to directly profit off of.
And exactly what has Google copied from iOS in Android?
And please, put a list of things
What has to do your question with kdarling post?
For a company who recently earned ~$11 B+ (more than Microsoft & Google combined), it's downright pathetic for people to even suggest that Apple doesn't innovate. Even its income stream is diversified, unlike Google that is essentially a one trick pony whose profits (~95%) primarily come from search.
This is just Google feeling entitled, above the law & scared as ******* of Apple's patents. It sucks if you're always on the defensive, w/ nothing but "weak" FRAND-pledged defenses, against a company with more than $100 B in its war chest.
If you were Apple, Microsoft or any other company that sells software and/or hardware, how would you feel if another company starts giving away your products?
P.S. I honestly hope Marissa turns Yahoo! around, & together with Bing, Facebook & Twitter, give Google some serious competition on search & ad dollars.
This is just Google feeling entitled, above the law & scared as ******* of Apple's patents. It sucks if you're always on the defensive, w/ nothing but "weak" FRAND-pledged defenses, against a company with more than $100 B in its war chest.
If you were Apple, Microsoft or any other company that sells software and/or hardware, how would you feel if another company starts giving away your products?
P.S. I honestly hope Marissa turns Yahoo! around, & together with Bing, Facebook & Twitter, give Google some serious competition on search & ad dollars.
Is there a phone that has stolen the "polish, thought, and design" of the iPhone? Samsung phones look cheap, HTC sucks, and Android is a heap of fragmentation--is probably your response. So what exactly are they suing over then? What's holding back Apple from innovating? Unless you want to claim that Android is as good as iOS or that the Galaxy tab is as graceful as the iPad? Also there shouldn't be a problem with licensing out using search to search all the files on a smartphone right?
Seriously?
Android (iOS & WP) = free
Google Docs (Office) = free
Chrome OS (Windows) = free
All funded by search.
All of the basic look and feel and operation of the OS itself (i.e., the essential top-level user interface and functionality). There are some differences (obviously), but overall they have copied most of the core elements.
In comparison, Microsoft is doing something completely different and unique with their mobile OS user interface - bringing something new and actually really great in many ways from a usability perspective.
I know that they all borrow user interface elements from each other to a certain extent - but Android is such a blatantly copy of the iOS UI it is really just sad. Again, Microsoft has taken things in a different direction - and for that they deserve more respect (and I really hope they get some traction with Surface). I would rather see a company making an effort to do something different be successful in that effort, rather than a company that doesn't bother to put in the effort to be unique.
No, I understand common sense as do judges in other county's, but it was an AMERICAN judge who stated Apple's slide to touch patent was 'silly' and threw it out. Perhaps you should ask your own question to yourself?
-----------------------------------------
And in regards to innovation, Google's Glass is pretty innovative, Apple hasn't got anything like it, and I find the Microsoft Surface pretty innovative, it's done something different with the OS and made some nice sexy hardware, the keyboard cover is also pretty slick.
Ah, Android, Google Docs or Chrome OS are Microsoft and Apple products?
----------
So no, you don't have nothing. Basic look and feel doesn't mean nothing.
Are you saying that Apple has copied Symbian, Palm et al because all those OS use a grid of icons?
What they have blatantly copied? Please, point concrete examples and not the usual crap aboput the overall look and feel because this doesn't means nothing.
Down vote button ?
Yeah, so then hundreds of Apple haters log on, and now you have an up and down vote battle going on. I dislike both up and down buttons. If you really care about some issue, I say take the time to actually post your opinion. Clicking an up or down button is far too easy, and it doesn't really explain why you are clicking up or down. I say down with up/down buttons.
Yeah, so then hundreds of Apple haters log on, and now you have an up and down vote battle going on. I dislike both up and down buttons. If you really care about some issue, I say take the time to actually post your opinion. Clicking an up or down button is far too easy, and it doesn't really explain why you are clicking up or down. I say down with up/down buttons.
Ah DOS. An OS purchased on the cheap which was a blatant rip off (save for a different drive letter) of CP/M which laid the foundation for an empire. Microsoft DOS was Google Android v1 aka Tiny Spectacled Fellow OS.
It's a shame for the consumer in the long run, but I understand Apples OCD on protecting its patents from perceived infringement, and unwillingness to licence that which gives it a unique identity and position in the marketplace.
I wouldn't call Windows a shame for the consumer, I've ran Windows for a very long time, its never given me major Issues.
I'm all for a company protecting its IP. But the majority ( not all ) of Apples claims of innovation are based off " look and feel ". Its ********.
This might just stem from Apples upper management remebering when they got their ass whopped by Microsoft in the OS market, can't say I blame them to much
Last edited: