|
photohounds
10 August 2011
|
Boo hoo Big A. Tablet computing's been around for decades, Big A merely popularised the tech of other makers first. Clever, but not seminal as a quick wikipedia search on tablet computing shows.
Sour grapes nothing more ... just like their phone legal joke.
As soon as the competition looks like produces a superior product, the odour of dirty tricks begins to waft over the legal swamp.
A waste of investor's money.
Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Samsung Galaxy Tab banned from sale in Europe?
German court issues EU-wide ban on new Samsung tablet.
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
amcmo
10 August 2011
|
Sorry Photo, again, you're blaming Apple without a knowledge of the validity of their case, just a 'how dare they attack my beloved Android/Samsung'
For a decision to be made to ban the product from sale, there needs to be a view on the part of the court that there may be a valid case. Most courts have been only too happy to throw frivilous cases out before this point.
Apple's case has nothing to do with the concept of tablets being around for ages. It has to do with their design. Neither you nor I can comment on the validity of the case, though at present those screaming the loudest are Android fanbois and Google, the first because they might have to wait for someone to come up with a decent design that doesn't copy Apple (other than this latest Samsung, all to date have been pretty poor imitations), and Google because it may eat into their ecosystem.
You can go on all you like about tablets being around for ages - they were all pathetic designs with lousy performance, and contributed next to nothing. Bulky, heavy, running lousy, slow O/S. no battery life, I could do on...
Apple put everything together in a fairly stylish package, performance, ease of use (and that was only iPad1). If any of the prior tablet manufacturers felt that Apple had copied anything, they would be sinking under a sea of legal action by now. (witness the Florida patent troll {LG in disguise??} attempting to claim that Apple's fast boot of MacBook Airs somehow infringes their config.sys and autoexec.bat based PC boot system.)
Everyone else especially MS (hey didn't you claim they were in bed with Apple?)- Google included from memory said iPad would be a total failure.
After they were proven wrong, a mad rush by all and sundry to make a knock-off, with Google claiming that they would come out with a 'designed for tablets' version of Android (the first generation of Android tablets had the phone version), missing the point that iOS was originally designed with tablets in mind.
This was a case of Apple getting it all together in a workable package, intelligent semiconductor design, packaging etc and the rest of the market giving a collective 'so that's how you do it!'
Others may well come out with a better product (non infringing) in short time, however for the time being best to see how the fight pans out.
I suspect Samsing will pay some cash, Apple will get hold of a little useful tech as part of the deal and they will go back to playing friends.
Just to show I can potentially see both side - a cynical person might see this as Apple delaying the Samsung long enough for them to release iPad3 with additional features that make the Samsung a non-starter in the market. Just putting that thought out there... Nasty thought, but brilliant strategy (if a little underhanded) |
|
rubaiyat
10 August 2011
|
One thing photohounds you can't be accused of, is making an artform of revionism.
There is nothing artful in mere unbelievable repetition. We have squashed this load of crock long ago.
Edited by rubaiyat: 10/8/2011 11:46:11 AM |
|
photohounds
10 August 2011
|
There's nothing noble in using market power to quash inovation by other companies. '90s MS all over again.
I'm a freedom of choice 'fan boy' AM, nothing more.
The issues as simple as I want CHOICE, and don't like when greedy corps take it away - from us all. This makes their exclusionary monoculture 'ecosystem' all the less desirable - at least to those who value choice.
It's all in the timing. No word at the early copies. As soon as innovators are a threat (having raised the bar over their early so-so efforts and above the Big A's head, apparently), out comes the legal BS (and its defenders).
The only crock here is that it is legitimate. Who knows what exposure a court officer has had to tablets? |
|
amcmo
10 August 2011
|
At this time you have nothing to support your abuse of market power assertion. Repeating it does not make it so.
One could argue there is no innovation to be seen in the Samsung, just a very similar bill of materials to the Apple. Different screen, plastic case, nothing much else different, in fact very similar in look and feel.
Apple has taken action against what it sees as copying. I believe Apple, in their claim single out Samsung for so much blatant copying.
The right or wrong will be determined by courts (or by negotitation).
As for other early attempts, Apple either consider them to not be infringing, or will be having a go at them (or Google) on any other infringment they see in due course.
As with any company they have only so many lawyers and if it were me, I would pick the fight against the offender who could do the most potential harm, or the one that, if won would encourage other offenders to settle quickly. Given the stupendous costs in such action (especially on the losing side), one would assume Apple believe themselves to be on solid ground. They've picked an opponent with even greater ability to fund lawyers.
I have no issue with you wanting CHOICE, however if the company providing you CHOICE has infringed on others' patents etc, then they have no right to offer that CHOICE. Just because you and others want it, doesn't mean Apple or any other patent holder should let it be at their cost.
I still fail to understand why Android fan's seem to feel that any such product should be immune from legal action, and that anyone taking action is feeling threatend or being a bully.
Being 'open source' (sort of), does not give a free pass on copying others' work.
Seeing as Germany is officially an Open Source country (public policy), hardly able to accuse the court of being biased. |
|
photohounds
10 August 2011
|
Yes, Samsung actually MAKES part of what's in the box. That's innovation and invention.
For the "revisionist" claims, here's a list of commercial tablet computers released in or shortly before 2009.
That's BEFORE the ipad which must logically BE the copy, not vice versa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_tablet_PCs#Older
Woo hoo - even MS had a go at it ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer#Microsoft_Tablet_PC
And the piece de resistance a ()*&9b Samsung tablet!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Q1
So much for 'innovation', that title belongs to those who DID the work, right?
It's only marketing that has a lot of people thinking that the Big A invented this stuff.
Clearly the major inventiond were the name ipad, some clever marketing, and the claim that they were somehow 'first'.
All too similar to when Win95 had an icon on the desktop "The Microsoft Internet"
- fooled a lot of people into thinking that MS we there at the beginning.
The fact is hat Win was the LAST platform to have native internet support.
So much for the BS revisionist claim above and the facts make a mockery of the Big A being copied.
Their claim is fraudulent ... and those who support fraudulent claims are revisionists. Not me. |
|
Nato
10 August 2011
|
Samsung makes alot of the stuff that goes in apples product. I think they need to just get along, or it will hurt them in the long run when no one will make there tech for them, or just hamstring the tech apple gets in the future, no amount of adds will save them then.
Its allready starting to happen with phones with models having much better specs than even the A5 chip.
Then there is the cost of R&D which has increased dramatically which points to a future of all the big tech companys pooling there money to be able to make such tiny chips with the real bit coming down to who makes the tech work better for the people in the os.
To me its like the first car invented, Could they sue the next company for making another because it was like theres and had wheels and a seat, no thats just stupid. |
|
photohounds
10 August 2011
|
Don't forget windscreens,steering wheels, oh and the engine.
You are right this stupid beyond belief and a waste of shareholders money.
Some people have no idea how many devices contain Samsung chips ... not just Apple.
AM and I have previously postulated this might be a delay to allow the pad3 to come out 'first' and gain traction as this may be slipping.
Samsung should consider seeking a remedy like this:
* Samsung is allowed to release their superior? TAB two business days after this sheer stupidity is resolved.
* Apple is prevented from releasing THEIR copy for TWICE the number of delays that apple have unreasonably and frivolously delayed Samsung'sTAB release - measured including TWICE the two awarded days and weekend days if it falls there.
Apple should pay Samsung (and others who made tablets beforehand) and publicly apologises to them all. They should pay for copying the design of the LG Prada phone while they're at it.
Never going to happen I suppose ... |
|
amcmo
10 August 2011
|
Photo you're still missing the crucial point! Well more than one!
No one is disputing that there were some half-baked tablets before Apple. Deciding to take a notebook, ditch the keyboard and put in some poorly implemented pen input o/s is not innovation.
Apple never claimed to have invented the tablet, just to have invented one that people would actually want to use! (and people voted with their wallets)
What you are choosing to ignore is that Apple came up with the package of a design, O/S and apps that actually achieved something, with substantial battery life, performance and that appealed to end users, almost all which was missing from previous attempts.
THAT IS INNOVATION! (at least in my estimation)
Apple DID the work. Suddenly we go from a tablet running some version of XP, or some in house o/s with no app support, and 2 hours battery life, to a fast tablet with over 10 hours, lightweight, looks something other than a dog's breakfast. What more do you need to accept innovation existed??
And get off the hobby-horse of Samsung-makes therefore... Just so much bullsh.t.
"Samsung makes part of what's in the box" is not innovation, it's manufacturing and assembly.
There is no logical way you can claim that simply having your own assembly plant or fab somehow makes you product superior. GET REAL! How long a list of big name crap products out of their own factories would you like me to give... I can go for quite a few pages.
Samsung's hard drive plant turned out some stinkers, and they've turned out some stinker phones in their time - (I have one), but they came out of their own factory so they must be somehow superior in your estimation..
In your mind the claim is fraudulent with such absolute certainty.... Didn't know you were a specialist in patent law..
I'll actually wait for the end result.
Just wish the Samsung/Android fanbois would cut the anti-Apple vitriol based on nothing more than their wish for it to be so.
And Apple didn't copy the dog of a phone that was Prada
Edited by amcmo: 10/8/2011 05:23:13 PM |
|
Slatts
10 August 2011
|
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0[/youtube]
I may just spam this in a couple of other threads.
|
|
amcmo
10 August 2011
|
Always happy to get along.
There's room for both Apple and other platforms, hey we use them all.
Just can't stomach the anti-Apple vitriol from an uneducated (on the truths of tech life) minority |
|
Slatts
10 August 2011
|
We're in agreement then.
I see this potentially turning into another one of those threads where anything of relevance is covered in the first half dozen posts then devolving into repetition and irrelevance with the occasional fanboy jumping in to explain just how stupid the other team is.
Hey, but what the hell, I guess it keeps them off the streets.
Edit: By the way, I see you're using the FF6 beta, much of an improvement over 5?
Edited by Slatts: 10/8/2011 07:18:11 PM |
|
amcmo
10 August 2011
|
Stable, fast enough.
Probably still slower than chrome |
|
Slatts
10 August 2011
|
Goodo, I'll give it a spin.
one of my weaknesses is browser envy.
If I see someone with a later release than mine I start getting that itch.8-[
|
|
amcmo
11 August 2011
|
Slatts - I know that feeling!
Photo and Nato, thought overnight about a better way to address your last posts.
You are both using the car metaphore and getting hung up on the fact it's a car, with windows, doors, gearbox etc.
Did you know you can register a design? From memory a few years back, Ford registered the design of their Falcon brake pads. The plan was to gain back the market they were loosing to aftermarket pad manufacturers by preventing them from copying. In reality, all the aftermarket guys have to do is make it look different and possibly different compound. (ie, not copy the look and feel and function).
You mentioned screens. The guys who invented the laminated screen had a patent on that. Sure it was just a windscreen, to use your terminology, however it was a better (safer) windscreen, therefore patentable, as was the zone toughened.
The guy who invented synchromesh won a patent - sure it was just a gearbox, however you could change gear without double clutching and throttle blipping to equalise the cluster speeds (I learned to drive in non synchro tractors and a 38 Chev truck with crash box).
Same with all developments over the years - disk brakes, power boosters an on.
Similar applies to tablets. Ok they are all tablets, however the way they are designed, function etc allows innovation to be patented.
Photo, you continue to get hung up on the fact that Apple use contract manufacturers. That has nothing to do with patents or innovation. They designed the processor/video integration, had specialist produce chips to their specs etc.
To use the Ford brake pad example, they design, specify, however (in some cases)the same factory that makes the aftermarket ones manufacture for them. That doesn't make Ford (or Holden) any less innovative or of lower quality than some manufacturer who may also own a brake pad factory, not that i know of one. As far as I am aware they all use specialist manufacturers. |
|
photohounds
11 August 2011
|
Nice wordsmithing guys - sophistry is alive and well :)
The guy who invented synchromesh had to have a MADE example to demonstrate that it worked. Same with windscreens - they MADE and tested them to be sure it worked, and so the wheels fall off your version of the car analogy.
There's less 'invention' in sniffing around to see what the latest compact, fast bits there are, than there is in designing and making those bits for others to buy and use in end products. R&D $$ spent WELL before the 'innovators' can make their move to buy and use.
Sure, Samsung (just about any MAKER really) produces some crap - even Ferrari made some very ugly cars - to stretch your car words. Imagine if your new Mercedes was nothing but a parts-bin special. They Invented, Enginnered and Manufacture much of what defines automobiles!
Advancing battery technology made for better battery life in consumer devices (and cars) Big A had NOTHING to do with that innovation, they are the USER. The newer, sleeker tablet design was MADE POSSIBLE by what was available from the designers/makers of the hardware. Not saying Apple's designs aren't very good - they are.
Am saying:
* BS anti-competitive suits to harm innovation, disguised as IP protection shouldn't mean ONE company is the only option available to consumers in any class of product.
* while some bits may be patentable, the overall concept is certainly not novel (the basis for generic patents AFAIK) as many have done these devices with less success.
"Half baked" previous attempts (as AM said) were mainly because the MANAUFACTURING tech wasn't there (yet). Apple saw it and did better, now Samsunf et. al are advancing this more. Great!
The Big A move is a transparent (to most) cynical marketing ploy, protection of market share, protection of IP is a red herring to inject the lacking credibility. We wait ... |
|
rubaiyat
11 August 2011
|
photohounds
You are a broken needle stuck in a groove.
IF Apple copied everybody else's designs, why on earth does it take the others so long to bring out competing products to Apple's, particularly in the case of the iPod, iPhone, iPad and Macbook Air?
Not to mention the GUI which took Microsoft over 11 years before it got an even remotely competitive OS, despite being given an inside look on the Mac years before Apple released it? Linux took over 20 years to do the same.
After all, IF Apple is doing the copying then that means the others must have got there first and already be streets ahead!
Edited by rubaiyat: 11/8/2011 11:02:50 AM |
|
amcmo
11 August 2011
|
Photo,
Your logic or should I say lack thereof defies description. Rubaiyat sums it up well, however I feel compelled to add a little.
Apple developed and perfected a product in-house in house long before they let contract manufacturers near it.
Earlier tablets were half-baked in good part because the whole premise was wrong in the early days! I have never suggested Apple developed batteries. They developed the design and selected semi's to achive their desired current draw then drove battery manufacturers to develop batteries for them with the desired capacity and form factor, when everyone else was still stuck in the brick mindset.
Samsung will either prevail, negotiate licences, or Apple will win and prove their case.
Like most unbaiased readers, I'm waiting to see how it ends (hopefully soon).
Get over it.
Edited by amcmo: 11/8/2011 11:20:38 AM |
|
photohounds
11 August 2011
|
Difference between seminal and first well-executed - ah never mind ....
Have it your way : "unbiased" = "agrees with your world view". Mine's simply different and you don't agree. |
|
amcmo
11 August 2011
|
No,
Unbiased means, prepared to accept that Apple may be right or wrong, as may Samsung. Time will tell.
Also means not slagging either as lacking vision and innovation, nor insisting the only way to innovate is to produce in house.
It will appear on another thread shortly, however apparently Apple has added Xoom to their targets in Europe and has already had sucess against a local manufactuer.
Before you attack Apple, they and Motorola are trading accusations over all manner of issues.
|
|
photohounds
11 August 2011
|
Prepared to accept - yes have views yes, too.
Apple and Motorola - old bedfellows ...
Saw the xoom thing.
As you say, Interesting to see how that pans out.
A negative outcome - for the challengers - could kill genuine innovation stone dead and that would be a shame.
I doubt manufacturers will 'accept' being relegated to relatively low profit manufacture only while others rake off the much easier easy money. I have a dim view of bullies - that's my 'angle'. |
|
amcmo
12 August 2011
|
A negative outcome for the challengers would encourage genuine innovation. Get out there and develop a genuine alternative, not just a copy with a different O/S. There is nothing in any of the alternatives yet that could be considered innovation. (I tell a lie, the IIs seems to include genuine innovation)
If by manufacturers, you are talking of Apple's contract manufacturers, they are doing very well indeed. They focus on developing the manufacturing process and profit from doing so. Apple focus on developing market changing solutions (whether you like it or not iPhone, iPad and Air have turned the respective markets on their head)
You come back to bullies, yet again.
Defending what you consider to be your own hard work and innovation is not bullying. I could suggest that rushing a 'copy' through development to cash in on someone elses years of development is more of a bully. |
|
photohounds
12 August 2011
|
So, one bully can tell the hjardwre maker how it may use its hardware to make products? No doubt that in recent times Apple have lifted the bar. I am not convinced they are 'copies' unless being square, touch-sensitive and software driven is the exclusive premise on one manufacturer. I had a Newton, by the way. In some ways good, in some ways crap. Palm went one further with pilots and life drives, then gave stuck its legs in the air. This is evolution and many have contributed to the current state of things - not just one company. Such is often the nature of human endeavour. |
|
amcmo
12 August 2011
|
Let's assume for a moment Apple is not a bully. ( I believe they are simply aggressive in defending their innovation)
Yes, they can tell hardware Mfr (I assume you mean Samsung) not to use it's products to make a copy of the Apple product. They are free to use their products to develop a truly alternative take on the product, just not a 'copy'.
If Samsung, et-all had used their technology and resources to develop a game changing alternative to the iPad, I'd be rooting for them and lining up to buy the product.
Unfortunately seems almot everyone saw the iPad was sucessful after all (they all thought it would flop) and simpy rushed through the closest thing to a copy they thought they could get away with in the biggest 'me too' rush ever seen. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
12 August 2011
|
Manufacturers always copy each other, it's part of the process of innovation. If everyone had to reinvent the wheel to get a product shipped, we'd be using digital typewriters. Take a look at the patent Apple used to block the sales of the Tab. It's literally a rectangular prism with a display - the patent regardless of current litigation is ridiculous. |
|
amcmo
12 August 2011
|
Yes and no.
Take the golfball typewriter. No one else could copy. They had to develop thimble, daisywheel etc to get around the patent. As for the current one, blame the system, not for a company for working within it.
As a patent holder I would defend them as vigourously as anyone. Obviously I don't have Apple's wallet |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
12 August 2011
|
I do blame the system. :P
Your typewriter example is fair enough, what I don't think is fair is that one can patent a very general form factor.
|
|
amcmo
13 August 2011
|
Seems eveyone is pushing for a review of the patent system, except politicians who seem to benefit most from 'donations' |
|
photohounds
14 August 2011
|
True, review is badly needed. It is possible to patent something you didn't invent. The rectangle (a Sesame street patent?) Glass screens? Buttons? Software control of a device?
BS patents like this should never have been granted in the first place. Can I patent the cylindrical rocket - or the fins that stabilise them? Or what about those patenting the human genome? Pretty obvious they didn't invent it, but patents they apparently receive. Ridiculous. |
|
amcmo
15 August 2011
|
Again, you're missing the point.
Yes, you can legitimately patent fins that stabalise a rocket, as without them the thing is uncontrollable IF YOU FIRST THINK OF IT AND DOCUMENT. No good trying after someone else has already demonstrated. There are patents for various rocket fins that spring/fold out after launch as they were new developments to tackle specific applications.
Apple is not trying to patent glass screens or a rectangle, it's the application they are patenting.
I don't generally agree with software patents, however they were generally correctly given as the law stands in the US and Europe. Complain about the law, not those who follow it in submitting their patents before someone else does.
As for the human genome, the decision handed down focusses on the fact that the company has split a single part of it out in a process they developed.
I don't agree with it, however the judge handed down a ruling based on how they read the law. Hopefully it will be overturned, however given the current structure of the US Supreme Court, I wouldn't be too hopefull.
Edited by amcmo: 15/8/2011 02:57:52 AM |
|
photohounds
15 August 2011
|
Sure, Am.
The sguare glass rectangle phone shape was 'invented', using the term VERY loosely, by LG with their PRADA - The thing was probably not much chop, bur it WAS rectangular, mostly black and had a big glass screen and was software driven. Hate it or not (and many seem to), it was awarded for looking like and working that.
No Q that the Big A made a wildly successful VERSION of that idea and a well-exected product to boot (ip4 antenna issues aside). Tt resembles evolution far more closely than 'invention'. Just like JVC used to say they 'invented' VHS. Hmm tape on 2 reels in a cassette - like a huge audio cassette with a lid interlock. it's a format fer krr...
Being able to patent fins that one didn't invent how does that help innovation? The reverse I'd say. And the cylindrical shape?
Of course if anyone tried to patent those fins now, a military power (or three) might well send over one of their 'patent infringers' to the 'inventor' to examine at very close range!
I also believe MS and others have patented thousands of lines of code it didn't write. Maybe THEY should try and patent those fins :)
So .. SCO got their rocket, and all because someone at IBM took notes at a meeting, as I recall.
|
|
amcmo
15 August 2011
|
When I said you could patent fins, I was referring to the guy who thought of the idea in the first place, they do exactly that, stabalise and they were a patentable invention. He may well have done so. My point was that substantial variations on the fin can and have been patented, folding, spring loaded etc.
Yes Johnny, you can patent a better mousetrap.
As for the rectangular screen phone, Apple have never tried to patent that.
|
|
photohounds
16 August 2011
|
Court lies (falsified evidence) and copying the form factor of other devices. The 'invention' in all of this is that The Big A don't copy, and others do. The Big A use pictures (sometimes falsified) to indicate 'product similarity' a great deal from the little we can see outside the courtroom, so they are in effect, saying just that (in part).
|
|
amcmo
17 August 2011
|
I'll grant the file shown raises questions, owever in itself proves nothing.
As for the rest of your post, Nothing new or unexpected from you. |
|
photohounds
25 August 2011
|
Here's something new: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219455/Dutch_court_bans_Samsung_Galaxy_S_SII_and_Ace_in_Europe_starting_Oct._15?source=CTWNLE_nlt_pm_2011-08-24&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+computerworld%2Fnews%2Ffeed+%28Latest+from+Computerworld%29 in case you missed the other thread.
The (presumably impartial) Judge's judgement suggest that the court thinks that Apple's claim is bunk - the fan-boys here may squall, but ....
"The judge denied all the other grounds on which Apple tried to ban the import of Samsung products into Europe. Samsung does not infringe on two other patent claims about intellectual copyright and design, the judge ruled. Further, according to the court, Samsung does not "slavishly copy" Apple's iPad and iPhone."
Using the latest Android version in order to comply is not a big ask at all.
Is the Judge an "Apple-hater" - I doubt it, the appropriate legal education and common-sense.
Now it remains to be seen just how far the Big A are prepared to push this barrow of rotten apples - er ... I mean sour grapes. |
|
amcmo
25 August 2011
|
Why would you even bring up the question of the judge being an Apple-hater or not, and the rubbish about 'fan-boys'.
Apple lodged a complaint based on how they saw the situation, the judge has ruled, for on one item, against on the others.
As I've said all along - let's wait for the rulings. One down, several more to go.
I don't see the validity of your sour grapes comment. Apple have simply done the same as countless other companies (Samsung and HTC included). They may choose to appeal if they feel they have a case, or accept the ruling as it stands.
You seem to brand all these cases as good (Android/Samsung) against evil (Apple). It's just two companies fighting it out in a competitive market and using the law as they see it applying at present to maximise their chances of dominating that market. |
|
photohounds
26 August 2011
|
I know little of the other lawsuits, I am commenting on THIS stupid one. Who knows - the other suits may actually be about something those companies invented. The apple form factor argument is ridiculous. Others made a myriad of devices that looked like that. long before the Big A claimed to have come up with the idea. |
|
amcmo
26 August 2011
|
In YOUR MIND, it is stupid.
Lawyers and industry commentators seem split on that.
Yes, there were a miriad of devices that were rectangular in shape before the iPad/iPhone, however this is a little more complex than just a rectangular item that did next to nothing...
As before, I'll wait for courts to decide. One has on several points, though don't think the word STUPID came up in the ruling. |
|
photohounds
26 August 2011
|
Courts cannot leave themselves open to accusations of bias by saying the case is stupid - saying "it is not as you say" isn't far from it. Computer tablets existed BEFORE the 'pad and will exist after it is gone.You're fixated on one product - the wildly successful one - that doesn't make it seminal in any way. And THAT lack of "original work" the court did confirm by saying the device was NOT copied. |
|
amcmo
26 August 2011
|
You and your seminal... Find another word to fixate on!
No one disputes that there were tablets, just that they were universally crap. (and as ffor those that somehow equate a photo frame with a tablet...) No one disputes (except perhaps you) that Apple innovated in the physical design and software.
You are the one fixated on denying that Apple's approach was innovative and other's copied it.
The court may have said that it wasn't copied within the bounds of patent law, however doesn't change the fact that every tablet since has copied the form and use of the iPad.
May not be illegal, however look at tablets before iPad, then look at those after, all of them look and function like iPad, and nothing like those that came before.
Let's agree you hate all things to do with Apple and Jobs for some irrational reason, or outright stupidity.
You can have the last comment, because quite frankly Photohounds I'm sick of bothering.
Hi-jack all the treads you want.
Edited by amcmo: 26/8/2011 12:21:58 PM |
|
photohounds
26 August 2011
|
amcmo wrote: ...
[snip]
The court may have said that it wasn't copied within the bounds of patent law, however doesn't change the fact that every tablet since has copied the form and use of the iPad.
[snip]
Edited by amcmo: 26/8/2011 12:21:58 PM
ALL tablets currently resemble photo frames - to argue that one company 'invented' this form factor is pure, unadulterated rubbish - Kodak? was theirs the first?
A telco tech turned up at my home to install a couple of new lines with a tablet (windog) PC in 1998.
Yes, it was a computing tablet. - in 1998!
It was rectangular, had a glass screen and was as small as the MANUFACTURERS technology could make it at the time.
The 'pad is: rectangular, has a glass screen and IS as small as the MANUFACTURERS technology can make it (not as small the marketer's claims make it). It has quite a few nice features over the 1998 tablet, as you'd expect after 13 YEARS of manufacturing advances.
Sales reality is determined by what can be MADE. They will become smaller, too as you know. SONY did more for miniaturisation than Apple probably most other companies over the years - actually MADE things smaller, that is, not just claimed credit when others did it.
Most tablets will be rectangular, have a glass screen and BE as small as the MANUFACTURERS technology can make them - a revelation? A few variations like clam shells etc. One is supposed to have 'digital ink' on one side and a LED screen on the other - a nice compromise!
And, AM, it is different companies pushing that idea forward, just like the current photo-frame-like form factor that is popular now.
No 'hatred' of a company, just a sense of what has gone before which all fan boys forget. Android, is just another path and it gives us choice, too (sometimes good, sometimes not so good). WebOS might offer a third strand of this choice - good.
By the way, seminal is a most appropriate word in this context. (few typos fixed)
Edited by photohounds: 26/8/2011 01:32:02 PM |
|
amcmo
26 August 2011
|
FORM AND USE
A Photoframe is NOT a tablet, surely even in your mind.
No Hatred is it. Nothing good sense about it.](*,)
You love Google - can do no wrong, hate Apple - (and Jobs judging by the vitriol of other posts) Admit it and move on.
This is my final post on this forum.
Open comment to PC&TA. Get some decent even handed journalism and focus on fact rather than grabbing headlines with no substance. Ditch using rubbish from sub-standard blogs. Write product reviews as just that, reviews, not adverts.
Edited by amcmo: 26/8/2011 02:17:13 PM |
