So your claim is that other manufacturers saying they bought Gorilla Glass is them trying to claim credit for Apples work but Apple refusing to say who made the glass used by the iPhone is not Apple trying to claim credit for Cornings work.
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.
UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So your claim is that other manufacturers saying they bought Gorilla Glass is them trying to claim credit for Apples work but Apple refusing to say who made the glass used by the iPhone is not Apple trying to claim credit for Cornings work.
And Apple didn't have cut and paste until when? - he says snarkily.
I don't think you can say an OS which was in development for a few years was "rushed."
I also think you fail to understand how long it takes to get a phone to market. Having been in the industry - I can assure you - it takes longer than a month or two.
It was not developed in the 60s. It was developed in 2006.
http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/faqs/all
...Not to mention that the video of the first betas of android looked much like Black Berry software and the suddenly it became all iPhone-esk
..it's really a testament to Apple that the market was that shaken by the iPhone's new system in '07.
I wonder if fanboys also have preferred clothing stores they will stick to like they only wear Gap and if they see someone with Express clothing they go talk crap to them
Do you even know how to use a search engine? You could save everyone's time including your own but "googling" any question before you ask it or assertion before you state it as well as any assertion made by someone else. Either you do not know how to search or you simply choose to ignore or not bother looking for fear that the results might conflict with your existing world view.As I said and you fail to understand. Android was designed to work on multiple devices and form factors. That's irrefutable.
Hardly. Happens all the time. And destroying an argument brick by brick isn't going off on tangents.
For example, the assertion that Android looked different before and after the unveil can be tested with a simple google or bing search.
Android hardware looked more like a Blackberry device than an iPhone and their screen layout also looked like a copy of RIM's OS at the time.
You Android defenders go off on tangents all of the time like bringing up the call button and the like and yet nobody seems to have thought up a green phone icon until the iPhone came along. Funny that. Also, Apple invented the multiple rows of icons on a tablet/PDA form factor with a touch screen with the Apple Newton. That device predates the Palm OS.
I did not convey that Gorilla Glass was Apple's idea, to suggest that is to fail to be sensitive to the context of my utterances. I was quite clear that what was Apple's "idea or innovation" was the use of Gorilla Glass in consumer products.
That picture doesn't prove what you think it proves. It's been brought up and refuted so many times on these forums I don't even bother anymore, do some research on your own please.
Like Apple, he's trying to push the made up concept of "look and feel" even though it's ridiculous and futile.
You're wrong, Android has always been intended to be hardware agnostic and run on any form factor the device manufacturers come up with. Support for touch only was developed entirely in line with this vision, it was not an afterthought like you think.
Interesting, I don't think I've made a point to be "owned" yet except that what existed in the iPhone now exists in every Android and Samsung phone but did not before the iPhone...and that's not been discounted, only supported.
As for you claiming the "high end" stuff in a GSIII, most of which has been on the market for 3 years just not cheap enough or reliable enough for a consumer device required some sort of innovation...nonsense.
Specs are not quality. Specs are specs.
Apple products are not made of the same materials as Samsung products. A chip or two makes up less than 10% of the phone.
Are you really sure that you said anything that put you in a position to question anyone else's position?
Maybe you should spend less time trying to insult me and practice your reading comprehension.
Android was designed to work on a variety of handsets. But leave it to people like you to bring out the same video that disproves nothing. Especially since we're talking about an OS not hardware.
Android was designed to work on a variety of handsets. But leave it to people like you to bring out the same video that disproves nothing. Especially since we're talking about an OS not hardware.
Worth remembering that the burden of proof is very high in court cases, it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. So the ruling doesn't mean that Samsung didn't copy, just that the case wasn't proved to the required level.
There is also the question of whether the copying was against the law.
The Gorilla Glass is a good example. Apple sought out a product and found Gorilla Glass, which wasn't in use by anyone or even in production. Apple got them to fire up production lines solely for use in the iPhone. Then everyone else starts using it for mobile devices.
Did everyone else copy Apple's idea? Yes, of course they did.
Was this wrong / against the law? No, of course it wasn't.
It will be interesting to see what happens when (if) Apple win a case against Samsung in the UK for breach of a patent or copyright. If it was something Samsung had vigorously defended it would put some pressure on the judge to make Samsung issue similar notices to those Apple have been ordered to.
There is also the question of whether the copying was against the law.
The Gorilla Glass is a good example. Apple sought out a product and found Gorilla Glass, which wasn't in use by anyone or even in production. Apple got them to fire up production lines solely for use in the iPhone. Then everyone else starts using it for mobile devices.
Did everyone else copy Apple's idea? Yes, of course they did.
Was this wrong / against the law? No, of course it wasn't.
It will be interesting to see what happens when (if) Apple win a case against Samsung in the UK for breach of a patent or copyright. If it was something Samsung had vigorously defended it would put some pressure on the judge to make Samsung issue similar notices to those Apple have been ordered to.
If Steve were alive, do you think he would have just no longer offered Apple products to the UK? In my opinion, Apple has more power than most governments.
Please. No one thinks Apple is extracting and producing the silicon, aluminum, plastic, etc. that goes into its products. We all know they rely on independent manufacturers. I'm saying Apple introduced Gorilla Glass to the consumer market and everyone else copied, and shouted loudly that they were doing so, whereas Apple only advertised the specific properties the reinforced glass had. Rather than try to win acclaim by relying on name-brand recognition Apple simply cared about quality of the glass. The others introduced it primarily for marketing purposes, so it seems to me, since they never cared about the glass quality prior to Apple's taking the issue seriously. So in short, the others piggy-backed off of Apple's lead.
...Not to mention that the video of the first betas of android looked much like Black Berry software and the suddenly it became all iPhone-esk
..it's really a testament to Apple that the market was that shaken by the iPhone's new system in '07.
Can you show those videos and point to the differences between the pre iPhone and post iPhone?
(Going on your premise that Samsung has copied... I disagree, but I'll go with your "argument")
I don't know, my Nexus is just as good as my iPhone 4 (if not better in some cases), just in different ways.
Same thing for the iPhone 4 over the Nexus.
Your point is? Doesn't seem to support your "argument."
Again... I pick the product that *suits me the best* I could care less about "who wins."
Why do you care so much? Are you on Apple's dime? A stockholder?
w00master
You just put the final nail in your argument.
How so?
Because Apple thrives on tech that has been around for awhile but wasn't "cheap enough" or "reliable enough" to be used for a consumer device.
So I guess by your standard, Apple isn't innovative?
You're the one failing to understand.
Android as it came out on version 1.0 was NOT designed to work on multiple devices. Touchscreen virtual keyboards only came with Android version 1.5 "Cupcake", that's irrefutable and there's plenty of proof.
The first version needed a physical keyboard like the first Android phone from HTC had.
If you look at the source code history they essentially had to rewrite the system input layer to allow that, then they rewrote it for 2.0 because the first version was essentially a hack and not very good.
Really? Here is your post:
That wasn't "quite clear" to me. To me, you suggested quite the opposite.