Apple Sues HTC Again Over Patents 263
recoiledsnake writes "Apple is suing HTC again over patent infringement. Apple is adding two new patents to the 20 included in the earlier case while adding additional details to two patents included previously. Although Android is not mentioned in any of the court documents, many of the patent infringement complaints refer to the software rather than the hardware that HTC manufactures, leading to speculation that Google is the real target, especially considering that Android sales are surpassing the iPhone's. With HTC countersuing Apple, Microsoft siding with HTC over Android, and Apple trying to stop import of Nokia phones, it seems like Apple has set off a patent Armageddon in the mobile space."
in re Bilski (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, we can hope that when the Supreme Court hands down its in re Bilski decision, it renders software patents invalid...
Re:in re Bilski (Score:4, Interesting)
Bilski is a computerised business method / mathematical algorithm patent. Invalidating that is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it will help HTC.
Re:in re Bilski (Score:4, Interesting)
That doesn't make hardware unpatentable (Score:2, Informative)
That doesn't make hardware unpatentable, it only makes digital logic unpatentable. If you have a way of making a binary AND gate that isn't patented or prior art, you can patent the way you MADE that AND gate. What you CAN'T do is patent logical AND.
The genius was never in, it appears.
Re:in re Bilski (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly, since the one of the foundations of quantum theory is the many worlds hypothesis...
The many worlds hypothesis is NOT one of the foundations of quantum mechanics. It's an interpretation [wikipedia.org] of quantum mechanics - one of many. And that bit in your argument where you jump from the *concept* of digital logic being unpatentable to a specific *hardware* implemenation being unpatentable is really shakey too. How did this get modded +4 insightful?
Re: (Score:2)
And that bit in your argument where you jump from the *concept* of digital logic being unpatentable to a specific *hardware* implemenation being unpatentable is really shakey too.
Not that shaky... A transmission is fundamentally a set of mathematical ratios for converting speed and torque. And yet machines are certainly patentable.
Or how about this - if all math is unpatentable, and all software is math, and all processes can be described in software, then all processes are unpatentable... but that directly contravenes the statute which explicitly says that processes are patentable.
Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the cour
Re: (Score:2)
Atoms are unpatentable. Everything is made of atoms. Therefore nothing is patentable.
Yeah, not sure how that works. My favorite hated patent was the rotating tray in a microwave oven. That patent made microwave ovens unaffordable until that patent ran out and it was such an obvious invention. But how is this math or digital logic? It's not. It's just a mechanical implementation of getting the radiation spread out more evenly. Just because something CAN be described in mathematical terms doesn't mean
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My proposal (assuming you want patents at all for your society):
Put a fairly small hard-limit # on the total # of patents that can be valid at any time (maybe 10000 total? Or 10000 total per industry category? Not sure how many patents are being granted per year right now.)
When patents expire, or are invalidated (through existing prior art or obviousness procedures), sell their "slots" at an auction.
To enter the auction, you have to submit a patent application. The bidders will bid on the various patent app
Re: (Score:2)
Bilski is a computerised business method / mathematical algorithm patent. Invalidating that is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it will help HTC.
Not even computerized. Bilski's claims are strictly to hedge fund risk management, and say nothing about a computer. That's part of why the CAFC invalidated them under their "tied to a specific machine" test.
I hope they win (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope every single fucking patent lawsuit for smartphones in the US succeeds. So HTC, Nokia, Apple, Motorola, all the Android phones and pretty much everyone will be prohibited from selling smartphones in the US.
Maybe it would be the time that you fix your stupid patent laws that allows software to be patented (most of the patents involved in this shit, especially to most wide-reaching ones and more difficult to avoid, are software patents).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, I gotta agree with this. Of course they're all suing each other - the only people to make money from this are their lawyers and why *wouldn't* they take advantage of the patent system?
Also: Apple didn't "set off a patent Armageddon in the mobile space", as the original poster suggests. Nokia started it in October 2009 - prior to that, Apple was a sleeping patent-giant.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/nokia-sues-apple-says-iphone-infringes-ten-patents/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Though what supposedly "set off a patent Armageddon in the mobile space" isn't about software / concept patents. And generally seems a bit like something done on behalf of most companies behind cellular technology - it's just that Nokia has not only one of the larger contributions, but also probably the least to loose by any turmoil in the US market.
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)
"Nokia started it in October 2009 - prior to that, Apple was a sleeping patent-giant."
At least Nokia's patents were proper *hardware* patents related to GSM technologies *they developed* (and everyone in the industry licenses them). Nokia really did *invent* that stuff (first on market with those, ever). So hardly the same as Apple suing ppl around with lame software patents.
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Interesting)
At least Nokia's patents were proper *hardware* patents related to GSM technologies *they developed*
Ohh, so they changed their suit to not include all the "Method to" patents? Which were about half of them? Not to mention the fluffyness of the rest of the patents:
Data transmission in a radio telephone network
Abstract
For bidirectional transmission of packet data, a packet data service unit (Agent) is disposed in a digital cellular system connected to be in association with a Mobile Switching Center, and connecting the cellular network to the date network. As a mobile station is connected to the packet data service unit, signalling related to connection formation characteristics of the network is first accomplished. As a result thereof, the mobile station and the data service unit are provided with a number of stored parameters relating to each other. This situation creates or is called a virtual channel. When a mobile station wants to transmit or receive data packets between the mobile station and the data service unit a packet data transfer channel is established making use of the parameters of the virtual channel and thereby using substantially less signalling than the channel establishment signalling characteristic of the network, one part thereof being a radio channel and the other part a time slot in a digital trunk line. On termination of data packet transfer, at least said radio channel is disassembled but the virtual channel is maintained until the disconnection of the mobile station from the data service.
Translation: when a device connects to a network, both sides keep the connection open - over RADIO. Wow.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the patent [freepatentsonline.com] you're referring to.
Here are the claims:
Claims:
1-59. (canceled)
60. In a mobile communication system, a method comprising:adopting a robust header compression (ROHC) scheme;configuring uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information based on the ROHC scheme, wherein the downlink parameter information and the uplink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.
61. The method of claim 60, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.
62. The method of claim 60, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.
63. The method of claim 60 further comprising:receiving mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme from a mobile terminal.
64. The method of claim 60 further comprising:transmitting mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme to a network.
65. In a mobile communication system, and apparatus comprising:an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer adapted to perform header compression and/or decompression; andan entity in an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer adapted to configure uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information for the entity in the PDCP layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the asymmetric parameter information comprises at least one of MAX_CID parameter information and Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.
66. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.
67. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.
68. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.
69. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the entity in the RRC layer is further adapted to transfer the asymmetric parameter information to the PDCP layer.
70. In a mobile communication system, an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer comprising:a compressor performing header compression based on uplink parameter information transferred from an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer;a decompressor performing header decompression based on downlink parameter information transferred from the RRC layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.
71. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.
72. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.
73. The method of claim 70, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.
In summary: this is a little less obvious than your analysis of the abstract. Unless there is prior art, this patent has teeth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lesson #1 on deciphering patents: Ignore the title and abstract- read the claims. Claims are far more specific, and are the only enforceable part of the patent. Here is the patent [freepatentsonline.com] you're referring to. Here are the claims:
Claims: 1-59. (canceled)
Obvious stuff found in lots of wire-full networks cut. IOW nothing left.
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia did start the battle, but contrary to what Apple did they originally only asked the court to set the price for their patents(read the damn complaint, but this is ./ ...). Apple, however, went for the throat with plain patent violation lawsuit.
Citation desperately needed. But not actually expected.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Legally, Apple doesn't have much to stand on in the Nokia vs. Apple suit, so they thought they could swing some of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-discrimination aside, wouldn't you want competitor, who continually threatens you and others with litigation, to back down as a condition of licensing terms? I think that's reasonable.
No, it was Apple who picked a fight with Nokia. Nokia simply called their bluff.
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Nokia sues Apple, who kicks the dog (htc)?
mod up. this is the first person to notice the Han Solo Shot first. Saying that Apple has unleashed patent armegeddon is a bit much. Apple is not a patent troll who produces no product or innovation but simply sues others with dubious IP. The IP in question here is not dubious or obvious. If it was obvious then why was the late-comer iphone such a run-away hit? others had plenty of time and funds to originate it.
You can of course argue that somethings should nto be patentable or the degree to which patents should matter. But the point is Apple is not abusing the system here like actual patent trolls do.
Is Nokia abusing apple? is HTC abusing apple with it's counter suit? Given that HTC was well aware of Apple's patents why did they choose to run smack into them? well that's pretty obvious: the patented innovations were crucial to success in that market, thus demonstrating precisely why Apple is on solid ground to patent them. They are not dubious innovations they are critical.
One can say the same thing about the Nokia innovations that apple has stepped on. apple knew they existed but chose to template their protocols on Nokia's successful ones presumably because they had proven successful.
I have no doubt that some of these patents are silly or restating past work with small tweaks of language. But It seems pretty clear that Nokia gor where it is, and Apple got where it is on the basis of innovation in highyl cometitive active markets. Thus they have every right to try to protect their crucial innovations that caused their sucess.
Moreover there is likely more sound than fury here. The real issue is cross licensing. What is the relative value of the Nokia patents to apple comared to the Apple patents to Nokia. They obviously could not decide amongst themsleves or at least could not do do quickly enough for market timing, so instead they will measure each other in court. Then settle and cross license. In the end each will get a fair result and everyone else is doomed.
On the other hand, if the sound is great enough and there are enough vested interests this may become political in which case the EU might doi something like force apple to give its patents at less than fair value. Or there could be equivalent pressure from the US on Nokia and HTC. Or HTC might engage some trade leverage from it's home country.
THe problem is thus not the court settlements but potential political ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, Nokia sues Apple, who kicks the dog (htc)?
If it was obvious then why was the late-comer iphone such a run-away hit? others had plenty of time and funds to originate it.
You're completely ignoring the questions of whether these particular patents apply to the same aspect(s) of the phone that made it a hit and whether what made them a hit wasn't just an obvious evolution of what others were already doing (this seems to be what made the iPod a hit). They're suing for 22 different patents at this point, so really all we need to know about those 22 claims is that the iPhone sells a lot of hardware? Nokia sells even more phones than Apple does, so by your standard all their pa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not about to investigate all the patents in question, but if they are of the calibre of typical software patents, it won't be hard
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessiarly (Score:5, Interesting)
The federal government doesn't have to wise up and fix the patent problem overall, they can just take away the patents in question. Since patents are a power specifically granted to the government, it also means they are theirs to do with as they wish. The government can revoke patents for various reasons.
Well, if smart phones were going to get banned, that would have national security implications. The government relies heavily on mobile phones for communications. National security is a reason they are allowed to revoke patents for.
This sort of thing was threatened in the RIM lawsuit, and is one of the reasons it settled. The federal government told the court that if an injunction was issued against RIM stopping their operations, it could have national security implications. They asked the court not to grant it, and it was strongly implied if it was they might just take the patent away. The court then strongly suggested to the parties that they might want to settle this shit.
Not saying that's what would happen, just saying it is a possibility. The government could basically say "Ok all the patents in question are gone now, anyone can use the tech. Problem solved, let's all go get drunk," and ignore the underlying problem with the system.
Re:I hope they win (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know what a patent is?
It is a legal tool designed to reduce competition in some area of business, in exchange for documenting that specific knowledge so that future generations can reuse it.
So two questions. One, do we need such documentation for software, in the form of patents? One might argue that patents do document, for example, steam engines from the 19th century. Are patents conceivably a proper form of documentation for software knowledge?
Second question, is the stopping of competition worth this documentation? For example, patents on the GSM stack are why we pay so much for mobile data and calls. Patents allow a cartel (ITSUG) that controls prices, legally. The only justification for ITSUG's existence is that future generations will receive a neat stack of over 500 patent families documenting how to build GSM networks and phones. Is this better than, for example, the unpatented RFC stack which allows the Internet to function, without cartels, and at a cost that is as much as 1M times less?
If you can answer YES to both these questions, go ahead with ways to improve software patent quality. If either answer is NO, abolish all legal monopolies on trade in software knowledge.
There is no grey area here.
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Funny)
There is no grey area here.
Only becasue somebody has probably patented "A means of generating shading with an absence of color by setting the R, G and B elements of the shading to identical values between 0 and 0xFF, not including the boundary values themselves which are covered by separate patents".
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, we can shut off Slashdot now, because no one's going to beat this post.
You win Slashdot.
Re:I hope they win (Score:4, Insightful)
patents on the GSM stack are why we pay so much for mobile data and calls
You...seriously...believe that?...
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it's pretty clear from (failed) anti-trust proceedings in the EU against the telecoms operators that patents are the underlying long term reason for high costs that even regulators cannot correct. Patent licensing makes legal a cartel that would be criminal in any other case. There are no technical reasons for high mobile voice/data costs. Landline costs are low. Internet costs are low. GSM infrastructure is now 10+ years old in Europe.
The cost of spectrum might be responsible for short term high costs but those licenses are long paid off.
ITSUG controls [newswireless.net] who can and cannot do business with GSM in Europe and USA. Competition is excluded, prices are defined between members, and anti-trust authorities are powerless to intervene because it's all legal, thanks to patent licensing.
It does not even matter what the patents actually say. They simply enable the cartel, that's their key role here.
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)
I don't really share you observations. Perhaps you really want to look at a very small part of the issue (omitting how the 10+ year old infrastructure is in constant upgrade; or how exorbitant 3G licenses often were)...or apparently you don't realise how cheap mobile services have become here, in the EU, in some places (what, they have "patent moratorium"? Riiight...)
Yes, the cartel might be the problem. But if patents were behind it, no carrier would be able to get away and start a pricewar. Which does happen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Carriers do break away and start price wars, but it happens locally, in smaller countries. Clearly 3G licenses are not the factor since those break away carriers also paid expensive licenses.
Presumably the cartel agreements allow this kind of local flexibility, to satisfy national anti-trust issues. The French carriers were investigated for collusion and price fixing around 2000, iirc.
Do you have an alternative explanation as to why even the EU's anti-trust authorities have been unable to cut roaming cost
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In larger countries too, I live in one such. Accidentally, a place where 3G licenses weren't insane... (and the carrier most rocking the boat was established long after the insanity with those 3G licenses)
There are at the least carriers giving the same rates while calling abroad, within the EU; I believe that also extends to roaming in some cases. Voice can be cheap, too.
And generally...whoa, you are supposed to present an evidence that any possible cartels are via patents; for starters.
Me - I'm only showin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's pretty clear from (failed) anti-trust proceedings in the EU against the telecoms operators that patents are the underlying long term reason for high costs that even regulators cannot correct.
If that were true, Nokia wouldn't need to sell phones anymore. Instead they desperately do.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that copyright is more than sufficient IP protection for software.
Eliminate software patents completely.
If you don't do that, you should give up copyright protection and submit working source code to the patent office.
Shackled Market Economics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I fondly remember the days when products lived and died on their fitness for purpose, not in the courts. So much for free market economics. What shall we call this? SHAckled Market Economics"
You do? When was that? Some time prior to capitalism?
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to say, go research Tesla's life, and that alone is filled with patent issues, from Edison, to Marconi to Westinghouse getting hosed, then hosing Tesla. (although they were friends) Patents were how they made money.
The problem now is most software patents are obsolete before they expire, which completely denies the payoff that the public is supposed to get by allowing a limited time monopoly on the invention. It used to be that inventions belonged to the public, but the inventor was allowed a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I fondly remember the days when products lived and died on their fitness for purpose, not in the courts. So much for free market economics. What shall we call this? SHAckled Market Economics
Really? 'Cause the first Patent Act in the US was in 1790, only three years after the Constitution was written. And prior to that, individual states had their own Patent Acts under the Articles of Confederation. So, are you sure you're remembering "something", rather than "nothing"?
Re: (Score:2)
And before *that* the colonies were regulated by British Patent Law. According to Wikipedia the earliest patent laws appeared in England in 1623 and were formalized in the early 1700's.
I never understood (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but you've got to buy license.
Patent #3928742023483: business method in which you make money without common sense
Patent #3928742023491: business method in which you make money without common sense with computers
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't forget:
Patent #3928742023561: business method in which you make money without common sense with computers on the internet
YAWN (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:YAWN (Score:4, Funny)
"Apple iPhone used to bludgeon pensioner, HTC handset used as shield by rescuer!"
"iPhone used as canoe by 14 year old stranded after typhoon!"
"Beowulf Cluster of HTC phones used to cure cancer!"
See? It's like working for a News Corp company!
Re:YAWN (Score:5, Funny)
"iPhone used as canoe by 14 year old stranded after typhoon!"
Yes, but apple didn't honor the warranty, since the hunidity indicators on the outside of the phone went red.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's a false dichotomy to pretend that these two are the only platforms. The market leader is Symbian, on 50% of smartphones. It's also open like Android - both that it can be used by other manufacturers, and it's open source.
And even if this is meant to be a US-centric story where Nokia don't have much presence, it seems like RIM have been forgotten, despite still being popular (weren't they number 1 on smartphones?)
I do agree that the open vs closed is relevant - and certainly better than the Iphone,
There's two issues here (Score:5, Insightful)
One issue is the corporate use of questionably valid patents to attack their competitors. This does nothing to advance science or technology and is a clear abuse of the patent system. I'm not talking about legitimate patents covering real inventions - I'm talking about all of those patents that cover pre-existing technology or obvious ideas. There's far too many of those and they're taking a toll on our economy.
The other issue is the free riders - those corporations that choose to copy other's inventions and profit from someone else's ideas. This is what the patent system was intended to address and it's not doing very well at that either.
Rather than point fingers and toss accusations, I'd like to offer this thought to my fellow Slashdot readers: think back to what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out - and what they're like now. Say what you will about Apple but they did cause a revolution in cell phone design. They provided the "inspiration" for all of the touch-screen Iphone wanna-be phones that are now being produced by numerous companies - including HTC. Who will win in this latest exchange of legal briefs? One thing is for sure: it won't be the consumer.
One thing you can depend on is that patent suits take time and money - huge amounts of money for both the winner and the loser. And these expenses will be passed on to you in the cost of your new cell phone and the price of the cell service - the corporations aren't in business to do anyone a favor and they'll always make a profit no matter how much it costs you.
Situations like this one clearly show that the US patent system is badly broken - it's not promoting science and the arts and it's not protecting those who invent useful technology. It's become nothing but a weapon that corporations use to beat up on their competitors legally. This needs to change, and change soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a truly free market, why shouldn't you be allowed to "copy other's inventions and profit from someone else's ideas.". Think it through.
That's what grates me, these people harp on about how they're love a free market, yet everything they DO says otherwise.
It's an odd sort of freedom where a clearly winning strategy is to be aritificially restricted.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "truly free market". In the presence of any regulation, the market is not "truly free", and in the absence of it there is no market, since people can simply take what they want by force.
"Free market" is an abstract economic concept which some people have elevated to the status of divinity - or would that honor go to the "Invisible Hand"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IPhone is an invention in the same way that a lightbulb w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Palm smartphones did exist BEFORE the iPhone...
iPhone, Android phones, ... are *NOT* Phones, they are "Smartphones" which are a mix between PDA and phone... And that did exists before... Palm had several of them which already had big touch screen
Keep in mind that most progress are improvements over something that already exists... And Apple marketting make you think they "invented" the technology...
Blueberry/Palm --- iPhone
Creative/Sony/... --- iPod
Xerox --- Macintosh GUI
Arm --- A4 processor (it's noth
Re: (Score:2)
No, apple made the market boom...
Palm had a relative success with the Palm Centro, aimed at the younger non-business crowd.
Too bad they screwed up so badly. WebOS should have been there a few years earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it's the implementation that patentable, and not the idea itself, or am I mistaken?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If we're talking about how the law is written, you're wrong.
If you're talking about how it's currently interpreted, you're right.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...think back to what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out...
Hm, yeah; I can think of Ericsson R380 [gsmarena.com], from 2000 (not a "true" touchscreen smartphone since one can't install apps; but by that measure iPhone wasn't one either, in 2007). Or similar one [wikipedia.org] from...1993. But if necessarily "true" touchscreen smartphone - SE P800 [gsmarena.com] does fine. Did in 2002, actually. Five years of difference (sort of six, if looking at apps)
Oh, I get it, you're talking about waiting until absolutelly every piece of "tech surroundings" is firmly in place for some time? Plus nice marketing in a visi
Re: (Score:2)
"Rather than point fingers and toss accusations, I'd like to offer this thought to my fellow Slashdot readers: think back to what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out - and what they're like now."
There were prototypes of touch-driven phones back in 2002. I saw one at CeBIT in 2003, it even looked like iPhone and if I'm not mistaken it was finger-driven. Unfortunately, it was waaaaaaay outside of my salary at that time.
Then there was Palm Treo, they had grafitty-driven Phone-PDAs back in 2003.
So
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait, is there general agreement that his "issue" should be adressed? Because I disagree. Profiting from someone else's idea is not a problem for society, it's how society progresses. Every book written in the history of mankind has profited from the idea of other people. Every movie made in the history of mankind has don
Re: (Score:2)
There's a problem when free riders want their ideas to be protected, of course...
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you will about Apple but they did cause a revolution in cell phone design.
There were windows mobile phones with touch-only interfaces (okay, most of them have a D-pad, but I'm talking about not having a key pad) before the iPhone. Say what you will about Apple, but please try to restrict yourself to facts.
Re:There's two issues here (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, "inevitable" in 2007...
Not a surprise really, since it was there in 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7710 [wikipedia.org]
(a bit sooner really via UIQ devices; and many others, really)
Oh wait, or was it 1993? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I bought SonyEricsson P800 [wikipedia.org] back in 2002. I loved the phone and its touchscreen. It was precise enough so that I could use it with my fingernails, even when drunk as a skunk.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought for a minute you meant this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_(game) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so you think one needs a pen for resistive touchscreen device... (and it's now also about the style of the casing? Well, not only other manufacturers don't necessarily follow it - Apple doesn't innovate much [gizmodo.com])
Re: (Score:2)
capacitive touch often don't work with a stylus (or require a special one), but that doesn't imply that resistive touch screens need one.
Re:Apple is flailing. (Score:5, Informative)
I sincerely hope android destroys the iphone.
Looks like Cupertino might have given [gizmodo.com] them a hand [gizmodo.com] on that...not enough data yet to pull out the failboat, but it doesn't look promising...
As an aside, I will admit that the source above might not be the most objective; but I likely wouldn't link it if it were one person, one device, on each item so far...time will tell if we see other sites getting the same reports and all.
Re: (Score:2)
So, when that source will nickname it iPhone Death [wikipedia.org]? ;p
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Misinformation about Android sales beating Apple (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl (Score:4, Interesting)
Yesterday at the Droid X launch, the quote was of 160.000 Android phones being sold per day [engadget.com]. I assume that this number is global. So at any 4 working days Android (sales world wide) matches the iphone 4 (US) launch. How well do you think the sales between these two fare on a normal week world wide? Truth is, we both don't know.
I think that at the high-end price point, the iphone seems to sell a lot more. But the trick is that, world wide, not that many people have the disposable money. Android OTOH is present both at the high-end and at the mid-range.
Re: (Score:2)
Android OTOH is present both at the high-end and at the mid-range.
That's...probably going a bit too far. "Present both at the highest-end and at the high-end (entry-high-end?)" more accurately describes the situation. Especially since you're talking about the world.
Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl (Score:4, Informative)
In Thailand you can buy an android based WelCom A88 [thaimobilecenter.com] for around $277. That's about a months salary for someone making a really shitty salary here.
There is definitely a huge amount of variation in android devices from around the world and I bet you've only heard about the ones in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Me hearing only about the ones in the US would be a bit weird considering I haven't really ever ventured even on the general Western hemisphere part of the planet...
That phone you link to is still at least two times more expensive than what can be comfortably called mid-range. Not far from an order of magnitude more expensive than low-end. And you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend has been to South-Korea recently. She said that local Samsung shops were selling Android phones for 70 euros there (she didn't buy one because they told her it would not work in Europe).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that at the high-end price point, the iphone seems to sell a lot more.
Even at the high end "smartphone" point, Nokia are still number 1 with 40-50% share. It may be that Apple are ahead of Android devices, though they're also still behind RIM I believe.
But the trick is that, world wide, not that many people have the disposable money. Android OTOH is present both at the high-end and at the mid-range.
But yes indeed, world wide and out of all phones, Apple are less than 5%. Not sure how Android phones
Re: (Score:2)
Although I get the sad feeling that some people out there are buying expensive Iphones just because they've swallowed the marketing hype that you need an expensive Iphone just to access the Internet on a phone...
The "fancy phone" public right now is far beyond the user group that actually uses mobile internet.
I think the main point of sales (of top phones like the iphone 4) is that phones have become fashion accessories. So people will pay multi-hundred dollars/euros for phones just like they pay multi-hundred bucks for sunglasses, watches, shoes etc.
Think about all the previous "simple" blackberries that had a much longer battery life, and extreme utility for reading email. Couple of years later all new BBerries l
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares, it's both nothing compared to Nokia - not to mention all the other companies like LG, Samsung, Motorola, RIM. Indeed, as you note yourself with "is closing in on RIM" - why yes, they'll soon be in position number 5...
(Although I think Android is still interesting long term, as it's potentially an OS that all those other companies, except presumably Nokia and RIM, will switch to using.)
Re:Apple is flailing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That's bullshit. I got modded Flamebait yesterday for saying the same thing with an iPhone slant. Simple fact is that most Slashdot moderators think "Flamebait" and "Troll" mean "I disagree". Thankfully, most people are smarter than this... Both I and the GGP got modded back up by more sensible mods. The system works, mostly.
Re:Apple is flailing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I also don't think that the competition is inconsequential from an OS improvement standpoint; for instance, Microsoft responded to the success of iPhone OS by designing Windows
Re: (Score:2)
I sincerely hope android destroys the iphone.
I sincerely hope they both remain viable, popular platforms and thus provide competition for one another.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Flawed though they may be, IP laws in the US are apparently the controlling
Re: (Score:2)
Your memory is faulty. [wikipedia.org]
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Re: (Score:2)
Not because HTC is an important partner of MS in bringing (for better or forse...) WinMob phones to the market?
Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales? (Score:5, Interesting)
First quarter 2010, there were more Android phones sold than iPhones. Also I was reading various articles on this, and a site (I wish I'd bookmarked it now - maybe someone reading knows which one it is) showed graphs for mobile browser usage - over a one year time span, May 2009 to May 2010, iPhone browser usage dropped 8% and Android browser usage increased 12%.
I had an iPhone 3GS from the day they went on sale until two weeks ago when I bought an Evo. I loved the iPhone at first, until all of it's shortcomings (virtually none of which have been fixed in the new version) became too obvious to stand. Android is a much better platform and you get a large selection of different handsets to choose from. Out of all the people I know, it's about 50/50 for iPhone vs Android ownership. However, I currently know no one looking to buy a new iPhone - but I know several people looking to buy a new Android phone and several who want to switch from an iPhone to an Android phone (but that's just my personal experience).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did I miss something? I mean, I really haven't read anything about android sales surpassing iPhone sales. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool and everything, but I just don't see it happening.
Kind of. Here's [slashdot.org] the article, but now that the iPhone4 is out its unclear whether this was a blip or a sign of things to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent lawsuit is the new "look and feel" lawsuit.
Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Apple has the same hubris that bought it down the first time, now MS has no impetus to save them this time given the fact that they are now a convicted monopoly and have no chance of losing that status.
Re: (Score:2)
No. First quarter this year, more Android loaded phones were sold than iPhones.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No they weren't. One study from on firm, covering US sales only and excluding corporate sales claimed that. It didn't come to the conclusion that total Android phone sales were larger than total iPhone sales at all. And no other study shows Android as even being close.
Nothing but accounting (Score:2)