Its been awhile since I read the bio, refresh my memory as to the chapter. I would like to re-read the full comments
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.
U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its been awhile since I read the bio, refresh my memory as to the chapter. I would like to re-read the full comments
It wasn't in the biography, but in an interview given by Walter Isaacson, his biographer.
http://articles.economictimes.india...isaacson-isaacson-s-steve-jobs-apple-products
Where I have lessened the App Store?
Ejem, the claim was that there was NO application stores before the Apple ones
Because they don't think Apple sucks. You think they do because you choose to see discussion as this "black and white" thing. Reality cannot be denied and history does not need rewriting to make Apple's contribution look bigger than it was.
Perhaps because the only place were people think Apple sucks is in your own mind?
Well there's the problem isn't it. You don't know. Not being condescending (or not trying to be) But arguing against what others have said without knowing seems silly to me.
How about two important things I considered important (then and now) for a SMARTphone to do.
1. Exchange email
2. Open (at least) Word and Excel documents for viewing
You might think I'm cherry picking. You might also not agree that these are important (to you or others). But since the Treo (your example and coincidentally one of the phones I owned before the iPhone) could do both - the original iPhone at release, to me, was "crippled".
I would never argue that the UI wasn't slick or fun to play with. But for practical use (for MY use case) - at launch, the iPhone was more of a cool toy/demo product to my friends then a functional "smart phone".
I don't see anyone here doing that.
I don't see anyone here doing that.
Somebody has some anger issues.
----------
Really? You don't see any posters on this forum who do nothing but grind their axes? Really???
Businesses with legitimate products who defend their patents (that are on display in those products) are not "patent trolls," regardless of how desperately you want to apply that term to Apple.
Per your all-encompassing definition, you can add Microsoft, Motorola, Kodak, Samsung, Amazon, and who-knows-who-else to your "patent troll" list.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
two things strike me:
first apple can **** and concentrate on making the best products available, rather than besotting on mowing down the competition!
The RMBP was ok, the new imac is beautiful, albeit, awfully cramped
internals, the worst upgrade-ability of any AIO, and the iPhone 5 was also a
poor upgrade
Secondly, apple market capture has begain to saturate somewhat, and they need to up their game!
first apple can **** and concentrate on making the best products available, rather than besotting on mowing down the competition!
The RMBP was ok, the new imac is beautiful, albeit, awfully cramped
internals, the worst upgrade-ability of any AIO, and the iPhone 5 was also a
poor upgrade
Secondly, apple market capture has begain to saturate somewhat, and they need to up their game!
Businesses with legitimate products who defend their patents (that are on display in those products) are not "patent trolls," regardless of how desperately you want to apply that term to Apple.
Per your all-encompassing definition, you can add Microsoft, Motorola, Kodak, Samsung, Amazon, and who-knows-who-else to your "patent troll" list.
WRONG! You're confusing the term "patent troll" with "non-practicing entity (NPE)".
Whether a company has "legitimate products" has NO BEARING on whether they are a "patent troll", regardless of how desperately you want to defend your precious Apple.
No, a patent troll is simply a company or individual that ABUSES the patent system for material gain, bringing malicious and costly lawsuits against its victims with bogus infringement claims as a monopolistic way of keeping competitors' products off the market, forcing its victims to settle and pay outlandish licensing fees as an alternative or have their financial resources drained by the fraudulent litigation.
That describes Apple to a T.
And seriously, get a grip. Apple spends more money each year on PATENT LITIGATION than on RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Last edited by a moderator:
WRONG! You're confusing the term "patent troll" with "non-practicing entity (NPE)".
Unfortunately the world at large does not agree with your definition. Google "patent troll" and you will get page after page of articles on NPEs. The NTPs and Lodsys of the world. Not Apple. Or Samsung. Or Microsoft. Despite these companies being involved in aggressive patent litigation.
You are free to affix any negative label to Apple that you'd like, but "patent troll" does not apply in the commonly-used definition. And despite what you claim, Apple's recent actions did not twist the patent troll definition. I first saw the term become ubiquitous when NTP sued RIM way back in 2000.
You can also call Apple "mass murderers" if you feel so inclined. Whatever fuels your rage, go with it.
However, I think this is a bit biased, as the iPhone did email and could open .pdf documents. Also, for some reason I recall being able to at least read-only word documents on my original iPhone, but it could have been my 3GS, I can't say for 100% certain.
Its the nature of the beast when you switch away from windows platform that you're not always going to have windows functionality. Heck, windows still hasn't released an "official" office suite for iPhone...
And I agree with you that it was more of a cool toy/demo than a traditional functional "smart phone". But by making the smartphone sleek, cool, sexy, etc - it really let smartphones take off and become successful, driving innovation on the whole front. It changed people's minds on exactly what a smartphone - or any phone for that matter, could be. If the iPhone never came out we would most likely still be using stylus and be stuck with old ugly buggy Windows mobile.
Having worked for a major phone manufacturer back in the early 90s I can say fairly confidently that you're wrong. The industry was already moving towards full touch screen phones. Some with styli, some without. And Windows mobile wasn't the OS of choice either.
Sorry, but I love how you repeat this anecdote as if your experience in the early 90s was a clear window into what would happen 10-15 years later.
I suppose it's just a coincidence that mobile OS support of a modern, multitouch UI began showing up almost a year after the iPhone was demoed with the first major release being over 18 months later.
There's a big difference between a hardware prototype in a lab somewhere and the recognition of and commitment to what it takes to make and market the complete product.
Windows Mobile wasn't even released until 2000.Sorry, but I love how you repeat this anecdote as if your experience in the early 90s was a clear window into what would happen 10-15 years later.
I suppose it's just a coincidence that mobile OS support of a modern, multitouch UI began showing up almost a year after the iPhone was demoed with the first major release being over 18 months later.
There's a big difference between a hardware prototype in a lab somewhere and the recognition of and commitment to what it takes to make and market the complete product.
1. It's extremely relevant. Just because you don't think so doesn't make it false. But I do love how you pretty much just like to post things contrary (at least to me). It's cute. PS - I typo'd anyway. It was early 2000s. Bad typo - but that's what I get for trying to multitask. That's the "error" you really could have pointed out LOL
2. I never said it was or wasn't.
So you have no proof that he ever donated a single penny?
You also seem to believe that shutting down Apple's philanthropic divison was a good idea, I assume because Steve did it.
Businesses with legitimate products who defend their patents (that are on display in those products) are not "patent trolls," regardless of how desperately you want to apply that term to Apple.
Per your all-encompassing definition, you can add Microsoft, Motorola, Kodak, Samsung, Amazon, and who-knows-who-else to your "patent troll" list.
I'm just going to mention that not everything Apple asserted was actually used in a real product. The design patent asserted against Samsung on the tab looked similar to an ipad, yet it wasn't specifically used in any ipad that made it to market.
I never made that claim. So, I don't need to provide proof. You made the contrary claim and still have not provided proof. According to our Rules for Appropriate Debate:
Cite sources or expect your post to be removed.
I have never said it was a good idea or a bad idea. I never commented on this part of your post at all. So stop putting words in my mouth.
Nice couterargument.
How would I know?
Sure, but your typo implied something different.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-jobss-public-giving/
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...he-give-anonymously-or-not-at-all.html?pg=all
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-altucher/steve-jobs-resigns_b_935874.html
http://blogs.ajc.com/business-beat/2011/10/07/did-steve-jobs-give-away-enough-of-his-billions/
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/01/70072
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...7092_1_philanthropy-steve-jobs-jobs-and-apple
"Moreover, Jobs had closed Apples philanthropic programs when he returned to the company in 1997 and never reinstated them despite $14 billion in profit last year, the Times reported."
How is that for citing sources?
You made it pretty clear when you didn't say anything to condemn it, or in any way say it might be a bad idea. Maybe if you're running one of the richest companies *EVER*, you might be able to spare a few thousand to help people who have to walk 10 miles in scorching heat to get clean water?
Sure, but your typo implied something different.
That I didn't typo. Whether it was the 90s or 2000s - it is still legitimate to state that Windows OS wasn't the one of choice. It either didn't exist (not an option) or did (and still not an option).
Since you like semantics so much
Funny how there's a ton of articles supporting my claim (despite you saying they don't), and a very, very small amount talking about him donating to charity.
http://betabeat.com/2011/11/now-tha...apple-will-finally-start-donating-to-charity/
It's really quite sad. They had to wait till he *died* to donate money to charity.