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

[zerocool84]

It's the retarded patent system, they granted Apple patents on things like multi touch gestures which they didn't invent at all and such broad things. They just gave them all the ammo for their weapons.

 

[MrX8503]

Funny how the iPhone looks oddly like pretty much any GUI OS. Icons displayed on a grid, all stolen by Jobs from Xerox.

I really don't get the point of this. So does this mean that GM has done nothing for the car industry since they stole the wheel idea from cavemen?

As far as I'm concerned I don't think Xerox ever made an all touch smartphone that shook the market like Apple did with the iPhone. So I don't really get the argument of Jobs stealing the UI from Xerox.

Your comparison shots are fairly comical honestly. The iOS screen looks a lot more like a BlackBerry then the released Android devices do. A plain grid of icons is just how RIM handles their screens, the Android desktop has a widget, a task bar, and an app drawer. The only common element is that they both use shortcut icons, which Xerox started decades before iOS was thought of.

Comical? You honestly thinking iOS looks more like a BB is pretty comical.

Android 2007 and BB OS 5

Qwerty keyboard, trackpad like navigation, very similar contextual menu to the BB. It wasn't until the iPhone was released that Google decided to slowly ditch the qwerty navigation and move towards an intuitive touch UI. You can see this migration in Android devices from 2008 and up.

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google was on the board of directors at Apple during the development of iOS. I'm willing to bet he's responsible for the look of Android we know today.

Pretty much every single iPhone user I have spoken to about phones has been very impressed with the 4.3 inch screen phone I had on me at the time.

I'm one of em. I prefer the iPhone, but I prefer a 4.3" screen.

 

[Mopetar]

I'm not sure if Retina has ever been given a strict definition, but right now, it's defined as a 300dpi screen at 10" away from the face (I believe that's correct) with 20/20 vision. If Apple goes under this, then they are going against their own terms. While people think of Apple as fairly evil, they do seem to be very anal about such things.

Yes, but it's a marketing term, which means that Apple will claim you hold their bigger screen 12" from your face so it's still a "Retina Display". They can define it however the hell they want and make their own stipulations about how far someone holds a 4" display from their face. For me personally something 4.3" would be at least 15" from my face so there are a lot of Android and WP7 phones that have a retina display as well; at least for me.

If they want to stick to 300 DPI, they can go to a ~3.85" screen before they have to worry about the established definition.

 

[MrX8503]

Whatever Apple decides to to do with a larger screen iPhone, I just hope that its sharpness is close to the iPhone4. Although the screen is small, the resolution is remarkable.

 

[Doboji]

I really don't get the point of this. So does this mean that GM has done nothing for the car industry since they stole the wheel idea from cavemen?

As far as I'm concerned I don't think Xerox ever made an all touch smartphone that shook the market like Apple did with the iPhone. So I don't really get the argument of Jobs stealing the UI from Xerox.



Comical? You honestly thinking iOS looks more like a BB is pretty comical.

Android 2007 and BB OS 5

Qwerty keyboard, trackpad like navigation, very similar contextual menu to the BB. It wasn't until the iPhone was released that Google decided to slowly ditch the qwerty navigation and move towards an intuitive touch UI. You can see this migration in Android devices from 2008 and up.

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google was on the board of directors at Apple during the development of iOS. I'm willing to bet he's responsible for the look of Android we know today.

I'm one of em. I prefer the iPhone, but I prefer a 4.3" screen.

Yes clearly it was the iPhone that came up with a touch screen, a simple to use grid of application icons, and an onscreen keyboard. Everyone else should pay them royalties for their invention.

 

[cheezy321]

Yes clearly it was the iPhone that came up with a touch screen, a simple to use grid of application icons, and an onscreen keyboard. Everyone else should pay them royalties for their invention.

So now a black and white pocket PC that uses a stylus and has absolute zero phone features at all is in the same category as an iPhone? Jesus, how many other products do you want to lump in this category?

Edit: And you still glossed over the obvious similarities in the BB os and the original android OS. Typical

 

[Doboji]

So now a black and white pocket PC that uses a stylus and has absolute zero phone features at all is in the same category as an iPhone? Jesus, how many other products do you want to lump in this category?

Edit: And you still glossed over the obvious similarities in the BB os and the original android OS. Typical

You miss the point... None of this shit new. All this patent garbage is just serving to stifle the innovation here in the states. In the end we lose. Our patent systems need serious reform ASAP.

 

[Mopetar]

You miss the point... None of this shit new. All this patent garbage is just serving to stifle the innovation here in the states. In the end we lose. Our patent systems need serious reform ASAP.

The only problem is that these patents are granted for too long for the industry in which they exist. The Apple patents that HTC has been found to infringe on were filed back in 1994 and 1996. HTC wasn't founded until 1997. The problem is that the world is moving on faster every day. The original patent laws, regardless of whether they're related to software or not, are not inline with the world as it is today.

 

[akugami]

Anyone who wants something other then 3.5" is getting screwed over. There may be people that want a screen smaller then 3.5", with iOS they are getting screwed over because Apple tells them exactly what they want and they get no choice.

Your opinion. Opinions are not facts. I'm also glad you're telling people when they're getting screwed or not. I'm sure everyone appreciates you telling them when they're getting screwed.

One of many reasons, absolutely. Simply look at the utter implosion Blackberry has had over the last couple of years. Selling a device with a tiny screen and significantly lower specs then the competition while still charging premium prices are yet another example of them screwing over the customers(this can apply to either Apple or RIM).

The reason RIM has "imploded" is not because of smaller screens. Device specs and especially the UI has had a lot to do with it. RIM has lost marketshare because it didn't deliver features and UI changes to suit general consumers. Smaller screens is way down the list of reasons why RIM has faltered. Especially since RIM offers a much higher level of variety than Apple does. Keep in mind also that RIM has actually been increasing sales, just losing marketshare.

HP/Palm's webOS also didn't acquire an avid following because devices that used it had a large screen. In fact, it's notable that webOS has such an avid following considering devices that used it had such small screens. Poor marketing and hardware quality issues doomed it more than anything considering it came out to positive initial reviews.

Icons thrown on the desktop with limited options in how to deal with them, folder or seperate them out in clusters. Limited options for customization, no Start menu/app drawer. BTW- How is Android heavily influenced by iOS?

iOS may have been a bit limited in its original release but it has come a very long way. iOS doesn't need a traditional start menu but the dock at the bottom can serve as a limited one even on iOS 1.0. While there was no set "app drawer" you can easily group similar apps on the same page. Games on one, utilities on another, productivity apps on another, etc. Not elegant, but functional. In the current iOS there are folders you can group icons in on top of the app pages. The dock at the bottom of iOS can also hold not just apps but app folders. Finally, there is also a list that is accessible of recently used apps (the limited multi-tasking of iOS).

Have you seen demos of the early Android? Early on you can see a dock reminiscent of MacOS's dock. At about 3:47 you can see an expose like previews. I speak of iOS being limited in its original release but the preview of Android is even more limited and while the Android 1.0 release is more functional, it's still quite lacking compared to Android today.

What's telling is after the unveiling of the original iPhone, we see Android include an app drawer, which is really just a different way of presenting an always ready "app page" along with the left and right scrolled app pages that iOS popularized if not pioneered. MrX8503's post also shows a few picture examples.

You can do everything from a CLI that you can do with iOS's UI. In real world terms, Android's UI has multiple ways of getting information in a significantly faster and easier method then iOS.

Yes. But you were talking about getting screwed. While iOS is not as quick to access customized information as the notification and widgets is for Android, it's not like it's cumbersome to get to said info. It doesn't change the fact that iOS can still do everything (barring stuff like multi-tasking) that a consumer needs/wants in a smartphone without being overly cumbersome about it. So it all boils down to your opinion that Apple is screwing people while it is my opinion that Apple is not.

Using your argument you can take it to its' logical conclusion that noone needs a smartphone at all. For real world uses, making information easier to access is a major reason to have a smartphone, and on that front Android is clearly superior to iOS. For the record, it isn't just Android that offers superior functionality to iOS on this front.

Wow. Talk about jumping to conclusions and sensationalism. We're talking about taking a few extra seconds and a couple more clicks to access information. We're not talking multiple hand cramping movements or minutes. You're making it seem like you need to jump through hoops to get access to information on an iPhone. I like instant gratification as much as the next guy but I find it ludicrous if you can't wait an extra 3 seconds to access your stock ticker or your sports scores.

You can say that about the iPhone and easily so. Paying a premium price for a tiny screen, very limited RAM, very outdated processor and a functionally inferior OS certainly adds up to screwing over the customer. You are paying a premium price for inferior technology, that pretty much sums up screwing over the customer.

Premium price? Most high end Androids are the same price as the iPhone. Their value drops much much faster than the iPhone. Perhaps consumers view it as a lesser value and the iPhone is viewed as having more value.

Tiny screen? Subjective. It really depends on the user but it's not like a 3.5" screen is somehow bleeding eyes terrible. Even if it wasn't of the same quality as Apple's iPhone 4 screen. This 3.5" screen which you have criticized many times is said by Ars Technica to make you a "dirty Apple lover" in their review. The iPhone's "crap" 3.5" screen has been released to near universal praise.

Limited RAM? Sadly, Android devices with twice the RAM feels more laggy and runs out of RAM faster than iOS's limited RAM.

Outdated processor? Seriously? The A4 used in the iPhone is still quite capable. Not top of the line now but it was top of the line when it was released and by all rights, we should have had an iPhone 5 with the new A5 processor (which is definitely top of the line) by now. I can't tell you why the new iteration of the iPhone was delayed but generally speaking the iPhone uses a top of the line processor when it is released that is still quite capable at the end of its life cycle.

And it is laughable you try to pass off the iPhone as using inferior technology. Now, the one year release cycle does mean that it becomes a bit dated at the end of it's life cycle but it's not like even now the iPhone 4 is using hardware that is that bad. It's still competitive with most of the Android phones out there in every major metric. When a new iPhone is released, its hardware is at the very least favorably comparable to any Android phone out at the time. Again, the one year release cycle of the iPhone does hurt it 6+ months into it's life cycle.

I don't want to get into another multi point argument about why you feel Apple is screwing customers over. Most of what you stated is opinion based which does not equate to fact. Obviously my opinion differs. Unless you can come up with an area where Apple truly is deficient and causes harm to consumers (at least doing consumers a major disservice), I will stand by my opinion. The bottom line is Apple's iPhone is a more than adequate consumer smartphone that is powerful enough and full featured enough for the overwhelming majority of users.

What about Apple stealing HTC's IP? I think this is the more interesting issue to watch, when Apple isn't allowed to produce their in house processors any more it could make for an exceptional oppurtunity for MS and HP to gain massive marketshare quickly.

First and foremost, this is probably the 3rd or 4th time you've done this in response to a post by me. I didn't post what you quoted and responded to. Attribute the quote correctly. I don't go around reading every post by you or anyone else but again this is probably the 3rd or 4th time that you've done this when responding directly to a post by me. Previous times were in a different sub forum but it was the same issue.

As for HTC sueing Apple, I don't believe HTC has publicly disclosed which patents they believe Apple is violating in their original counter suit. We can't come to any sort of conclusion on that until HTC does. Unlike the Apple patents, which many will agree are overly broad in most cases. I'd argue that originally HTC had a weak case against Apple or they would not have had to pay $300 million USD for S3 in its fight against Apple.

And it really should be called S3's victory and not HTC (although HTC now owns S3) because the S3 vs Apple ruling came prior to HTC buying S3. Like I said, S3's purchase by HTC seems to be a defensive move because HTC's prior counter suit is probably too weak to stand. This is really S3's victory rather than HTC's. Extremely smart move on HTC's part.

Either way this completely changes the HTC vs Apple suit. If Apple was smart they'd go into a cross licensing deal which would give validity to Apple's patents (dubious or not) which Apple can then use in its fight against Motorola and Samsung. Although Apple could license a different GPU for use in their processors, like say from nVidia.

I'd also like to know where you came to the conclusion Apple could possibly be banned from making processors in house? We don't really know which HTC patents Apple is suppose to be infringing, we do know Apple is infringing S3's GPU patents. Sounds simple, pay your fine and alter/switch GPU's and continue to make processors.

 

[akugami]

*making two consecutive post which I'm loathe to do due to post size*

I think it's extremely lame that Google is just sitting by the sidelines while Android handset manufacturers are getting sued left and right. They created Android and gave it away in order to get more people using Google's services, so they can ultimately collect more data and use it to sell ads.

Google are the ones taking in the lion's share of the profits, while their handset partners are the ones exposed to all the risk.

Could it be that Google is silent because they don't have a leg to stand on in court?

In defense of Google, they did try to obtain the Nortel patents. They also released press releases on positives when any Android OEM wins a battle. But considering they did not obtain the Nortel patents and their patents in the mobile device industries are limited, there's not much they can do.

Funny how the iPhone looks oddly like pretty much any GUI OS. Icons displayed on a grid, all stolen by Jobs from Xerox.

Bull. How many times does it take repeating before people keep repeating the lie that Apple stole the GUI from Xerox? Let's just repeat this fact one more time, Xerox received compensation to allow Apple to view experimental projects at Xerox's PARC. The compensation was pre-IPO stock at $10 per share. This is as opposed to say...Microsoft...who paid nothing to anyone.

Software patents are a horrible thing that need to die.

:thumbsup:

Pinch zoom requiring R&D? To be patentable an idea must be "non-obvious" and that's pretty obvious to me. Apple was just the first company to have a large screen multi-touch device capable of implementing such an obvious feature. This whole thing is a poster child for how broken the US patent system is.

In defense of "pinch to zoom" was it really an obvious idea before Apple popularized it? The only reason it should be struck down is because of multi-touch prior art and patents from the University of Delaware. And don't forget the Minority Report with the wacko Scientologist.

Yes clearly it was the iPhone that came up with a touch screen, a simple to use grid of application icons, and an onscreen keyboard. Everyone else should pay them royalties for their invention.

Let's all post pictures!

 

[Pliablemoose]

Mr skywalker also conveniently ignores the industry leading customer satisfaction numbers Apple gets while "ripping off" consumers.

 

[pm]

Funny. When I saw it, I thought "Wow. almost just like Minority Report. The future is here already".

I tend to agree with Obscure that it's a pretty obvious way to do it...

I watched Minority Report again this evening. I was wrong - Tom doesn't "pinch to zoom". He does some weird "flip your hands one over the other to zoom". The pinching gesture seems to be used to separate a still photo out of the video stream.

One weird thing is that the sound that an iPhone or iPad (or iPod Touch) makes when it gets plugged in is the exact same sound as the retina scan recognition sound in Minority Report. 🙂

 

[poofyhairguy]

Pinch-to-Zoom on the iPhone 1 was huge because prior to that most PDAs and Smartphones got around the problem of low screen resolutions by avoiding situations when it came up- IE. only mobile internet sites- or the even worse idea of using desktop solutions - scroll bars.

Steve Jobs changed the world when he loaded a full normal webpage in the iPhone and used Pinch-to-Zoom to browse it unpainfully. That was the "killer app" on my first iPhone without apps, and honestly it is the reason I will always have a smartphone from here on out.

I think something like that is worth something, so maybe the phone makers should pay. Not $5 a phone, but something. If they don't want to pay they need to come up with another zoom gesture- like Samsung has done- and market it to consumers or just stick to the "tons of prior art" double-tab zoom.

One side note, absolutely fuck Motorola. I just typed the word zoom a whole bunch and each time I either wanted to capitalize it or spell it with an X. 🙂

 

[Deeko]

I would just like to point out that I am amused by how much that old Android prototype looks like the HTC Status.

 

[Mopetar]

Pinch-to-Zoom on the iPhone 1 was huge because prior to that most PDAs and Smartphones got around the problem of low screen resolutions by avoiding situations when it came up- IE. only mobile internet sites- or the even worse idea of using desktop solutions - scroll bars.

Steve Jobs changed the world when he loaded a full normal webpage in the iPhone and used Pinch-to-Zoom to browse it unpainfully. That was the "killer app" on my first iPhone without apps, and honestly it is the reason I will always have a smartphone from here on out.

I think something like that is worth something, so maybe the phone makers should pay. Not $5 a phone, but something. If they don't want to pay they need to come up with another zoom gesture- like Samsung has done- and market it to consumers or just stick to the "tons of prior art" double-tab zoom.

One side note, absolutely fuck Motorola. I just typed the word zoom a whole bunch and each time I either wanted to capitalize it or spell it with an X. 🙂

That's nice and all, but I don't think you can patent a hand gesture, and even if you could it would be a horrible idea. We don't need fifty different types of gestures to zoom. If I pick up a touch screen device, I expect that if I pinch, it will zoom.

If Apple want's to patent a particular algorithm or implementation of pinch to zoom that makes it easier for the processor to handle, I'm fine with that, but as there are probably dozens of different ways to actually implement that there's no way that they could get a patent for such a broad concept.

 

[QueBert]

Here's something to think about. Apple is suing handset makers, Moto, HTC, Samsung, etc, the people who make Android devices, and not Google, the people who make Android. If Android is violating these patents, then why isn't Apple going after the source of the problem?

Because they're smart, going after all the makers combined will still be far cheaper than going after Google, and potentially have the same end result. Because without any companies willing, or even able to make Android handsets it's as good as dead. In reality all Apple has to do is score a KO over HTC, which could lead to Moto & Samsung jumping ship to WM7 out of the fear of the same happening to them. Maybe Google can go back to their pre iPhone Android design and produce a WM6 looking phone. That was what they had been working on before Apple released the iPhone.

 

[akugami]

That's nice and all, but I don't think you can patent a hand gesture, and even if you could it would be a horrible idea. We don't need fifty different types of gestures to zoom. If I pick up a touch screen device, I expect that if I pinch, it will zoom.

If Apple want's to patent a particular algorithm or implementation of pinch to zoom that makes it easier for the processor to handle, I'm fine with that, but as there are probably dozens of different ways to actually implement that there's no way that they could get a patent for such a broad concept.

Pinch-to-zoom is Apple's patented gesture control. It controls zooming in and zooming out of an image or web site or whatever. This is very intuitive and seems like an obvious way to do things. However, what sounds obvious now may not have been so in hindsight.

There are different ways zooming in and zooming out may be enabled as you noted. But using a different gesture control to zoom in and zoom out is not pinch-to-zoom. It's a different gesture input to control zooming in and zooming out, but it is not pinch-to-zoom. Pinch-to-zoom is a very specific and descriptive gesture control. I could create a way to zoom by stating that you set two fingers down on the screen and spin them clockwise to zoom in, counter-clockwise to zoom out, but that's not pinch-to-zoom.

The real question is the "obviousness" of pinch-to-zoom behavior prior to Apple's patent since it is just another form of multi-touch gesture control. As I noted in a previous post, the University of Delaware holds patents 6888536 and 6323846, both of which relate to multi-touch.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Looks like WM7 is starting to benefit already

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110718PD212.html

Some good discussions cooking in this thread, nice to see some of you taking off the fanboy hats 🙂

 

[Mopetar]

Pinch-to-zoom is Apple's patented gesture control. It controls zooming in and zooming out of an image or web site or whatever. This is very intuitive and seems like an obvious way to do things. However, what sounds obvious now may not have been so in hindsight.

There are different ways zooming in and zooming out may be enabled as you noted. But using a different gesture control to zoom in and zoom out is not pinch-to-zoom. It's a different gesture input to control zooming in and zooming out, but it is not pinch-to-zoom. Pinch-to-zoom is a very specific and descriptive gesture control. I could create a way to zoom by stating that you set two fingers down on the screen and spin them clockwise to zoom in, counter-clockwise to zoom out, but that's not pinch-to-zoom.

The real question is the "obviousness" of pinch-to-zoom behavior prior to Apple's patent since it is just another form of multi-touch gesture control. As I noted in a previous post, the University of Delaware holds patents 6888536 and 6323846, both of which relate to multi-touch.

The problem with that argument is that there are a limited number of simple hand gestures that can be used. There are one finger swipes, two finger swipes, two finger pinches, etc. The type of gesture that is used is irrelevant, merely the method used in order to determine which gesture is being made.

The university of Delaware patents don't talk about anything than recognizing gestures for one or multiple fingers and say nothing about what kind of gesture is being used. Even still, I'm sure some clever bastard could find a loophole in their claims.

 

[Doboji]

The problem with that argument is that there are a limited number of simple hand gestures that can be used. There are one finger swipes, two finger swipes, two finger pinches, etc. The type of gesture that is used is irrelevant, merely the method used in order to determine which gesture is being made.

The university of Delaware patents don't talk about anything than recognizing gestures for one or multiple fingers and say nothing about what kind of gesture is being used. Even still, I'm sure some clever bastard could find a loophole in their claims.

Agreed, if we allow people to patent specific multi-touch gestures, we're opening a really ugly can of worms...

I really like your idea of simply limiting the time period for which a software patent can hold. This would prevent people from patenting generic software concepts in the hopes that they will one day prove useful, and 5 years if the Patent is put into use, is more than enough time for the inventor to gain a substantial competitive advantage.

 

[Doboji]

Looks like WM7 is starting to benefit already

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110718PD212.html

Some good discussions cooking in this thread, nice to see some of you taking off the fanboy hats 🙂

Don't get me wrong... I hate Apple for their arrogance, I hate Apple even more because of these lawsuits. But really they're doing exactly what they should be doing... playing the game the way the rules are defined. It's really the game itself that needs to be reformed....

 

[jmcb]

If Android goes away, is sued outta existence...I will jump on the WP7 bandwagon.

After learning things about the iPhone I just dont want one anymore. I was on the old Win Mo, it was my first smart phone. I can see myself going back.

I did like what I saw from the Nokia phone with Meego. If that showed up in the US I could see me getting that too.

 

[shortylickens]

If Android goes away, is sued outta existence...I will jump on the WP7 bandwagon.

After learning things about the iPhone I just dont want one anymore. I was on the old Win Mo, it was my first smart phone. I can see myself going back.

I did like what I saw from the Nokia phone with Meego. If that showed up in the US I could see me getting that too.

Old Winmo is totally different.
And Meego is disappearing soon so you better get a Nokia while you can.

 

[Anubis]

Google has not abandoned its partners

http://www.noticeorange.com/StoryBo...RpY2VvcmFuZ2VyDQsSBFNpdGUY2ZLqAQw&font_size=9

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[badb0y]

I can understand people not liking a platform but I don't understand a blind hate for a company, at least try it before you bash it. I have both and iPhone and an Android phone and the core functionality is the exact same. The apps are 90% the same. Aside from a few minor differences in appearance the OSs are really similar regardless of what you say.

Most of the people are like "If there is no android I will use WP7 or Meego or symbian or Winmo bekause apple sux kekekekek"

Google has not abandoned its partners

http://www.noticeorange.com/StoryBo...RpY2VvcmFuZ2VyDQsSBFNpdGUY2ZLqAQw&font_size=9

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

I am happy to see this.