Samsung Withdraws Counter-Suit Against Apple 172
tekgoblin writes "Samsung has withdrawn a counter-suit against Apple in their ongoing legal battle which concerns similarities in the iOS device lineup against the Galaxy S lineup from Samsung. The counter-suit concerned the design of the user interface being very similar to that of Samsung's: 'related to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products.'"
Who gives a shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is not whether Apple or Samsung are right - it's that this shit is patentable in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a patent lawsuit. At least, it's not reported as such (patents may be involved, but I haven't seen that reported anywhere. However, given how news reporting works these days, it's hard to be certain). The lawsuit claims that Samsung's phones and tablets look too much like iPhones and iPads.
Re: (Score:2)
Design Patents [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That they exist isn't being questioned.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was about a couple of kids playing in the sandpit...
Apple: Hey where'd you get that yellow tractor from?
Samsung: I invented it.
Apple: But it looks like my yellow tractor. That's not fair - only I'm allowed to have a yellow tractor.
Samsung: Well it might look similar because its yellow and its a tractor...but its mine - I made it.
Apple: No, no, its not fair!! That's it, I'm telling mum...
Which is why the courts got involved.
Now its up to mum to decide who hit who first and who is allowed to keep
Re:Who gives a shit! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who gives a shit! (Score:4, Insightful)
And that itself was influenced by Apple's Newton [guidebookgallery.org]. It's all a mishmash of influences. What matters is that eventually Palm hit on the definitive UI in the stylus era and iPhone finally hit the sweet spot in the touchscreen era.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say see Palm, followed by see HyperCard. We are back to 1985.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone interface -- a bunch of icons arranged in a grid, each of which launches a different task. See also: Windows 95.
The complaint was way more specific with a lot more points than just that. Then again, the GroupThink around here thinks patents are just 6 words long anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 95 introduced the start menu.
Which is rip off of the old Apple menu. And Windows 3.1 was a (very ugly) rip off of the original Mac desktop interface
Actually, kind of a cross between the Apple menu and the "Special" menu.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess Xerox wasn't a corporation, but some sort of charity? Anyway, Xerox PARC was founded in 1970, making it pretty improbable that everyone "ripped off" Xerox in the 1960s. And the first mouse was invented at SRI and first shown at The Mother of All Demos in 1968, along with various other stuff we take for granted today. I guess Xerox "ripped off" SRI then, in your simple-minded universe.
In exchange for allowing Apple to make use of their work, Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO Apple stock. Welcome to th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 95 introduced the start menu.
Which is rip off of the old Apple menu. And Windows 3.1 was a (very ugly) rip off of the original Mac desktop interface
"Mac desktop interface" and _every_ other desktop interface is a rip off of Xerox desktop from 1960s! Matter of fact, both atknison and jobs dudes had a tour of xerox and they saw the original desktop interface there, and once Atkinson got back, he started to implemented Lisa which was a copy of Xerox desktop.
Xerox also invented the mouse. And bunch of other crap that apple (and everyone else) just ripped off.
I'm sick of stupid apple fanboys claiming that apple invented the wheel and bread slices.
Apple is just another evil corporation run by assholes.
This meme belongs in the trash with the One-Button Mouse meme.
Here's the real scoop [obamapacman.com]; but I doubt if you have the brain cells to care.
Oh, and Xerox did NOT invent the mouse. Douglas Engelbart [about.com] did.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary is misleading, not dropped the suit but (Score:5, Informative)
Correct it's an accellertion / linking (Score:5, Informative)
"Look and feel" bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
If only Apple would withdraw it's lawsuit against Samsung [androidcentral.com] over the same ridiculous "look and feel" claim. Why should either Samsung or Apple have exclusive rights over what's ultimately a rectangular grid of icons? It would be like giving the company that released the first touch-tone phone exclusive rights over the layout and appearance of the touch-tone keypad.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It would be like giving the company that released the first touch-tone phone exclusive rights over the layout and appearance of the touch-tone keypad.
You need a better example, because that's exactly what happened in the US, up until Ma Bell was broken up. The phone company owned the very wiring in your house as well as the phones, not just the keypad design.
Also, note that Apple is only suing Samsung for producing a device that looks a lot like the iPhone in many more ways than just a rectangular icon grid. Apple isn't suing Google over the Android UI, just Samsung for making the Android UI look more like the iPhone UI than other Android phones. In othe
Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Such as, say, the phone's shape [amazonaws.com]?
Which particular aspects of the iPhone UI do you think should be owned exclusively by Apple? If Apple were to sell its UI as a product (just the UI, not the operating system), what would the sales brochure look like?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've posted this before, but what the hell. Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases. It was so blatant that reviewers couldn't fail to mention it. It doesn't matter where you fall on the issue, who you think should win or if there should even be a lawsuit at all, that much should be clear.
First Look: Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design [wired.com]
Review: The IPhone Look Alike Samsung Eternity SGH-A867 (AT&T) [associatedcontent.com]
Samsung Galaxy S Review [slashgear.com] : "In the time we’ve bee
Re: (Score:2)
Imitation is a necessary aspect of fair competition. Without it competitors would be forced to engage in conscious avoidance of competing designs, which I generally see as an overly burdensome thing. I think our IP-centric culture has blinded us to the fact that human progress owes a great deal to people imitating and even duplicating what others have done in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the whole point of the Pablo Picasso quote famously used by Jobs : "Bad artists copy. Great artists steal." Imitation is a good learning tool but it doesn't become innovation until you steal what's good and put it together in a novel way to create something new and improved. I guess the argument against duplication goes that imitation without innovation could actually stifle progress by rewarding knockoffs over original thought. It's a difficult line to draw though.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Samsung copy Apple's code? No. Did they otherwise engage in copyright infringement? No. Is their Galaxy phone an exact copy of the iPhone? No.
What Samsung did qualifies as imitation. The question is whether or not it should be legal under trademark law. I think it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know.
Wrong:
"Apple’s lawsuit claims that the look and feel of Samsung’s products, as well as the packaging that they come in, infringe upon Apple’s 'trade dress.' Trade dress is a term that has its origins in older cases in which judges referred to the wrapping that a package came in as its dress. Nowadays, the term refers more broadly to product packaging and to the look and feel of the product itself. Apple
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trade dress and trademark protection both derive from trademark law (see Lanham Act [wikipedia.org]), so I fail to see your point. Contrary to your earlier claim that Apple's lawsuit is all about "design patents", trademark law is
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases.
Even if that's the case, it shouldn't matter. These are very, very trivial design issues that should not be patentable to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
The issues aren't "very trivial" I think, but otherwise I tend to agree. I just don't like it when people deny the obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously implying that Samsung released a phone in Feb, Apple saw it, copied it, tested it, mass produced it, advertised it and released it... 4 months later?
Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Just that often what looks like copying isn't copying at all.
Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
If it were the icons Apple was unhappy about, they'd be suing Google, because that's a function of Android. Rather, Apple's beef is with the bezel of certain Samsung phones looking remarkably like earlier iPhones. And in my opinion, they do look remarkably similar, with minor differences in things like the home button.
But notice that I said "earlier iPhones." None of the Samsung phones look like the iPhone 4, while Apple has left behind the look of the original iPhone. So why is Apple so up in arms about Samsung copying a look they've deprecated? Well, one reason might be that Samsung was selling these phones while Apple was still selling the 3Gs, although I'm not sure if that's true. However, there are design patents and trademarks and copyrights pertaining to this look and feel that Apple legally must defend or else they risk losing exclusive rights to their IP.
It's also pretty lame that Samsung can't be bothered to get their own design team to make their own unique look and feel. Apple spent a lot of R&D on theirs, so it's not right that Samsung just copies it. And don't tell me that the similarities are just coincidence. Of course, copying happens all the time. Even more significant than the look and feel was the concept of the iPhone itself. It was certainly not the first smart phone, but was the first to bring this level of usability to a touch screen without a stylus. THAT's really the hard part.... and it was Google that decided to ride on Apple's coat tails there. Now, it's vital that Apple have competition, to keep Apple on its toes, but that competition has to be innovative in its own right or else Apple will have really nothing to compete against except clones of itself. I saw this one Nokia phone that had a feature that Apple didn't come up with, which was to make the whole display a button that was clickable, so touching was one kind of input, and that was separate from clicking. I thought that was pretty cool.
Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
I don't own an Android phone, but looking at the photos of the Samsung phones and stock Android, Samsung clearly changed several of the icons and interface elements to mimic the iPhone in ways that Google seemed to have intentionally avoided. That's aside from the obvious hardware similarities that other Android phones do not share.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification. Someone should mod you up. :)
Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How so? The name of Samsung's phone is "Galaxy", not "iPhone", and the phone itself is clearly and prominently branded as "Samsung" rather than "Apple".
Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Yes but the early iphones look exactly like the the award winning LG prada, you know the full screen mobile phone with a silver bezel around the edge and icons in a checkerboard layout that was released a year before the iphone.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of user-interfaces is that they should be similar on all devices. For example, how annoying would it be if some company had "patented" the design of the generic "play" button on music players. Every player would have a different play button. It is definitely something that would hinder users, and would be a hindrance for the industry as well.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two fundamental but seprate questions that people lump together here. (1) Should look and feel patents exist. (2) Are iOS products distinct enough to qualify.
As to the first one, there are many, many companies that pour tons of research and money in designs and they think those designs should be protected. Without these design patents, any car company can copy the look of the VW Beetle, any soda company can copy the red and white designs of Coca-Cola. Do you think these companies should be abl
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, Samsung tried to get as close as possible and thought they were safe but it was too close to Apple's liking.
Yep. The iPhones were each distinctive in their design when released (and still are); you can easily spot them from across a room and I'm 100% sure that was a deliberate goal of Apple's. This Samsung is the only phone that I have ever mistaken for an iPhone from a few feet away, and I'm pretty sure that was a deliberate goal of Samsung's. Everybody else tries to make their phones distinctive in some way, materials, size, radius of the corners, bezel, colors, finish--because they all want that effect, that i
Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
"Look and feel" isn't a design patent issue, but rather a "trade dress" (trademark) issue. The red and white design of the Coca-Cola can is an example of trade dress, but I don't think that's quite the same thing as claiming exclusive rights over a GUI's design. Unlike soda can logos, GUIs and their layouts are largely functional in nature and should therefore not be subject to trademark protection. Icons used as part of a GUI may be subject to copyright protection, but similar-looking icons should be perfectly legal (e.g. a calendar icon can only look so much different from another calendar icon). What remains of a GUI's look and feel beyond all that should not, in my opinion, be protected by "look and feel" trademarks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading my post next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. GUI's are largely functional in nature and therefore for the most part not worthy of protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, suing over the look & feel of a UI seems a bit silly considering Apple already lost that fight in the 80s -- when Apple sued Microsoft and lost for Windows "copying the Mac's innovative look and feel". I'm kind of surprised the judge hasn't already thrown the case out. Perhaps that's why Apple has now sued Samsung in South Korea as well; perhaps the law over UI infringement is different there?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should either Samsung or Apple have exclusive rights over what's ultimately a rectangular grid of icons?
The question is, when is it copying?
You're right. A rectangular grid of icons is certainly not copyrightable/patentable/trademarkable. But, suppose the ordering of the apps, by default, happens to mirror what is on the iPhone? Suppose the icons have been changed to look very similar to the ones on the iPhone? Suppose the dock has the same items, in the same order, as those on the iPhone and the dock itself looks similar? And let's say it's all placed on a device that looks something like an iPhone 3GS?
Re: (Score:2)
This sh1t should not be patentable. I wonder if a small company tried, it they would have got it granted? I wonder how integrity the patent system has anymore.
Palm (Score:3)
Too bad Palm is sort of out of business. They came up with the buttons-below-the-touchscreen concept that's been copied by just about every touchscreen-enabled device since 1997.
(Which reminds me... Sony, please, please make new Clies!!1 Thank you.)
Re: (Score:3)
You have never invented anything new (Score:2)
in your entire life.
Apple holds thousands of patents (Score:2)
and have made hundreds of billions of dollars with their innovations.
You are a sad, lonely, depressed little human who believes that you elevate your own pathetic little existence by openly mocking the accomplishments of thousands of engineers who have actually contributed something to humanity.
Don't be deceived (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, don't use Kies then, it's not like anyone is forcing you?
And why on earth would you want to keep the default ROM on *any* Android phone?
I'm very happy with my Samsung phone.
But each to their own, hope you'll find iPhone does it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I wanted to upgrade to an official release. But apparently I won't be able to.
Of course I can go down the path of Odin, Cyanogen, etc but this is a CONSUMER APPLIANCE. It's supposed to be easy!
"why would I want to use the default ROM" same as above. Why should I have to 'fix' the products I buy?! What if there's a regression.
I like tinkering, I tried several things to make Kies run on Virtualbox under linux (but apparently that's not the issue)
"Oh but Apple is more closed than Android" yes, but they m
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I call bullshit on this one. I had an iPhone 3G - I had to update it to get some additional functionality. It broke bluetooth for my headpiece and my car. It took Apple SIX MONTHS to fix it and release something. This affected more than half of their client base. And guess what? I couldn't downgrade. I was stuck for that time with no b
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use Kies for that! USB storage works, CDC_ACM works (heh, that's a huge advantage over the iPhone)
I only wanted to use Kies for fw upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
For the average person this is no different than flashing your digital TV.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Galaxy S and it takes me less 15 seconds (most of the time less than 10 seconds) to have my GPS position after turning it on. Go to "Settings", "Location and security" and leave "Use wireless networks" to On (like it is with an iPhone). W
Except that 'GPS position' is not exact. (and sometimes it is way off, but my wireless carrier is to blame then)
Yes, it's fast, but it's not as precise as GPS. You can use it for 4sq, but forget it for navigation.
Re: (Score:2)
And why on earth would you want to keep the default ROM on *any* Android phone?
Why on earth would you buy a device where first order of business is to replace the default ROM and default software?
I know this meets the needs of a small niche of people, but not for the phone buying populace in general.
Re: (Score:2)
"And why on earth would you want to keep the default ROM on *any* Android phone?"
Avoiding violating your warranty for one thing. Using a well-tested phone and software setup together is a second good reason. The third reason is that not everyone is actually interested in messing around with Android ROMs. They just want a well functioning smart phone out of the box. In most cases I believe this is true for Android. However, I'm seriously regretting having suggested a Samsung android phone to my wife.
The only
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You want to talk irony ? All the things you mention in your post are things people absolutely hated about windows. The fact that you had to reinstall it, then tweak it, then download a ton of applications to make it useful, etc. People spent decades lamenting the fact Windows won out and now it's being held up as a paragon, a shining example of why Android will win over iOS. Now THAT'S irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't (eg. Swype).
Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.
If, however, you are inclined to explore, Android allows for that in a way that iOS does not. That is the point I'm making, so comparing modern android to Window's BSOD's and forced tweaking, etc, is not fair or accurate.
Then why was your long post almost entirely about how flexible Android is with regards to modification? Why are you now acting as though that's just a side feature?
The reason I compared it to the x86 PC architecture (which by the way is much more than just Windows) is to highlight that the path Google took with this was based on a highly successful historical model.
This is complete nonsense based on *one* example and lots of false assumptions. And it's especially ironic given that Apple's supposedly inferior model has them being the most successful player in at least three different markets, using the exact opposite model to what you think is the best one.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.
Argument by assertion. So compelling!
Re: (Score:2)
Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.
Argument by assertion. So compelling!
It might help your case if your "rebuttal" wasn't an assertion. Two, in fact.
Besides, I'm not sure what your issue with assertions is. They are at the very heart of any "argument". You'd be hard-pressed, really, to have an argument, or even a discussion of any weight or significance, without involving assertions. This particular assertion you quoted is an opinion. Unsupported factual assertions can sometimes be weak points in an argument, but opinions? Are you honestly trying to invalidate my opinion?
As for
Re: (Score:2)
That's because I wasn't making a rebuttal - it's very hard to refute a point when your opponent hasn't made one.
The problem isn't with assertions - it's with assertions not backed up by any further claims or discussion. Look at the parent. He stated that "Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't". Great! Objective criteria! If you want to debate that, find things the iPhone can do. Make an argument that f
Why not let the market decide? (Score:2)
Q1 2011
Android sales 37.3 million handsets
iPhone 18.65 million handsets and steady
In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone
Just because you have the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android does not make it fact, no matter how many Apple slanted blog posts you read. I have both an iPhone 4 and a DroidX and I have to say you don't know what your talking about. I'd take the DroidX anyday of the iPhone, not just because of it's openness, but simply based on pure performance, ease of use and user experien
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was a rebuttal. It was meant to dismiss my entire post by playing a "logical fallacy"-type gambit. You never asked for clarification (like you're doing now), you just acted as though I was making a spurious claim.
And yes, I pointed out it's an opinion. That's what it means when you say it's not objective.
As for elaboration, where would you like me to begin? Design, responsiveness, developer APIs, usability, aesthetics, integration with music and app stores, security, lack of malware, third party sof
Re: (Score:2)
Q1 2011
Android sales 37.3 million handsets
iPhone 18.65 million handsets and steady
In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone
Selective cherry picking of stats, like the usual Android fan. Even so, that isn't a measurement of whether people think the iPhone outclasses Android.
There are significant factors involved in buying a mobile phone that has nothing to do with the relative quality between Android and iOS or Android phones and iPhones.
Just because you have the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android does not make it fact,
Of course it doesn't. It's an opinion. Opinions aren't facts.
no matter how many Apple slanted blog posts you read. I have both an iPhone 4 and a DroidX and I have to say you don't know what your talking about.
What do you mean? You mean I don't know what my own opinion is? That's a strange claim to make...
I'd take the DroidX anyday of the iPhone, not just because of it's openness, but simply based on pure performance, ease of use and user experience.
Good for you. No matter how shitty a
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't a rebuttal. It was meant to spur you to actually provide an argument. As it is, it took two posts for you to even attempt that. You didn't present it as an opinion - you didn't say "I think the iPhone outclass Android" or "I'm of the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android" - you said "iPhone outclasses Android". That's presenting it as a fact.
Design, responsiveness, developer APIs, usability, aesthetics, integration with music and app stores, security, lack of malware, third party software, third party hardware
And again, you have a list features with no real discussion:
Re: (Score:2)
In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone
Cockroaches outnumber humans by a rather incredible margin. Which do you think is superior?
Re: (Score:2)
In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone
Cockroaches outnumber humans by a rather incredible margin. Which do you think is superior?
Depends on the human.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, look around and tell me you honestly think yours is the majority opinion. Some slashdotters really do live in a bubble!
And some live in the reality distortion field.
Re: (Score:2)
Cockroaches outnumber humans by a rather incredible margin.
True, but we are discussing phones here. Try and keep up.
Which do you think is superior?
Depends on your metric. If by superior, you are referring the number of organisms or relative stability of species through millions of years, clearly the cockroach is superior. If you are referring to ability to screw up their own habitat, humans get the prize.
I just love and Apple fanbois can redefine reality no matter what. When iPhone was way ahead of Android in sales, the percentages mattered. Now that Android is beginning to walk away with the pr
Mirror Mirror (Score:2)
Argument by assertion. So compelling!
Since your "counter argument" here is of exactly the same form, I am left only to consider which argument said something.
"Out of the box an iPhone outclasses Android" - a statement claiming that the iPhone works better than an Android somehow.
Your argument - meta complaint that the argument made is simply an assertion. Yes, and? You don't even offer an assertion. You don't even complain the assertion is wrong!
Re: (Score:2)
That's because I wasn't making a counter argument.
claiming that the iPhone works better than an Android somehow.
That "somehow" is the problem. Given no criteria by the parent, the only possible "counter argument" I could make was "No it doesn't". Simply making assertions leads the debate down the "yes it is!", "no it's not!" path. As I said, not exactly compelling.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a nice quote I read on a blog once: "Those who learn the lessons of history are doomed to try to repeat it."
Re: (Score:2)
Over time history has shown that open platforms tend to spur multiple 'killer apps'
The first application to be dubbed "killer app" was Visicalc, for Mac. Then there was Lotus 1-2-3, for the IBM PC, no clones around at that time. I don't think the "openness" of the platform has anything to do with it, "developer friendliness" might but that's a completely different matter (though they can overlap.) Look at Linux, self proclaimed kings of openness, where's the glut of killer apps for them ?
Tinkerers and garage companies have more access to Android development and that will lead to thousands of niche apps that won't be available on iPhone. Not to mention in-house software when businesses start to seriously explore integrating their smart phones to their existing in-house networks.
It seems every day there's a new story about someone doing something cool with the iPhone. People use
Re: (Score:2)
Apple considers its OSes 'killer apps' in and of themselves and limit themselves accordingly. Over time history has shown that open platforms tend to spur multiple 'killer apps' Tinkerers and garage companies have more access to Android development and that will lead to thousands of niche apps that won't be available on iPhone.
Ah, the familiar mating cry of the Android fanboi: "Just you wait!"
Well, we've all been waiting. Where are all the drool-worthy apps? Ya know, the ones that make iPhone users go "Damn! I gotta get me one of those!"
[crickets]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Choice is good, for the industry, for the consumer, for the developers and for your mom.
Choice is good. Quality is better.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is a big problem for Android - too many implementations are poorly done kludges. The incredibly odd part about this is the various modding groups have shown that it's possible to create a high quality product, but the b
Re: (Score:2)
You can replace Android on many phones, but this too is akin to jail breaking. Android is open in principle, but not so much in practice.
I am not saying this to make it seem like they are no better than Apple, since at least with Android the source is available. The issue is the handset manufacturers and the service providers.
The other point is beyond techies, the average Joe doesn't care so much about openness, as long as the device works as described.
Re: (Score:2)
I you read this entire post you can officially claim to be a subscriber to greentshirt's newsletter [youtube.com].
Google played this one brilliantly, Android is here and the irony is delicious. Apple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior. They guarded their technical details jealously, IBM did not, it became easier to write for IBM hardware, clones began to appear, etc, etc, etc.
This did not turn out very well for IBM, if we talk about them specifically. They owned the market in 1980 and by 1985 it had completely walked away from them to silicon valley. One could hope that someone could market a Android than Google, and turn that into an alternate platform to draw people to alternate services, true open services not the Big Black Box that is Google, but considering the way the OHA
Re: (Score:2)
The alternate characterization also applies, namely, that Apple failed to reap Microsoft-level profits because it insisted on being an integrator and marketing to end consumers
That's correct, but you got the reason for this wrong. It's because businesses were the primary computer customers of the era, and DOS PCs were better than Macs for business, even though Macs were more advanced systems. And in the less important (at the time) consumer realm, Macs were *far* more expensive than the Commodore 64, Apple ][, and Amiga (among others).
In the creative market (especially printing), Macs far outclassed any other system, and that was their biggest success during the 20th century.
Wind
Re: (Score:2)
As for your second note, yes, in the last decade Apple have done well.
I never made this point, my argument doesn't require it; I think what I said can prevail wether Apple is the largest tech company on Earth or bankrupt.
I'm not sure your argument about the "fast pace" of the "tech-world" are very airtight, considering the decade of missteps on the part of major players like Microsoft, and I'm not sure your rather brief (and typically moralizing) scenario for Apple losing dominance because of "failing to include others" is sustainable in the face of companies like Oracle and
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of Android is openness and flexibility. If you do not like the stock manufacture-themed flavor of Android on your phone, you can use an app like Rom Manager to change to a different one. Can you do that on an iPhone? In Soviet Russia, rhetorical questions ask you.
I know nerds have a difficult time understanding this, but *MOST* people like something that works well right out of the box.
And, your first sentence is false. The entire point of Android is a venue for Google to serve more ads. The only reason it's "open and flexible" is that were it more closed like iOS (hmm... where's the "open and flexible" Android 3.0?), Google would have a hard time developing and selling it.
On the other hand, make it open and the nerds will love it. Make it flexible and the carriers
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, what software feature that an iPhone has out of the box, does a modern Google android phone lack?
Tell me where I mentioned anything like that? I said it works right out of the box, not that it has any specific software feature that Android doesn't have. I'm sure such things exist (in both directions), but they are mostly irrelevant (unless you have a specific example in mind that is quite impressive) if the system is unappealing from a user perspective.
As a consumer, the Android system itself isn't terribly appealing. That's why your posts (and the posts of others) harp on about how extensible and "ope
Re: (Score:2)
Forgetting stock for a moment though, using apps like Juice Defender to manager resource hogs, using a kernel that lets you undervolt and set different power regulators (eg, turn CPU to 100mhz when screen is off, etc) and making sure your application data-sync settings are set to realistic intervals will do magic for your battery life. In Sovie Russia, power manages you.
WTF, over?!?
Wouldn't you rather just, like, USE your phone/tablet, instead of having to do things the engineers of the product should have, like Power Management?
pple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior. They guarded their technical details jealously, IBM did not, it became easier to write for IBM hardware, clones began to appear, etc, etc, etc.
Nice revisionist history there, bub.
IBM guarded their technical details (BIOS) every bit as jealously as Apple. However, a bunch of people reverse-engineered those secrets, and as a result, IBM eventually had to leave the personal computer market altogether...
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Galaxy S
wtf is Kies? It didn't come with my galaxy s
And whats wrong with anything else? Battery life on the S is far superior than the N1, and beyond that, the S is pretty much the same as the N1 give or take a few gimmicks. *shrug*
Re: (Score:2)
motherfucker
not galaxy S, Nexus S
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming they live up to it.
Samsung is just like any other corp... You can't give them credit for what they say they will do until they actually do it.
You missed (Score:2)
"two" "words" "enough" and "said".