HTC Cites Patents Obtained From Google in New Lawsuit Against Apple

[divinox]

I didn't say in was non-obvious. I said that it's impossible to determine that it was obvious after 30 years of using it.

Its of course harder in retrospect, but not impossible. Remember, we also have the luxury of historical knowledge. All in all, this allows us to say quite a lot i would say. (When it comes to things such as drag-and-drop we of course also have the luxury of having people who lived at that time, and who were involved with researching these things still alive.)

Anyhow: Given a pointing device/cursor + the desktop paradigm + wimp, we can, in my opinion, say that moving and transforming of objects (such as windows and icons) was not only fairly obvious, but a given element of the desktop paradigm (implemented or not).

The use of hold-mb-to-manipulate, cannot be completely derived from the above, but given the limited functionality of the mouse (i.e. you can click, click-more-than-once, hold, click-and-hold, click-repeatedly-and-hold), i'd say that one would have come quite naturally too. (and, like stated, i think i have seen touch-based interaction utilizing the very same technique, i.e. hold-to-transform, giving further support to my belief).

You keep saying that. How about you drop it unless you have some evidence?

How bout you look things up yourself for a change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g

But here you are. Doubt this is the first time it appeared at parc though. Drag and drop takes place at 3:20 or so.

Again, so what? I don't care whether or not it was obvious.

My mistake then, i thought you started out with making a point that it was not.

The Chrome Beta was release a month before Android. More than 18 months after the iPhone was introduced.

Yes, but Chrome is not only for Android. What we have here is a case of picking a good foundation to build on, not "picking X just cause Apple did so".

Wow. How about you try and understand what I am saying instead of making up random analogies. Webkit isn't the hammer used to build the house. It is an engine in a car. One guy builds a car with a freely available engine. Another guy sees it and says "Wow, that works well." I'm going to build a similar car, so I think I'll use the same engine.

A tool is a tool is a tool. I asked you if using the same tools were to be considered as copying, you said it was. As for WebKit i have no issue calling a rendering machine a tool, a tool that enables rendering. Then again, we dont need to have that discussion of semantics on top of everything else.

(p.s., the analogy would work either way: One guy builds a house with a freely available hammer. Another guy sees it and says "Wow, that hammer works well". I need to punch in some nails too, so i think ill use the same tool. :- D. Thing is, if that is copying i guess pretty much every singe device is a copy, since they pretty much all rely on the same (von neumann) architecture).

Exactly. I never argued otherwise.

Good.

----------

Hmm, those look like miniature Newtons to me.

Which looks like a miniature -insert random computer- made portable to me. :- )

 

[BaldiMac]

How bout you look things up yourself for a change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g

But here you are. Doubt this is the first time it appeared at parc though. Drag and drop takes place at 3:20 or so.

What does 1991 have to do with our conversation?

My mistake then, i thought you started out with making a point that it was not.

Nope, you tend to latch on to tangential points and run with them.

Yes, but Chrome is not only for Android. What we have here is a case of picking a good foundation to build on, not "picking X just cause Apple did so".

Again, you are twisting the point. I never said they are doing it "just because Apple did."

And I have no idea what your point is about Chrome.

A tool is a tool is a tool. I asked you if using the same tools were to be considered as copying, you said it was. As for WebKit i have no issue calling a rendering machine a tool, a tool that enables rendering. Then again, we dont need to have that discussion of semantics on top of everything else.

(p.s., the analogy would work either way: One guy builds a house with a freely available hammer. Another guy sees it and says "Wow, that hammer works well". I need to punch in some nails too, so i think ill use the same tool. :- D.

So you agree with the analogy, but you are arguing semantics???

Thing is, if that is copying i guess pretty much every singe device is a copy, since they pretty much all rely on the same (von neumann) architecture).

Copying individual elements of a larger work does not make the work in its entirety a copy. It's like you are arguing stream of consciousness here!

 

[theelysium]

I think that patents obtained after you already violated someone's patents should not count. HTC robbed Apple's intellectually property. But, now during it's fight HTC gets to add in patents they just got this month from Google and Motorola... I don't think so that should not count it's after the fact.

 

[divinox]

I'm sorry but this analogy was ridiculous even for you haha. You completely missed the point and went on some tangent that I can't even comprehend.

If one boat goes faster then the other because of some change that the first carpenter made, and then the other carpenter sees that and decides to make that same change, it is absolutely copying.

No, i tried to understand what he meant with "using the same tool is copying". A good way of getting there is by using an "out-there" analogy, rather than one that he can simply confirm and leave me non-wiser.

Through the above i managed to at least draw some sort of line (e.g. using a hammer to build a boat is cool, but if you use it to build a house* - regardless of if it looks different - is not!).

* for clarity, both actors are using hammers (the tool) to build a house (the end product, e.g. a browser).

p.s. Building a house with a hammer is significantly faster than building one with just your hands. But, no point going into semantics here, regarding whether or not a framework or what-not can be viewed correctly as a tool. Im just used to the tool analogy, as its quite frequently used in the ICT-research field.

----------

What does 1991 have to do with our conversation?



Nope, you tend to latch on to tangential points and run with them.



Again, you are twisting the point. I never said they are doing it "just because Apple did."

And I have no idea what your point is about Chrome.



So you agree with the analogy, but you are arguing semantics???



Copying individual elements of a larger work does not make the work in its entirety a copy. It's like you are arguing stream of consciousness here!

1) You wanted me to link the xerox parc research i was talking about, i did. What now?

2) Then try to be more clear. Most of the time i have to throw you around a bit to actually get what you are saying (for further info, see post above)

3) You are saying they copied Apple, no? If so, they must certainly be doing it because Apple did, rather than because it made sense. Otherwise, why not simply say that they both opted for the same solution?

4) My point was, and is: Google picked WebKit as it made the most sense to them. After all, why reinvent the wheel if you have a quite good, open-source, wheel laying there ready for use and further optimization? :- )

(i.e., not to ride on the success or what-not of Apple).

5) No, i opted not to argue semantics. I, unlike you, feel that my analogy is still fitting, where you did not. To avoid a discussion of semantics, which is completely unnecessary, we can go with yours. The parenthesis was just to show that it did work, nonetheless.

6) Ok, so everything is part-original, part-influenced, part-copy. I can agree with that. In general, at least.

 

[voonyx]

Last? Hard to say, since i do not have that broad knowledge when it comes to tech. The steam engine? Nanotech? Biotech? Nah, but if i were to look, i'd look at medicine and psychics. More in our field, the internet architecture (if we can view that as a product) is quite revolutionary too i'd say, as is of course the world-wide web as we know it (although for other reasons than purely technical).

What is clear is that rarely, if ever, are products for consumer markets revolutionary from a technological perspective. The reason is quite simply that innovation takes the shape of the inverted tail (i.e. the long nose of innovation).

That said, there are of course plenty of revolutionary consumer devices (wii), and likewise many services and products with somewhat revolutionary end-effects (e.g. facebook). They do not, however, necessitate underlying technological revolution. The iphone, i'd say, comes close at both of these two categories, but far from qualifies as a technological revolution.

My point in asking you this question was simple. Nothing is revolutionary from a technological perspective unless you go back 100 years. So you downplaying what Apple has done as if other companies are doing all these revolutionary things is bizarre. What company has done what Apple did by combining all the available technologies and creating as successful a product? Since we can both agree that from a business perspective what they did is revolutionary, let's leave it at that.

Then why the rant?

Not really a rant, I was just using your figure of speech to present my opinion. Not sure where your confusion came from. Did you really think I thought you were a pulitzer prize winning author?

Already stated that i, for various reasons, have no interest of "outing myself" on this board - or pretty much any other board for matter. If you do not want to believe that i am a researcher, currently working with digital platforms, and platform-based innovation, feel free.

If you think that i would go to such lengths as to fake an acceptance notification from HICSS (and in doing so making myself look bad by giving myself an A-M rather than an A) you must be quite sad.

So you invite me to this alleged presentation that you are giving, where if I chose to attend, you'd undoubtedly be "outed", but its incomprehensible for you to present an article you've authored? Or were you going to have me go to the presentation and then later when I ask you on macrumors which of the speakers was you you'd reply "I'm not telling!!" Till you prove otherwise you're a fraud..in my book.

Secondly, what lengths? You said something, provided no proof and then gave me an "email" that someone sent you. I hope you didn't spend hours drafting this email, but from the sound of it, you went to great lengths to perpetrate what you're saying...

clone, copy, whatever. everywhere i turn i see "X stole this" "Y stole that". When asked what they stole really, answers are anything but clear. Clarity, that is what i ask for. At least then i have a chance of understanding "you" (i.e. people who are making such claims).

If you can't discern the difference between "Certain elements of Android are copied from iOS" and "Android is a clone of iOS", then I really don't know what to say.

I think the webkit example that was provided for you is quite clear. Again...if you're looking for someone to spoon-feed you the answer you're looking for, please tell us what it is.

Unlike others i really have no problem answering questions. Why would i?

Yeah your job is easy: Say things without proof, and offer zero evidence. I wouldn't have a problem answering questions if I followed those steps either.

No, i provided arguments for why i think "it woulda happened anyway". I cant remember seeing any arguments from you on the opposite (i.e. "It wouldnt have happened anyway"). Feel free to do the same, or provide counter-arguments to the ones i have given. Thats usually a good step to get things further than time-wasting "i think this, i think that".

Again, you're looking for a specific answer and discounting any that don't match what you want to hear. If no company has matched the success of iPhone in 4 years (and by matched I mean laughably not close), that's evidence enough for me that it wouldn't have happened anyway in 2 years.

Care to expand on why you think 4,5 or 20 is more likely than 2?

See above. If it hasn't happened in 4, on what planet do you suppose it would have happened in 2 or 3?

What link? And why? It would just be someone elses "supposition". Dont ask for things that a) make no sense b) wont make a difference.

I'll recycle a line I used in another thread. So you can't provide any evidence that another company was working on an iPhone like device before they were usurped by Apple. Thank you, that's all you had to say.

So because no company has matched the success of iphone to this date, no one could have given us an equivalent device, ever? Where is the logic in that? Really?

Ever? Are you doing that "I'll just say something and make it so" thing again? Where did I say that no company would never match the success of the iPhone if iPhone hadn't been released? What I did say was that it wasn't as imminent as you'd like to think, and it wasn't a "it'll happen anyway" boxed up response like you like to suggest. Sure it would have happened. It hasn't happened yet, so there's zero reason to think it would have happened from 2007-2011 "anyway". Like I said if you want to change the timeline to 70 years ahead, sure it could have happened.

poor wording. i have provided several streams and factors pointing in the direction i am arguing for. stop with your nonsense about me doing nothing other than say "it would have happened", when i have also given you the following "because...".

let me finish that for you: "because I say so. I have zero proof of this, I cant provide one shred of evidence that it would have happened but because I say it would have you must accept this as truth". That's essentially what your "because" is right?

Now, please kick it up a notch or we're done. I cant waste my time repeating myself over and over like this. Its a) not mentally stimulating, and b) i have way too many things on my hand as it is.

It's been nothing but you repeating the same substance-less things over and over again. "It would have", "It could have", "It should have" with no evidence. Like I said your role in this thread is extremely easy. Just state things and discount everything someone else says.

I agree, arguing with you is not mentally stimulating in the least.

 

[BaldiMac]

1) You wanted me to link the xerox parc research i was talking about, i did. What now?

Another tangent. You brought it up. It wasn't relevant.

2) Then try to be more clear. Most of the time i have to throw you around a bit to actually get what you are saying (for further info, see post above)

I am being clear. You are just trying to filter what I say through other arguments that you disagree with.

3) You are saying they copied Apple, no? If so, they must certainly be doing it because Apple did, rather than because it made sense. Otherwise, why not simply say that they both opted for the same solution?

Sigh. I suppose the difference between "just because Apple did it" and "after seeing Apple do it, they decided it was a good idea based on a number of reasons" isn't clear to you.

4) My point was, and is: Google picked WebKit as it made the most sense to them. After all, why reinvent the wheel if you have a quite good, open-source, wheel laying there ready for use and further optimization? :- )

(i.e., not to ride on the success or what-not of Apple).

Yep, they picked an Apple managed project without considering the success that Apple had with that project. How is that the simplest explanation?

5) No, i opted not to argue semantics. I, unlike you, feel that my analogy is still fitting, where you did not. To avoid a discussion of semantics, which is completely unnecessary, we can go with yours. The parenthesis was just to show that it did work, nonetheless.

Sure. When you rephrased your analogy the second time it would apply. My analogy was more clear.

6) Ok, so everything is part-original, part-influenced, part-copy. I can agree with that. In general, at least.

Not everything, but that's the general point. More specifically, Android has copied concepts and ideas from iOS. And iOS has subsequently copied things from Android. And previously copied elements from some other OS. Copying is not a bad thing in general. As long as you don't infringe on someone's IP, copying is a foundation for innovation.

 

[PlipPlop]

I only trust HTC phones, In my experience they are the most reliable phones. I think I have had 5 of their phones and never had any problems. Everyone I know with an iphone has had to get a replacement due to hardware failures

 

[kdarling]

Which means they have the potential to act like a patent-troll. Unlike HTC, which - by filing suit on a patent it has only owned for six days - already has.

Apple has, so far, only sued on IP it either developed itself, or incorporates in its products. A distinction, to be sure, but an important one I think.

It's not important to the lawyers where the patent came from.

For instance, Apple sued HTC using a patent it got back when it bought NeXT.

--

If there was no such thing as software patents, neither company would have much to fight with.

 

[Renzatic]

If one boat goes faster then the other because of some change that the first carpenter made, and then the other carpenter sees that and decides to make that same change, it is absolutely copying.

I'm gonna run with this analogy.

The whole iPhone vs. olol copycat phones is some what akin to a bunch of carpenters building boats. Boats have been around for years, they're fairly common things. Carpenters have been building them practically since the dawn of time. But one carpenter, we'll call him Carpenter A, goes all out and builds a really snazzy boat equipped with the latest in nautical technology, and prices it so it's easily available to anyone who happens to want one. He calls this new boat...the iFloat.

Everyone loves the iFloat. It's sleek, easy to drive, and has tons of neat and useful gadgets. I mean it's got two rudders and a radar, man. That's so rad.

For very good reason, this new boat sells tons, and brings in a whole new generation of enthusiasts into the boating world. Meanwhile, all these other carpenters see what Carpenter A has done, and decide to build upon his implementation of boat technology. Carpenter B, who's been building boats for a few years now, sees what Carpenter A has done, and decides to build upon those ideas. Carpenter B takes those ideas, and adds them to his Boateroid model.

The new Boateroid takes the sleekness of the iFloat, adds a three rudder steering system, and sonar, man. It's so rad.

But no! Oh no! The new fans brought into the fold hate that Carpenter B has so totally ripped off Carpenter A with his crappy Boateroid! He should be the only one to benefit exclusively from his grand, sweeping innovations! I mean no one else thought to use Teflon coated steering wheels on their boats before the iFloat did it! But now look! They're all every boat coming out these days! These copycat carpenters are leeching from the genius of Carpenter A! You'd think with all the money he makes selling cheap second rate knockoffs (that weirdly cost just as much), he could afford his own R&D division and hurr de durr de durr.

Boateroid fans, on the other hand, are saying that teflon coated steering wheels were an inevitable thing. I mean Carpenter A didn't invent teflon. Nor did he invent the steering wheel. He just brought the two together in an interesting way. And anyway, iFloats suck because you can only buy them from the iFloat store, whereas Boateroids are made by a variety of different carpenters using the blueprints, who tweak it to their own tastes, and sonar is so much more useful than radar and hurr de durr de durr.

Meanwhile, Carpenter A decides to sue the hell out of Boateroid based carpenters. I mean hell, everyone else in the boat industry is doing it. Might as well get in on that action, right? So he looks over at the boateroid, and sees it's triple rudder system.

You can't have that, Carpenter B.

Why not?

Because I have a patent on the dual rudder system.

So? I don't have a dual rudder system. I improved upon your idea.

Right. But you can't have a triple rudder system without two rudders. Since I have the patent for two rudders, I'm gonna keep you from selling your boats in Germany.

Well, if you're gonna play it that way, I'm gonna countersue you for having an outboard motor. You're a bastard.

Meanwhile, this crosseyed mouthbreather type guy who doesn't build boats at all realizes he has a patent for "transportation devices wot float on wet mediums", and goes out to sue everybody. Other mouthbreathers eventually join the fray, and the whole thing eventually becomes one giant pointless cluster**** over boat tech minutiae.

And even more meanwhile, the iFloat fans are screaming that Carpenter A has exclusive rights to the entire concept of the boat because he made a really sleek, ultrapopular boat everyone and their grandma likes, which is the very definition of revolutionary, and it's SO unfair that these other carpenters are making boats at his expense because that's...like...SOCIALISM, MAN! A man should have the right to the jib of his jab. I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school, so I know what I'm talking about here.

Thus, you have the boat themed fable of the current state of the smartphone industry. It's a whole load of pointless dumb.

 

[vrDrew]

It's not important to the lawyers where the patent came from..

Well, actually it is. At least in the case of HTC's claim against Apple.

Because Google only transferred the patent to HTC last week, by all appearances the claims made seem "rushed" - to the extent that HTC was unable to asert which of Apple's various products (Macs, iPhones, iPods, etc.) infringe upon which of the patents HTC owns. HTC even mentions Apple software products such as iTunes and MobileMe. This lack of specificity is generally unacceptable in a Patent case, and I'd imagine that Apple will file a motion to dismiss. Meaning HTC's lawyers will need to sit down with their engineers and try to figure out which Apple products infringe on which HTC patents, and how.

It also brings up, at least as far as the ITC case is concerned, the "domestic industry" (section 337) requirement. ITC claims are different in this respect than State or Federal courts. Basically the "domestic industry" principle holds that a complainant needs to demonstrate that they have expended considerable capital and or other investment (employment, facilities, etc.) in exploiting the claimed Patent. Something they got for free from Google last week is going to be a tough sell on that score. It may not be a strong enough argument to get HTC's claim tossed out - but I'm sure Apple's lawyers will bring it up, and the Administrative Law Judge hearing the case will keep it in mind. True "Patent Trolls" (ie. those that are simply shell companies with no employees, engineers, etc.) generally don't go the ITC route because of the "domestic industry" requirement.

The ITC has become a favorite venue for Tech Patent claims because it offers a "fast track" to adjudication, and can result in bans preventing the importation of the infringing product.

 

[kdarling]

It also brings up, at least as far as the ITC case is concerned, the "domestic industry" (section 337) requirement.

There are two prongs involved with the Google patents:

HTC is suing Apple in a Delaware federal court over patents related to OTA upgrades, storing user preferences, etc... things which HTC itself might not be using. That court is where damages can be awarded.

HTC's case with the ITC is over patents related to features that BOTH Apple and HTC use, thus HTC likely satisfies the domestic industry part. These features include keyboards with .com, .org, etc shortcuts, keyboards with enlarged letters, and status bars. While the ITC cannot award damages, they can order product import exclusions.

 

[DeathChill]

Changed ? No I don't think so. Did however they add input methods for multi-touch touchscreens ? Yes of course. But you don't need to rewrite an entire OS in order to add support for new input devices, that would just be bad design.

I refuse to believe that you're honestly going to try and say that iOS did not influence the direction Google went in with Android. It's just not possible that anyone can truly believe this. The entire smartphone market was changed because of Apple, but somehow Google didn't change anything.

OS X is not rewritten from scratch and changed every time some new manufacturer comes up with a gizmo. That's what the driver architecture is for. Just build a driver for the new gizmo.

If you feel Android was changed, can you point to these changes ? What do you mean exactly ?

Of course I understand how drivers work, but that is irrelevant. I am talking about how Google is developing Android and the devices they develop it on.

Look at the Android prototype:

That is the style of device Android was being developed on by Google. This is not just some random OEM that decided to build their own phone using Android. Google was building Android around devices like this.

Then the iPhone came out, 18 months later comes the G1:

That device there is much closer to the iPhone then the previous prototype.

Now here is the phone that Google currently sells:

If you're trying to say that Google isn't designing Android with an environment similar to iPhone in mind, I don't know what else to say. Google has made two phones and they both resemble the iPhone in terms of basic hardware.

I am in no way saying that Android is some sort of rip-off or clone, but I would love to hear how anyone figures Android prototypes (that Google develops with) got from looking like a Blackberry to looking like an iPhone. The only thing I could see is that Google was influenced by Apple.

The form factor of the first Google "Developer" phone and initial release model was a Slider, not an iPhone form factor phone though. This is in 2008, 18 months after the release of the iPhone.

So that makes your point moot.

How is that even close to relevant? The phone is still a large touchscreen, like the iPhone.

That's not what divinox said. Don't twist his words. He said OEMs are catering to what is popular, Google is merely providing the software part which is trend agnostic.

I agree that Android is flexible and I am sure it can conform to any future changes in the industry, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that Google was influenced by Apple and for some reason you don't think so.

Apple apparently felt that Android hid its similarities by showing them prototypes that looked like a Blackberry and then launching a device much closer to the iPhone in the G1. Enough so that Apple apparently hid the development of the iPad from Eric Schmidt because they feared a repeat of the phone situation.

This is the last post I'll make about this topic, because I don't know what else to say. If you honestly don't want to look at reason and facts then I can't convince you.

 

[OhHaiThere]

DeathChill,

I think KnightWRX said this many times, but it bears repeating. Android is an operating system and is hardware agnostic. iPhone certainly popularized the particular phone form factor and made it more mainstream, but that's different than saying Android [the operating system] (which predates iOS) stole from a physical device. Android is completely different from iOS and based on different principals; this is obvious to anyone who's used it since day one. If anything, Apple is stealing from Android which is far more advanced than iOS at this point.

Don't confuse hardware and software. Apple maintains tight control through vertical integration, which may explain why it's hard for many to see the distinction.

 

[dethmaShine]

There are two prongs involved with the Google patents:

HTC is suing Apple in a Delaware federal court over patents related to OTA upgrades, storing user preferences, etc... things which HTC itself might not be using. That court is where damages can be awarded.

HTC's case with the ITC is over patents related to features that BOTH Apple and HTC use, thus HTC likely satisfies the domestic industry part. These features include keyboards with .com, .org, etc shortcuts, keyboards with enlarged letters, and status bars. While the ITC cannot award damages, they can order product import exclusions.

kdarling, I have seen a number of responses from your side condemning Apple's approach and attitude in all these patent lawsuits.

I really wish to hear from you the style and attitude of HTC/Google in especially the last reaction in this patent lawsuit battle. I hope, you'll stand unbiased.

Regards

 

[divinox]

My point in asking you this question was simple. Nothing is revolutionary from a technological perspective unless you go back 100 years. So you downplaying what Apple has done as if other companies are doing all these revolutionary things is bizarre. What company has done what Apple did by combining all the available technologies and creating as successful a product? Since we can both agree that from a business perspective what they did is revolutionary, let's leave it at that.

First, simply not true.
Second, "as if other companies are doing these revolutionary things", what? Are you high?
Third, Concorde e.g.
Fourth, as stated "success" is quite irrelevant as a parameter; e.g., the iphone would have been way more revolutionizing if it came out 50 years earlier. However, if so, it would not have been a success at all.

Fifth, i've said from day one that it can be considered as "revolutionary" (i prefer disruptive, for most parts) as a business case.

Not really a rant, I was just using your figure of speech to present my opinion. Not sure where your confusion came from. Did you really think I thought you were a pulitzer prize winning author?

Stop it. You started ranting about me stating that i am a researcher. You know where the confusion came from: you and yourself.

So you invite me to this alleged presentation that you are giving, where if I chose to attend, you'd undoubtedly be "outed", but its incomprehensible for you to present an article you've authored?

For someone who makes such an effort, i am willing to make an exception.

Or were you going to have me go to the presentation and then later when I ask you on macrumors which of the speakers was you you'd reply "I'm not telling!!" Till you prove otherwise you're a fraud..in my book.

No, i already offered to buy you coffee. In person i might add.

Secondly, what lengths? You said something, provided no proof and then gave me an "email" that someone sent you. I hope you didn't spend hours drafting this email, but from the sound of it, you went to great lengths to perpetrate what you're saying...

To me, even spending 60 seconds on faking such a thing is going to extreme lengths. And no, 10 seconds to find the e-mail, another 20 to make it anonymous. Something like that.

If you can't discern the difference between "Certain elements of Android are copied from iOS" and "Android is a clone of iOS", then I really don't know what to say.

I can. Now explicate: Which elements are these? And (dont forget), why cannot they be derived from earlier developments under (primarily) the desktop paradigm.

I think the webkit example that was provided for you is quite clear.

A rather weak case, i might add. But yeah, both OS use a webkit-browser. Dang, Google are such blatant copiers.

Again...if you're looking for someone to spoon-feed you the answer you're looking for, please tell us what it is.

I've stated it several times. I want explicits and specifics rather than "revolutionary" and "totality". Very simple really.

Yeah your job is easy: Say things without proof, and offer zero evidence.

Ok, this is my last response to you. Cant be bothered repeating myself.

I wouldn't have a problem answering questions if I followed those steps either.

And clearly, yet you do.

Again, you're looking for a specific answer and discounting any that don't match what you want to hear. If no company has matched the success of iPhone in 4 years (and by matched I mean laughably not close), that's evidence enough for me that it wouldn't have happened anyway in 2 years.

Yes, i am looking for specifics rather than say-it-nones.

Second, i already told you that your reasoning is flawed.
a) success is not necessarily related to technological achievement (as shown, several times too).
b) outside of this, no one being close is just your opinion.

See above. If it hasn't happened in 4, on what planet do you suppose it would have happened in 2 or 3?

By that reasoning, if no product is ever more more successful, it quite simply never would have happened. We could have tech. a gazillion times more advanced, and yet no one could ever - really, ever - made an iphone. Yeah, that sounds... thought-out.

(would others have been as successful, commercially, as Apple? Maybe not, but that isnt what i've been talking about - at all).

I'll recycle a line I used in another thread. So you can't provide any evidence that another company was working on an iPhone like device before they were usurped by Apple. Thank you, that's all you had to say.

What is an iphone-like device to you?

We have devices that:
a) have capacitive screens (e.g. LG prada).
b) have design dominated by screens.
c) run "modern smartphone-os" (themselves not necessarily being wicked, but highlighting the (natural) turn towards software (brought forward much thanks to companies with origins in software and computing, rather than mobile phones)
d) convergence of phone, camera, browser, mp3-player.
e) used touch-based interaction (e.g. HTC touch).

Would it have been exactly like the iphone? Maybe not. But, if you feel that it would have been so dramatically different:

please highlight the elements you think others would have failed to get, also: dont make this all about "totality". Be specific.

Ever? Are you doing that "I'll just say something and make it so" thing again? Where did I say that no company would never match the success of the iPhone if iPhone hadn't been released?

Assume no one will. Also, I must have written the following about ten fifteen times by now: success is not clearly correlated, so why keep focusing on it? Geez, we have an economic history off lesser technological solutions being picked by the market. Are we then to believe that lesser technological solutions are more technologically revolutionary?

However: If you cant see the flaw by now, im afraid i cant (or rather wont) help you.

What I did say was that it wasn't as imminent as you'd like to think, and it wasn't a "it'll happen anyway" boxed up response like you like to suggest.

I never suggested anything until recently. And, you still never provided anything substantial to strengthen your case.

(2-3 years is, btw, a long time in computing).

Sure it would have happened. It hasn't happened yet, so there's zero reason to think it would have happened from 2007-2011 "anyway". Like I said if you want to change the timeline to 70 years ahead, sure it could have happened.

I'd say that it has happened over and over. There are tons of devices out there that crush the iphone 1. Now, they may not have earned as much money. But like stated, that is - for this discussion - quite irrelevant.

let me finish that for you: "because I say so. I have zero proof of this, I cant provide one shred of evidence that it would have happened but because I say it would have you must accept this as truth". That's essentially what your "because" is right?

No. That is your argument. Not mine. You see, unlike you i have actually substantiated my claim. You have said "it didnt happen", and "no body has been as successful" (arguments without substance at all).

It's been nothing but you repeating the same substance-less things over and over again. "It would have", "It could have", "It should have" with no evidence. Like I said your role in this thread is extremely easy. Just state things and discount everything someone else says.

Ok, im writing you off as a troll now. Have fun.

I agree, arguing with you is not mentally stimulating in the least.

Dont think trolls had the capacity to be mentally stimulated, so no need for you to worry.


N.B. You can respond whatever you want, whenever you want. I will not reply. You had your chance of moving this beyond the level of ad nauseam, you failed. Bye.

 

[Oletros]

If you're trying to say that Google isn't designing Android with an environment similar to iPhone in mind, I don't know what else to say. Google has made two phones and they both resemble the iPhone in terms of basic hardware.

I am in no way saying that Android is some sort of rip-off or clone, but I would love to hear how anyone figures Android prototypes (that Google develops with) got from looking like a Blackberry to looking like an iPhone. The only thing I could see is that Google was influenced by Apple.

Yes, because HTC didn't made phones prior to the iPhone that weren't like Blackberrys.

Android has been hardware agnostic from the beginnig. If you search you will find information about touch only prototypes

 

[divinox]

Another tangent. You brought it up. It wasn't relevant.

You brought up drag-and-drop. I made claim of parc. You made remark about me not posting. I posted. It may have been irrelevant, but i did not bring it up.

I am being clear. You are just trying to filter what I say through other arguments that you disagree with.

Clearly, i am not innocent. However, neither are you. In the future, please be more specific. Broad, swiping, claims are impossible to get without having to go through painstaking boundary work.

Sigh. I suppose the difference between "just because Apple did it" and "after seeing Apple do it, they decided it was a good idea based on a number of reasons" isn't clear to you.

Either they used it because Apple used it, or they used it because it made sense. If it made sense, they did not copy Apple. One could argue that Apples use added valuable evidence as to its usefulness (without which Google had made a different choice), or that Apple made Google aware of its existence. Im not sure if either holds up in the end though. Dont know, or care, enough about WebKit to find out.

Regardless i find it being a stretch of the word. I dont call company X copy cats for providing a mouse, or a keyboard, or using von neumann architecture, building on the intel platform, having SSD drives etc. Nor do i call a product a copy for utilizing the same tools in their end products.

Yep, they picked an Apple managed project without considering the success that Apple had with that project. How is that the simplest explanation?

My guess: It was open-source, it was proven, real alternatives were scarce.

i could ofc. be wrong. like said, i dont really care about webkit. Just found it funny that after reading all these weeks about how Android is a blatant copy of iOS the first one to give an answer as to why ended up with webkit. (Granted, you seem quite sane compared to most).

Sure. When you rephrased your analogy the second time it would apply. My analogy was more clear.

Yes, the first time i had to make the boundary. Second time, i didnt. Anyhow, i agree.

Not everything, but that's the general point. More specifically, Android has copied concepts and ideas from iOS. And iOS has subsequently copied things from Android. And previously copied elements from some other OS. Copying is not a bad thing in general. As long as you don't infringe on someone's IP, copying is a foundation for innovation.

Just wish you could be more specific, rather than just saying "concepts and ideas". But lets leave it at that.

 

[KnightWRX]

DeathChill,

I think KnightWRX said this many times, but it bears repeating. Android is an operating system and is hardware agnostic. iPhone certainly popularized the particular phone form factor and made it more mainstream, but that's different than saying Android [the operating system] (which predates iOS) stole from a physical device. Android is completely different from iOS and based on different principals; this is obvious to anyone who's used it since day one. If anything, Apple is stealing from Android which is far more advanced than iOS at this point.

Don't confuse hardware and software. Apple maintains tight control through vertical integration, which may explain why it's hard for many to see the distinction.

At least someone here gets it. Yes DeathChill. That is how it is. Google didn't have to change Android, it's an operating system. It can run on many different type of hardware. The fact is, the Blackberry style hardware that the initial prototype was made on is being actively used and sold today.

Heck, you want a Flip Android phone ? There are some :

I don't know what to say otherwise. Touchscreens were not invented nor are they owned by Apple. Are you saying the iPhone is the only reason Android supports a Touchscreen driver ? That the Treo or P series or any other touchscreen phone before the iPhone didn't influence that and that it already wasn't just supported before Apple came along ?

Does your argument that Apple influenced Google boil down to Touchscreen support ? Because otherwise, what in iOS do you find similar to Android ? Remember, we're discussing software here, not hardware. Spare us the model shots.

 

[Lennholm]

I refuse to believe that you're honestly going to try and say that iOS did not influence the direction Google went in with Android. It's just not possible that anyone can truly believe this. The entire smartphone market was changed because of Apple, but somehow Google didn't change anything.



Of course I understand how drivers work, but that is irrelevant. I am talking about how Google is developing Android and the devices they develop it on.

Look at the Android prototype:
Image

That is the style of device Android was being developed on by Google. This is not just some random OEM that decided to build their own phone using Android. Google was building Android around devices like this.

Then the iPhone came out, 18 months later comes the G1:
Image

That device there is much closer to the iPhone then the previous prototype.

Now here is the phone that Google currently sells:
Image

If you're trying to say that Google isn't designing Android with an environment similar to iPhone in mind, I don't know what else to say. Google has made two phones and they both resemble the iPhone in terms of basic hardware.

I am in no way saying that Android is some sort of rip-off or clone, but I would love to hear how anyone figures Android prototypes (that Google develops with) got from looking like a Blackberry to looking like an iPhone. The only thing I could see is that Google was influenced by Apple.


How is that even close to relevant? The phone is still a large touchscreen, like the iPhone.


I agree that Android is flexible and I am sure it can conform to any future changes in the industry, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that Google was influenced by Apple and for some reason you don't think so.

Apple apparently felt that Android hid its similarities by showing them prototypes that looked like a Blackberry and then launching a device much closer to the iPhone in the G1. Enough so that Apple apparently hid the development of the iPad from Eric Schmidt because they feared a repeat of the phone situation.

This is the last post I'll make about this topic, because I don't know what else to say. If you honestly don't want to look at reason and facts then I can't convince you.

And for the gazillionth+ time; here is one of the form factors Android is available on today:

Seems pretty similar to the prototype you referr to.
So, Google has NOT changed direction, Android has always been software that doesn't care about the device's form factor, it supports many different form factors. Google has never made any hardware and so they have used different devices from hardware manufacturers that have been available to show of their OS.
HW makers started to focus on all touch screen phones after the iPhone yes, but I remember how that seemed to be where phones were going even before the iPhone; bigger and bigger screens, less and less buttons, touch screens becoming more common etc. It was just happening at a slower pace before the iPhone

 

[adder7712]

I'm pretty sure Palm has a lot of patents pertaining to touchscreen mobile devices.

 

[DeathChill]

If you can't understand the difference between an OEM putting out a phone like that and Google developing on and selling a phone much closer to the iPhone I can't change anything for you.

It is irrelevant that Android is hardware agnostic because I am not arguing otherwise. I am saying that currently Android is developed with the iPhone form factor in mind. How can you say it's not when Google themselves sells Android only in that form factor and develops Android on that hardware?

No one here believes that Android isn't specifically being designed with a touchscreen in mind, right? I am curious how this would affect apps if there was no touchscreen, as clearly this is an unimportant component.

 

[ChazUK]

If you can't understand the difference between an OEM putting out a phone like that and Google developing on and selling a phone much closer to the iPhone I can't change anything for you.

Both the Nexus One and Nexus S are based on respective phones by their selected OEM. The Nexus One is simply a HTC desire with slightly less ROM storage and the Nexus S is a modified Galaxy S.

The only phones that I know of that were sold by Google were the Nexus One and the Google Ion developer phone based on the HTC Magic. The Nexus S is marketed by Google but they stopped selling phones after the Nexus One.

So far all development handsets (Ion, Nexus One and S) have been based upon other commercial handsets. The only thing that makes them special is the unlocked or unlockable bootloaders and stock Android builds. This may change with the Samsung Nexus Prime judging by rumours but I do think you're looking into the Nexus phones a little too much.

Edit: To add to this, the very fact that the Android Emulator can be made to include d pads, trackpads, trackballs and hardware keyboards shows what Google expects their software to run on. Pretty much any form factor with various hardware configurations.

 

[Oletros]

No one here believes that Android isn't specifically being designed with a touchscreen in mind, right?

So, if it was developed for a touchscreen, why do you say that was like a BB before the iPhone was presented? What BB had touchscreens in 2005-2007?

 

[Lennholm]

If you can't understand the difference between an OEM putting out a phone like that and Google developing on and selling a phone much closer to the iPhone I can't change anything for you.

It is irrelevant that Android is hardware agnostic because I am not arguing otherwise. I am saying that currently Android is developed with the iPhone form factor in mind. How can you say it's not when Google themselves sells Android only in that form factor and develops Android on that hardware?

No one here believes that Android isn't specifically being designed with a touchscreen in mind, right? I am curious how this would affect apps if there was no touchscreen, as clearly this is an unimportant component.

No, you got that wrong. Both Android and iOS are developed with the P800 form factor in mind. No wait scratch that, Android is developed for any possible form factor.

I can agree that most apps for Android require a touch screen, but what's your point? Google didn't steal the concept of touch screens from Apple and touch screens have never been exclusive to the iPhone.

 

[KnightWRX]

Google developing on and selling a phone much closer to the iPhone I can't change anything for you.

I am saying that currently Android is developed with the iPhone form factor in mind.

Are you someone on the development team for Android ? If not, then that is only your subjective opinion. The plethora of evidence to the contrary is quite against you though, with all the handsets that do not have that form factor at all.

And since when did it become the "iPhone" form factor ?

Circa 2002 :

Circa 2003 :

The concept comes from Palm really which is an adaptation of earlier concepts for PDAs (including tablets like the Newton). Full touch screen devices with little hardware buttons is not something that suddenly appeared on the market with the iPhone. Did the iPhone popularize the form factor ? Of course. Just like the RAZR made flips cool, someone somewhere made QWERTY keyboard sliders the hot thing to have and the Nokia 5110 brought pixel based LCD displays rather than the old StarTac type displays.

The point is, Android supports this form factor, the full screen touch interface. It's a form factor in the industry, one that the iPhone uses and happens to have made popular. But to hint that simply because Android supports that 1 form factor that is currently trendy in the plethora of other form factors it supports makes it a copy of iOS or inspired by iOS or frankly "developed with the iPhone in mind" is simply stretching.

Again I ask. If Android is developed with the iPhone in mind, what part of the Android UI/Frameworks makes you think iOS when you look at it ? Please, don't talk about hardware, you have agreed and we have established that Android is hardware agnostic. Let's talk OS then. What is it ? Icons, Widgets, Multi-tasking, Notifications, Application frameworks, what is iOS like in Android ?

EDIT : Oh look at this pretty little thing from January 2007 :

800x480 on a 4.13" screen, 226 PPI. I guess Nokia rushed it and made this in less than a week or 2 after Apple announced the iPhone ?

I'm pretty sure Palm has a lot of patents pertaining to touchscreen mobile devices.

Palm must have a plethora of patents for hand writing recognition. I remember their system of handwriting was quite ingenuous and worked very very well. Something we lost unfortunately with the stylus as the touch screen became a finger affair.