Let's play "what if...."

[cheezy321]

Anyone arguing the point, if someone were to ask you if they should buy an iPhone 4 *TODAY* and you told them to wait for an iPhone 5 instead, if you can't figure out the rest it certainly isn't worth wasting more space on.

The same thing could be said about hundreds of cell phones out right now. What makes apple any different? Oh wait, its because you are an apple hater, thats why.

 

[pm]

Please chill it with who is and who isn't a troll/hater. If you have issues with posts, reply to his points, or just ignore him. Labelling people is a form of mild personal attack. If you think someone is trolling, report the post.

Moderator PM

 

[Mopetar]

Anyone arguing the point, if someone were to ask you if they should buy an iPhone 4 *TODAY* and you told them to wait for an iPhone 5 instead, if you can't figure out the rest it certainly isn't worth wasting more space on.

Why should you buy any smart phone today? A better one is going to be available in a few months. The wait and see approach becomes self-defeating after a while.

If someone wants to buy an iPhone 4, it's going to be a decent phone for a long while. It might not be as good on paper as the eventual next iPhone, but it still runs well so unless you're a spec whore, there's not going to be a huge amount of difference.

Unless someone already has something decent now, there's no sense in waiting for something better months down the road.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Just to clarify, Apple willdo fine, its that I think the exponential growth is near over, I think it has about 18 months left. If youll look in the stock thread in OT, you can see I have great faith in Apple in the short term.

 

[theeedude]

Android will do fine too. There are Android manufacturers, like Motorola and Sony Ericsson that have huge patent portfolios and can defend themselves and get licensing agreements on favorable terms. It may squeeze the less entrenched players, which is a shame because it will put a damper on true innovation, but Google doesn't really care who you buy your Android device from. I wouldn't even rule out Motorola or SE suing other Android and WP7 makers (it's already suing Apple) to get licensing fees. Carl Icahn is pressing Motorola to make more hay out of its huge patent portfolio. I think HTC is probably the most vulnerable, Samsung can still sell components to other manufacturers, even if it gets out of the US market. Actually it's more dangerous if it leaves the US market as a device manufacturer, because then it can use it's patent portfolio to troll for money without worrying about counter suits.

 

[Mopetar]

Just to clarify, Apple willdo fine, its that I think the exponential growth is near over, I think it has about 18 months left. If youll look in the stock thread in OT, you can see I have great faith in Apple in the short term.

Conceivably, it could go on longer.

The reason it's possible is that smart phones are still a minor portion of world wide cellular phone sales. The market has room to grow, so the industry in general can continue to grow exponential. Second, Apple does not control a majority of the market, so even after the market growth ceases, if they have a superior product, they can take market share from other platforms. In addition to this, people upgrade phones far more often than computers, meaning that even if all other growth gets tapped out, they can still count on large sales volumes.

Outside of that, they're moving into tablets fairly heavily. If tablets supplant PCs, Apple will be in excellent position, even if they only have 50% of the market. Also, you discount their ability to move into any other markets to continue growth beyond their current market.

 

[MrX8503]

Next year with quad-core Android phones that advantage will go away with shear power (the SGS2 is almost there today). The app store advantage will be decrease by then as well (maybe not for tablets) so iOS will get real competition in that time frame.

Thats what was said about Dual Core android phones and the lag was STILL there. As for the appstore advantage, Android is getting better, but its a very slow improvement. Apple's appstore is still far ahead. The reason why the Galaxy S series are close to the iPhone in speed is because Samsung works very closely with Apple, I'm sure tech crossed paths somewhere. As for the other manufacturers, their devices are still dog slow.

Android devices are getting faster and faster, but so will iPhones, so its not like as if a quadcore android device will be anything special.

People who bought the iPhone4 at launch were paying a little too much, but nothing outrageous. People who buy an iPhone4 *today* are most certainly getting screwed. If the iPhone 5 were to come out tomorrow, and launch at the exact same price point as the iPhone4 with significantly better specs, would that still not prove to you my point?

Most top tier smartphones at launch are $200. I don't see how thats paying too much at launch.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Thats what was said about Dual Core android phones and the lag was STILL there.

For Tegra devices yeah, because Tegra is overrated. As I said when you look at other dual-core SOCs (like Samsung's) they bring smooth interfaces.

As for the appstore advantage, Android is getting better, but its a very slow improvement.

I personally think between Amazon paying developers to port the top apps to their market and Nvidia doing the same for their Tegra Zone the gap is closing (as long as you can stand the fragmentation).

The reason why the Galaxy S series are close to the iPhone in speed is because Samsung works very closely with Apple, I'm sure tech crossed paths somewhere.

The reason the SGS2 does well is because its the fastest smartphone on the planet.

As for the other manufacturers, their devices are still dog slow.

Now yes. But next year, and the year after? Eventually raw power wins. Ask Moore.

Android devices are getting faster and faster, but so will iPhones, so its not like as if a quadcore android device will be anything special.

iPhones already use the GPU for the interface to have maximum smoothness. iOS has less to benefit from quad-cores than Android which does the GUI on the CPU.

In the long run, the advantage for Apple will be battery life as GPU use is more efficient than CPU use, but crappy battery life hasn't hurt Android adoption so far.

 

[theeedude]

Looks like a judge has lowered Oracle's damage expectations to $100M range:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_18532705?source=rss

 

[Pliablemoose]

He suggests using 100 million as a starting point...

 

[theeedude]

He suggests using 100 million as a starting point...

Better than $6.1B starting point Defines the ballpark of damages we are talking about. Doesn't seem like Sun felt all that damaged by Android at the time:

Sounds like they got a sane judge who is keeping the two parties from being retards. He told Google that zero is ridiculous, but also told Oracle that it's asking for the moon. If it's starting at $100M, even if it turns out to be $500M, it's only a couple bucks per phone, which is reasonable.

 

[akugami]

Better than $6.1B starting point Defines the ballpark of damages we are talking about. Doesn't seem like Sun felt all that damaged by Android at the time:

**EDIT: CUT PICTURE**
Sounds like they got a sane judge who is keeping the two parties from being retards. He told Google that zero is ridiculous, but also told Oracle that it's asking for the moon. If it's starting at $100M, even if it turns out to be $500M, it's only a couple bucks per phone, which is reasonable.

Actual settlement price will really depend on if Oracle can convince the judge that Google were willful infringers.

Oracle would be smart if they ask Google for a per activation license fee. Google makes nothing on the actual Android license but makes up for it on the back end via advertisements. All Google services can be said to be a vehicle for their main product which are ads.

I know that Android activations are said to exceed 550k per day but calculating at 500k per day, a $1 per device license would net Oracle over $180 million per year. And keep in mind that with the growth of Android that could be over $200 million per year.

The only pitfall (for Oracle) in a per device license is if Android OEM's are forced to pay a license fee to Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle it can start to get close to the price of just licensing MS's WP7. I think this would retard the growth of Android, but it wouldn't stop Android. Android has too much momentum. It would help MS a lot in the long term because the cost of developing a WP7 phone would be roughly the same as an Android phone at that point. Obviously this scenario is dependent on Apple's lawsuit against Android OEM's and Oracle's lawsuit. I think MS's lawsuits are a done deal and the only thing left is to hammer out an actual licensing deal for each OEM. HTC has already cried uncle in that case.

 

[Mopetar]

It looks like HTC is interested in settling some kind of arrangement with Apple. Either their S3 patents don't put them in as strong of a position as I might have thought, their case before the ITC doesn't look good, or they're just tired of the legal battle.

 

[jpeyton]

Android is far too lucrative to be sued out of existence at this point. Android activations are at 15 million units/month and rising rapidly. Growth in the US is slowing (not stopping), but growth overseas is astronomic (600%+ year over year in the UK).

Most of the discussion in this thread is discussing the patent issue from the wrong perspective. Losing a lawsuit doesn't mean the death of Android; it simply means a cross-licensing agreement and/or paying damages.

Google was ready to put up $4 billion for the Nortel patent portfolio, but stopped bidding soon after that mark. Why, you ask? Not because they didn't have enough cash; they have plenty. But because their lawyers, analysts, economists, told them that $4 billion was over their break-even point for litigation concerning Android. Google can keep the $4 billion in the bank, and use it as needed over the coming years for litigation, cross-licensing deals and damages.

$4 billion can pay for years worth of lawyers arguing back and forth in the courtrooms. But Google doesn't need that long for Android to become the dominant force in the smartphone OS market; they're on pace to activate 350+ million devices next year alone.

 

[Mopetar]

The problem isn't Google and for the most part, they've avoided the brunt of the lawsuits. The only major one that they're involved in is from Oracle, and even if they end up paying something incredibly large, like $3 per device, it's still probably worth it for them to pay it because the value they'll get back is worth it.

The problem is if companies like Apple and Microsoft make it too expensive for the third party manufacturers to use. Microsoft already gets some amount of money from HTC for each Android device, and if they settle, Apple might get a little bit as well. If the lawsuits keep piling up, eventually it's cheaper for HTC to use WP7 (or maybe even WebOS if HP licenses it) that has a large company behind it that will stop them from getting sued.

 

[akugami]

It looks like HTC is interested in settling some kind of arrangement with Apple. Either their S3 patents don't put them in as strong of a position as I might have thought, their case before the ITC doesn't look good, or they're just tired of the legal battle.

Well, it's as I've always said. It would be difficult but not impossible for Apple to move to a different GPU provider to integrate into their chips. Short term it would be a lot of work and Apple would likely have to put out a new iOS update to support it but (and assuming Apple's patents remain validated) it's kind of hard to get around apple's multi-touch patents without OS work that would reduce usability. Having tested a Creative Ziio (no multitouch, resistive touchscreen) vs tablets with it, I can tell you it's not as nice of an experience. It's doable, but just not as nice.

Android is far too lucrative to be sued out of existence at this point. Android activations are at 15 million units/month and rising rapidly. Growth in the US is slowing (not stopping), but growth overseas is astronomic (600%+ year over year in the UK).

Most of the discussion in this thread is discussing the patent issue from the wrong perspective. Losing a lawsuit doesn't mean the death of Android; it simply means a cross-licensing agreement and/or paying damages.

The problem is that while MS is willing to license their patents, Apple may not want to do so. Apple is run by Jobs and we all know he's a vindictive SOB. We all know he feels slighted by Schmidt considering Schmidt used to be on Apple's board. Assuming Apple's patents remain validated there is nothing in the law that states that Apple must license their patents to anyone.

Google was ready to put up $4 billion for the Nortel patent portfolio, but stopped bidding soon after that mark. Why, you ask? Not because they didn't have enough cash; they have plenty. But because their lawyers, analysts, economists, told them that $4 billion was over their break-even point for litigation concerning Android. Google can keep the $4 billion in the bank, and use it as needed over the coming years for litigation, cross-licensing deals and damages.

$4 billion can pay for years worth of lawyers arguing back and forth in the courtrooms. But Google doesn't need that long for Android to become the dominant force in the smartphone OS market; they're on pace to activate 350+ million devices next year alone.

What you say is true. However, Apple may just win an injunction against HTC's Android smartphones and while Google is helping argue on behalf of HTC, any extended injunction would devastate HTC. We aren't talking a 1-2 week injunction here. there is the possibility of a ban that lasts a month or longer while Apple and Google/HTC argue back and forth. Barring Apple's patents being invalidated, the ITC likely isn't going to lift the injunction if Apple requests it to be stayed. Obviously this is a worst case scenario but it is a possible scenario.

 

[Mopetar]

Or HTC could just remove those bits of Android on their phones. I'd have to double check, but I don't believe that the two patents that HTC supposedly violates are anything major that they couldn't work around.

 

[makken]

Because your beloved Android used to look like this...

Hmm....looks Blackberry esque....

Then Apple released this in 2007....

Then miraculously in 2008 Android OS transformed into this...

People don't wanna admit it, but Apple redefined what a smartphone should be and how its used. If it weren't for Apple, we wouldn't have an intuitive touch UI in smartphones today. We'd still be fumbling with our stylus's while trying to use this...

Ugh...scrollbar. For as much as there's Apple hate, there should be MS/RIM hate as well for holding consumers in the dark ages for so many years. MS/RIM deserves to fall from the top and should have to work their way back up.

and what part of the 2008 android did google copy from iOS exactly?
Was it the customizable multiple desktops? No, thats not right
Was it the excellent dropdown notification system? Oh wait, its the other way around on that
Was it the widgets? Wait, iOS doesnt have widgets at all
Oh, i know, they abandoned the multiple buttons in favor of a single home button! Oh nope, that didnt happen either.

And if you actually bothered to look, android of 2008 has more in common with android of 2005 than the iphone.
Both have a desktop, android of 2008 added widgets
Both have a status bar with notification icons, android of 2008 added a dropdown notification area
Both have a launcher on the bottom with the concept of the app drawer
Both have the standard android buttons

In other words, youre basically saying that android was a ripoff of iOS because they added touchscreen capabilities. Bravo, plenty of phones had that before the iphone.

 

[theeedude]

and what part of the 2008 android did google copy from iOS exactly?
Was it the customizable multiple desktops? No, thats not right
Was it the excellent dropdown notification system? Oh wait, its the other way around on that
Was it the widgets? Wait, iOS doesnt have widgets at all
Oh, i know, they abandoned the multiple buttons in favor of a single home button! Oh nope, that didnt happen either.

And if you actually bothered to look, android of 2008 has more in common with android of 2005 than the iphone.
Both have a desktop, android of 2008 added widgets
Both have a status bar with notification icon, android of 2008 added a dropdown notification area
Both have a launcher on the bottom with the concept of the app drawer
Both have the standard android buttons

In other words, youre basically saying that android was a ripoff of iOS because they added touchscreen caabilities. Bravo, plenty of phones had that before the iphone.

Exactly, touch screen capability is a function of better capacitive touch screens coming to market, not iOS.

 

[cheezy321]

and what part of the 2008 android did google copy from iOS exactly?
Was it the customizable multiple desktops? No, thats not right
Was it the excellent dropdown notification system? Oh wait, its the other way around on that
Was it the widgets? Wait, iOS doesnt have widgets at all
Oh, i know, they abandoned the multiple buttons in favor of a single home button! Oh nope, that didnt happen either.

And if you actually bothered to look, android of 2008 has more in common with android of 2005 than the iphone.
Both have a desktop, android of 2008 added widgets
Both have a status bar with notification icons, android of 2008 added a dropdown notification area
Both have a launcher on the bottom with the concept of the app drawer
Both have the standard android buttons

In other words, youre basically saying that android was a ripoff of iOS because they added touchscreen capabilities. Bravo, plenty of phones had that before the iphone.

This post barely even deserves a response. And they say apple users are extreme...

The only reason I am responding is I googled everywhere and couldn't find one single demo of android back in 2005. Care to back up your claim with evidence? I couldn't find anything. I know google bought them back in 2005, but there are no videos or pictures of the interface back then.

 

[akugami]

and what part of the 2008 android did google copy from iOS exactly?
Was it the customizable multiple desktops? No, thats not right
Was it the excellent dropdown notification system? Oh wait, its the other way around on that
Was it the widgets? Wait, iOS doesnt have widgets at all
Oh, i know, they abandoned the multiple buttons in favor of a single home button! Oh nope, that didnt happen either.

And if you actually bothered to look, android of 2008 has more in common with android of 2005 than the iphone.
Both have a desktop, android of 2008 added widgets
Both have a status bar with notification icons, android of 2008 added a dropdown notification area
Both have a launcher on the bottom with the concept of the app drawer
Both have the standard android buttons

In other words, youre basically saying that android was a ripoff of iOS because they added touchscreen capabilities. Bravo, plenty of phones had that before the iphone.

It is laughable that you can try to claim Android 2005 is similar to 2008 much less Android in 2007. The demo of Android in 2007 which the first two videos show a nice presentation of clearly shows that Android was designed with a menu driven button interface in mind. Notice the small size of the menus and the selection areas of the menus are very small. Clearly meant to use buttons to navigate, highlight a selection, and actually select an option in the menu. Notice the OSX dock like navigation screen.

One can still design a touch interface without multitouch but clearly Android as demoed in 2007 was not even designed to use a touch controls as the primary interface method. Things like a true desktop were not even present. There is no app drawer. There are no pages of icons similar to how Android and iOS now works. The video demo showing a touch screen device clearly was not designed with anything but the most primitive of touch controls that looked tacked on considering how the rest of the Android 2007 demo was controlled.

And your mention of anyone claiming that Android copied iOS's notification and widgets being false is a strawman argument. I have never seen anyone claim this.

 

[Pliablemoose]

From the judge presiding over Oracle's case:

Indeed — particularly if Rubin has to explain it on the stand.
“You know what they used to say about Joe Alioto,” Alsup said, referring to the successful antitrust attorney. “In a big case like this, he only needed two documents: He needed a document like this, the one I just read, and the Magna Carta. And he won every case. And you are going to be on the losing end of this document with Andy Rubin on the stand. … If willful infringement is found, there are profound implications for a permanent injunction. So you better think about that.”

http://allthingsd.com/20110727/old-email-may-bite-google-in-java-patent-suit/

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

forget the copying argument. just accept that iOS has pretty much DEFINED what a touchscreen OS is.

Everyone else is really a copycat. What's worse is Android doesn't bring a complete experience either. Copy, but at least do it right!

 

[vshah]

forget the copying argument. just accept that iOS has pretty much DEFINED what a touchscreen OS is.

Everyone else is really a copycat. What's worse is Android doesn't bring a complete experience either. Copy, but at least do it right!

i would say that the parts android copies, it doesn't do as well. but the parts it added (notifications, widgets) it executes well on.

i'd say it balances out in the end.

 

[makken]

This post barely even deserves a response. And they say apple users are extreme...

The only reason I am responding is I googled everywhere and couldn't find one single demo of android back in 2005. Care to back up your claim with evidence? I couldn't find anything. I know google bought them back in 2005, but there are no videos or pictures of the interface back then.

By android of 2005, I meant the pre-iphone android interface pictured in the post; my mistake for the confusion.

It is laughable that you can try to claim Android 2005 is similar to 2008 much less Android in 2007. The demo of Android in 2007 which the first two videos show a nice presentation of clearly shows that Android was designed with a menu driven button interface in mind. Notice the small size of the menus and the selection areas of the menus are very small. Clearly meant to use buttons to navigate, highlight a selection, and actually select an option in the menu. Notice the OSX dock like navigation screen.

One can still design a touch interface without multitouch but clearly Android as demoed in 2007 was not even designed to use a touch controls as the primary interface method. Things like a true desktop were not even present. There is no app drawer. There are no pages of icons similar to how Android and iOS now works. The video demo showing a touch screen device clearly was not designed with anything but the most primitive of touch controls that looked tacked on considering how the rest of the Android 2007 demo was controlled.

And your mention of anyone claiming that Android copied iOS's notification and widgets being false is a strawman argument. I have never seen anyone claim this.

The claim is that android blatantly copied iOS after it was released. What I'm saying is that the major aspects of the android OS (the desktops, widgets, notifications) are completely different from iOS and thus could not have been a copy of it. In addition many of these aspects were already present in the prototype android OS that you claim google ditched to copy iOS.