1289 posts • joined Thursday 18th June 2009 13:17 GMT
Re: Apples innovation is more than I thought
Indeed, talk about revisionist history.
Feature phones always have been smartphones by any sensible objective definition - "feature" vs "smart" is simply a marketing term, usually to distinguish vaguely between low and high cost.
Apple released a dumb phone in 2007 (couldn't run apps), but marketed it as a smartphone. Now they've got fanatics (including much of the media) believing that they invented smartphones and software ("apps"). Now they have the cheek to suggest that feature phones - also commonly available since around 2004-2005 - made use of Apple's inventions.
Perhaps Apple invented the time machine too, it would be the only way to actually explain this.
Re: Given that in smartphone space Android was and is the only significant rival to iOS.........
Just to be pedantic on your title, note it wasn't the only significant rival - check out the sales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Historical_sales_figures
Symbian was #1 until 2011 (when it was overtaken by Android, *not* Iphone), and other platforms like Blackberry were significant rivals.
Although yes, from Samsung's point of view, telling them they couldn't use Android wouldn't leave them much choice. Although I suspect that Apple would be making demands whatever OS they used on their flagship (and someone else comments that Apple have gone after their WP phones too).
Re: Totally reasonable from Apple's point of view
Well, it's like the landlord in the pub next door offering that you can sell beer in your own pub, as long as you pay him per glass, because he invented round glasses five years ago.
As you say, it's entirely reasonable from the point of view of a landlord wanting to put their own profits above all else. But for the rest of us - no.
Ah look, yet another case of hand-picking and publicising whichever statistic makes Apple look better.
Maybe they keep value because there's little new with each new model. Or maybe because there are so few of them, compared to more popular makes like Samsung and Nokia. But who cares - it's not like the kind of people worried about saving money by second hand value are going to be buying overpriced Apple feature phones anyway. But hundreds of millions of us are able to afford a new Galaxy each time, without caring about price - when I upgrade, I either give the old phone away, or stick it in a drawer for backup.
Re: Only the Galaxy S
Apple sales never "exploded", rather they've grown over the years. You may be thinking of Android, which went through a period of 100% growth per quarter(!)
As a consumer and not a shareholder, I don't care about their profits. The OP was talking about sales, not profits.
Nothing there contradicts what I said - yes their sales have fallen in the last year, and I already stated they were overtaken by Samsung. But I'm not sure that the number two worldwide is "back of the class"... Even without any sales from Symbian or WP, they would for now retain that position. If we go by relative changes, than Apple's sales have been sliding massively this year - a drop of 10 million in the last quarter alone!
The issue isn't about profits or losses, I thought we were talking about what people bought. Nor is it about the number of people they employ (when Apple employs less people, it's spun by the media as being more efficient - remember that Nokia vs Apple R&D story a while back?) Indeed, if a company is making losses despite being the number two seller, it would suggest they need to cut costs.
I'm not sure what you mean about dyes being cast - it's hard to predict what will happen in fast moving markets, I think.
Just to add regarding BB, on "Businesses may still use BB, for their security. But the common consumer has long since abandoned them." - BB actually had massive growth from 2007 (11.77m) to 2010 (47.45m - still outselling Apple) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Historical_sales_figures ), and I would have thought that much of that growth came from consumers, not businesses, though I may be wrong. Their sales have since declined and yes non-business consumers may be moving away, though I'm not sure about "long since abandoned" - their sales are still several times their 2007 level, suggesting they still have a lot more than their traditional business use that they had years ago (or if few consumers use BB anymore, it suggests a lot more businesses do).
Never used BB myself - but let's base arguments on factual data, not assumptions. The Apple fans would have us believing that the IPhone has been the number one platform, after all...
"Poor old RIM. Time to sit at the back of the class with Nokia, Zynga and HP."
Nokia? 2nd place is back of the class? Yes, it's true they've now been overtaken by Samsung, and who knows what may happen with their risky Symbian to WP transition and I'm sure there are endless criticisms people can make about Elop or their management since 2011, but there seems to be a myth that they've completely shrunk away, or even that they were overtaken years ago. Not true.
(And aren't HP the world's number one PC maker? Okay, I guess you mean phones, but then in phones Apple are too "back of the class" behind Nokia.)
Ah yes, it's the obnoxious and misleading "cheap" tactic - the fallacy of equating "cheap" as in "lower cost" with "poor quality". Just because one is the former, doesn't make it the latter. These are different meanings. In English, two words can have different meanings, it doesn't make them the same thing. It's unclear if you are just ignorant, or are intentionally trying to deceive people with this spin.
I'm sorry you sound angry - it must be hard when you find out you've bought an overpriced phone, only to find the people getting better deals also have features that you have to wait years for. I'm sorry.
Re: Fundroid commentards are funny
"Samsung tried to think different and their phones were getting crushed by the iPhone"
Citation needed. Apple's phone sales were pretty abysmal for years, and I'm not sure they've ever outsold Samsung. The Wikipedia Smartphone article has referenced sales for smartphone OS figures, but if you've got some sales figures showing Apple phones outselling Samsung phones, I'd like to see it (and if it was true, then Apple and Samsung were getting even more crushed by companies like Nokia).
(Whilst the jury are lucky to get expenses covered...)
But lawyers are meant to be one-sided. An expert witness is supposed to speak on their expertise, and not based on taking sides. I don't have to worry that a lawyer might be biased towards the one paying for them. But if a witness is biased towards the one paying for them, that's a reason to dispute their evidence, surely?
This is common sense, no different to anything else. E.g., if a reviewer for a Samsung or Apple product was taking backhanders from Apple, we'd doubt their reviews.
Re: This is where it gets ridiculous...
Samsung were making phones with icons and grids long before Apple, just like many other companies.
Re: This is where it gets ridiculous...
At a glance, they also look like the icons I had on my 2005 Motorola feature phone.
Re: This is where it gets ridiculous...
Remember that article a few years ago, saying Apple were better than Nokia because Nokia spent more on R&D making them "less efficient"?
Yet when Nokia then reduces its spending, it's still spun as negative for Nokia...
If Nokia really have no engineers, then they're a lot more efficient than Apple, given that they manage to sell more phones with them, even with no engineers.
Re: Confused about what they are buying.
Yes - sales of individual phone models are hard to find (and very flawed as a comparison anyway, as I say in my other post). But in the UK at least, Samsung have had the number one selling phone model for the last year or so (S2, now the S3). Apple only had the number one selling phone model for one month (shortly before the S3 release).
Remember the "Android vs Iphone" days (conveniently forgetting #1 platform Symbian)? Interesting that we're now at the stage where one single model of thousands of Android devices now outsells Apple's flagship, when there's only a few Iphone models available. Yet still the media give the attention to Apple - what next, will they instead switch to saying "Iphone 5 outsells Galaxy Note 2"?
Re: Confused about what they are buying.
"but the iPhone is still outselling any individual Android phone, buy some distance (aren't they?) Can't apple just be happy with the fact that the have the best selling individual phone in the world right now?"
I agree with your sentiment, and your post as a whole - but comparing individual phone models isn't a useful stat, as it is simply down to how different companies label their phones. Samsung and Nokia label their range with large numbers of different models, where as Apple simply label everything with "iPhone". Comparing Apple's entire phone sales to only one single model of Samsung's doesn't really make sense.
So Apple have plenty to be worried about - they've long been left in the dust by Android, and even Samsung's Android sales alone now outsell the Iphone platform, with Apple's phone sales losing to both Samsung and even Nokia. They are also rapidly losing sales, a drop of 10 million in the last quarter alone - it makes Nokia's slide look gentle.
But yes, it is odd that the mainstream media still portray Apple as "winning" by this flawed stat, whilst expecting us to be sympathetic to Apple because Samsung "copied".
Indeed. I'm more likely to mistake an Iphone for a Samsung feature phone...
(If Apple release a 4" Iphone or 5-6" Ipad Mini, are we going to hear complaints that Apple copied Samsung?)
I agree. The entire trial is a farce - I can just imagine that Apple is now going to bring Apple fan after Apple fan as a "witness", saying how they got confused. The problem is that Apple fans are always like this - they assume every phone with a touchscreen is an "iPhone", every music player is an "iPod", every media player/tablet is an "iPad", every ultra-portable laptop is a "MacBookProAirWhatever". If they see an Apple device with a feature, they assume that Apple are the only ones with that feature, and if they see it on another device, either that device must be an Apple product too, or it was copied. They don't say to people "Oh, I've got a smartphone/mp3 player/ultra-portable", it's "I've got an iPhone/iPod/iPad/MacAirBookProWhatever" because to them, there are no other generic devices. Even the media are at it - it's always someone's "iPhone" or "MacBook", where as other products are "phone" or "laptop"; or shops that have categories for "iPods and mp3 players", "iPads and tablets", "Macs and PCs".
It's all marketing for Apple - and it's worrying that the trial is being fought not by logic, evidence and facts, but by marketing. This kind of RDF logic should be thrown out of court.
It ought to be simple. Apple products are the ones with really blatantly obvious logos. The only way they could make them more obvious is if they lit up - oh wait. (Honestly, I always laugh when I see a band that uses an Apple PC - especially when it's a band that goes to extreme efforts over their look and their image, the lighting effects on the stage - and then ruining it all is a tacky light up Apple logo.)
Re: iPhone's have the same physical design as...
I actually once saw someone point to a flatscreen TV, and actually say "That looks like a giant Ipad!" I mean yes, technically he was right, but talk about getting things in reverse...
Re: What are they smoking?
I agree entirely. In general, the reason why some technologies become more prevalent only after a certain time is not because no one thought of it, or because of Apple, but because of improvements in that technology made by other companies (i.e., the ones making the tech like CPUs and touchscreens like Samsung, not the ones who stick it in a box like Apple).
The Apple fan points to any technology that is in use now, and wasn't in use X number of years ago, and asserts it to be "because of Apple" for no reason other than the observation that it's in use now, and wasn't in use in the past. A classic Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Same with tablets. They didn't work 10 years ago, because the lack of widespread wifi and 3G networks made a computing device without any media inputs near useless (we were having enough trouble with floppy drives still on PCs, and they didn't start dropping CD/DVD drives until later in the 2000s); and the cost of touchscreens and lack of portable computing power made it hard. Apple fans tell us Android users should thank Apple, but I'll do that the day I see an Apple fan thanking companies like ARM and Samsung. But you know what? I never ever do.
"3G did not exist then"
It's interesting that even those of us who criticise the Iphone can overestimate how good it actually was: in fact, it didn't have 3G either. Lack of 3G crippled the Iphone just like your 1997 Palm, but it doesn't have the excuse of the Palm because by 2007, 3G was mainstream and common even in low end feature phones.
(I also remember the absurd amount of media hype in the UK when the Iphone finally got 3G, years after every other make of phone.)
What was this new UI? Seriously, I've used touchscreen Symbian (Nokia 5800), and now Android 4, and the way the touchscreen UI works is the bleeding obvious way to apply touchscreen to my 2005 feature phone - that had rows of icons, but instead of clicking with a button, you now touch with a finger. From a development point of view, for the most part touchscreen is implemented similar to a pointer. Yes, there are tweaks like multitouch, which is the only thing Apple added - but having used both a single touch and multi touch phone, by far the biggest improvement is having touch at all. The additional benefit of multitouch is tiny in comparison, on a well designed UI. So either Iphone has some great UI that no one else has (in which case, you can't claim it influenced anyone else), or it's not true at all.
Nokia fumbled about for years? They delivered a Symbian smartphone that did touchscreen and apps before Apple (since the original Iphone was a dumb phone that couldn't do apps), and went onto sell hundreds of millions with that platform, far more than Apple's entire phone sales. It was Nokia who brought the concepts of touchscreen and smartphone together, not Apple. It was Nokia who also popularised it, with the number one platform until 2011, when they were overtaken by Android, not Apple - and Symbian outsold Iphone until the switch to WP (even now, the installed userbase is probably larger).
"There were touchscreen phones but they required a stylus to tap buttons on the screen."
Not this myth - a stylus is a useful addition, not a requirement. I liked it on my Nokia 5800, but it wasn't required. Same with a Galaxy Note today.
"Most people were using phones with numeric keypads."
But this was still true in 2007. And 2008, and probably later. And when it stopped being true, it was thanks to Symbian or Android, not Iphone. Just take a look at the factual sales figures.
I can see how they must have paniced. I mean, there Samsung were, having been making phones for years with 3G, apps, copy/paste, video calling, multitasking, MMS, Java, Flash, maps. And here come along Apple with a phone that does none of that - but OMG, it was rectangular with rounded corners!
Samsung must have been in crisis, what with all those spherical and dodecahedron phones they'd been making before. We should be thankful to Apple for ushering in the rectangular-phone era, that everyone else had to copy.
No, I'd be glad that a company is able to produce a top-of-the-range product at a lower price, and I'd praise them for passing that price saving onto the consumer, rather than using it to profit. If that model means that they also have more money to engage in marketing, then good for them. Especially if the company with the overpriced products has adverts everywhere, that no one seems to have a problem with.
Well, heaven forbid that Samsung be allowed to use marketing, that they pay for, to help sell their immensely popular products.
But that's nothing compared to the amount of coverage Apple seem to get - every phone store I see still has massive banners for the old Iphone 4S and Ipad, whilst the far better selling Samsung get less coverage, even with a more recently released flagship phone. Meanwhile there's all the free advertising Apple get, from the endless media coverage, the constant "on my/your Iphone" product placement, the "get this on your Iphone" ads from other companies, the obvious Apple logo you see the few times you see someone with their product, to everyone who has the "posted on my Iphone" advert when they post to the Internet. Not to mention, the obligitory token Iphone owner, who has to tell everyone they meet that they have an Iphone.
But then the chat in this case was between two consenting adults too.
They might have described an imaginary fantasy non-consensual adult - but what if the commenter and his girlfriend were into doing a rape fantasy? Or maybe an underage school-scene play?
And the Obscene Publications Act is not limited to depictions portrayed as "non-consensual".
Re: Now Reality
If he did harm to your child, then he should be prosecuted for that.
If it's simply that he thought about it and wrote that down - well, perhaps we can argue about whether we should lock people up for thinking about doing Bad Things, but you really are wandering down the road of thought crime and pre-crime.
And the OPA is absolutely the wrong law - it is not about protecting children, or an intention to do harm against specific people. It's about criminalising anything deemed to "deprave or corrupt". The CPS considers a range of consensual S&M acts between adults to fall under this. This precedent means people could be locked up even for a kinky private chat, based on what a jury thinks, even though they should have never seen it.
Perhaps we should have laws on intent to commit a crime against children (similar to intent to commit other crimes). But the OPA is not it.
Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent
PS - as another example, my Galaxy is distinctly more shiny now that I've added a case, but I think overall it detracts from the look.
Also consider screens - "shiny" reflective screens are Glossy, as opposed to Matte, which get no reflections. Superficially might think the shiny glossy screens are nicer, but matte is much better to work with, especially outside, as reflections are the last thing you want on a screen, particularly under light. I love the matte screen on my Samsung netbook, and never understood why no phone seems to have them (anyone know?) Also thought it surprising that Macs all seem to have glossy, given that they are sold as being better for graphics artists, and given Apple's obsession with wonderful "retina" display - what good is that when you've got "shiny" reflections across the screen. (Disclaimer - I have glossy on my Clevo. Glossy is fine for indoor use, but I would never say it's better than matte, I just got the cheaper option as I had no use for matte, as I'm not a graphics artist, and not using it outdoors.)
Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent
I never understood this obsession with "shininess" - if I wanted shiny, I'd buy a mirror. My Nokia 5800 has a higher specular reflection coefficient than my Galaxy Nexus I think, but I wouldn't judge them by that - they both have decent looks each in their own way. And I'd rate both looks above that of the Iphone 4S. I don't see better reflection as better - in fact, I think it just makes the Apple logo look tacky and stuck on.
Re: In proportions, yes. In absolute terms no.
And a Samsung or HTC phone with that design that predates it is still prior art, even if they have other differences like slide out keyboard.
Not to mention that the idea of patenting designs is ludicrous, whoever thought of it first. The only concern should be trademarks, which adequately covers the issue of customers being confused (hint, if they only get confused when you start covering up logos, they're not confused).
Not released a year ago
Not this FUD again. Most phones don't run vanilla Android - the releases of TouchWiz etc came much more recently. To expect Samsung to build and test their OS, on all their devices, the moment vanilla Android is released, shows a shocking ignorance of software development.
If you're an Android user who wants the vanilla Android release the moment it appears, then go buy a Google Nexus phone. Otherwise, there's nothing to complain about.
Suppose that Android wasn't open source, and wasn't available to anyone in vanilla form - instead it was a collaboration between Google and manufacturers like Samsung and HTC. Would people still be picking on the date that Google finished their work? No. Yet the situation in reality is no practical difference to this.
It would only be a problem if this process meant Android phones got features months after other platforms. But the evidence is that this isn't the case - on the contrary, it's IOS users that get features years behind the competition. Who cares if the updates happen within days of the OS release, if you've had to wait years for the OS to include basic things like copy/paste, multitasking or apps?
Having people on different compatible versions is not fragmentation - no one talks about fragmentation of Windows or OS X.
"Fragmentation" is also spin, as fragment implies small. The vast dominance of Android means that even Samsung TouchWiz along outsells the IPhone platform. It's Iphone which is a small fragment by comparison.
The only thing I'd agree on is it's annoying when the networks hold up the updates - not sure why this happens, or is allowed. And I'd also criticise that some low end Android phones still are being released with 2.x (or were, until very recently). But the "ICS released a year ago", or spinning it as "fragmentation", is just FUD.
Re: Its not just about OS version its about functionality
But the flip side is, if you're complaining about bugs in your phone, why are people calling for Samsung to rush out with ICS or JB updates ASAP, from the moment Google releases it, never mind that they have to put their own OS and UI on top of it, and test it? That's a receipe for far worse user experience.
The "x% of people update IOS within so many days" stats are unfair, as it doesn't count all the testing that Apple do.
Re: Still no evidence of actual fragmentation
Maybe some of us are competent developers who can cope targetting more than one version of an OS.
And who cares if people leave a platform because they can't make money from applications that people don't want. Either offer something or value, or I'll enjoy the vast amount of software available for free. (Indicidentally, I've seen similar articles about "apps" being a hopeless investment for Apple too, so there's nothing special about Apple. The only ones who make the money are Google, Nokia, Apple etc, due to the 30% profit they get to cream off of everyone else's work.)
I agree it's unfair that people criticise WP 7 vs 8. Just because some of us object to nonsensical Android criticism, doesn't mean we're "fans" who hate everything else.
Re: Fragmentation Everywhere
The catch is that Android is so popular that even one of those "fragments" is bigger than the IPhone platform. Similar for say Windows Vista onwards versus OS X. So even if you decide to restrict what you can develop for, it's still worth doing it, more than for the Apple platforms.
And I'm not sure Apple is so much more easier. That argument worked with the original Iphone, but now we've got 5 Iphones, and I think 3 Ipads. Soon they may release a "mini" Ipad too to the mix. Not to mention all the various Ipod Touches. There are countless Macs too, which have used different chipsets over the years (e.g., NVIDIA and Intel). So I'm not convinced at all that the hardware is easier to support.
This argument really only works for consoles, where you just focus on particular device, and forget about the older ones the moment the new one is released. But whilst people might write a game for "X Box 360" say, I'm not sure developers want to only write for "Iphone 4S" or "Ipad 3" or whatever the latest version is.
Re: Android is a ghetto
According to the Apple-loving BBC you mean.
The reason it's harder to make money, is there's plenty of free stuff there. That's *good* for consumers. Sure, on Apple you can get away with charging loads for a sat nav software, when Android and Nokia get it for free. Why is that a plus for Apple users, exactly?
For whatever reasons, there are plenty of Android developers writing software for free or low cost. If that pushes down the ability to make a profit, then great. That's what you get with a mature popular OS, that's well supported by developers.
Re: Thank heavens for Apple Originality
I honestly can't tell whether to vote you up for an amusing parody of Apple fans, or vote you down for being serious. Poe's law strikes again...
Does size make a device different, or not?
Here's the thing - tablets were around, and mainstream, years before Apple. The most obvious example being smartphones (a smartphone is still a type of tablet - especially if all we're talking about are the physical design/look, rather than whether it has one particular feature). But also non-phone tablets, which were more commonly known as media players or Internet tablets in the past, e.g., Archos tablets in 2009, Nokia Maemo tablets before that, or even Apple's own Ipod Touch - and many other handheld computing devices years before that (e.g., touchscreen PDAs in the early 2000s).
The Ipad was only different to these in that it was 10", rather than smaller. But if you're going to claim that that makes a significant difference, then you've lost the argument - as by the same logic, surely Samsung's smartphones today (4.8") are different to any Iphone produced by Apple (a piddly 3.5").
Furthermore, if rumours about Apple releasing a 4" Iphone, or a 5-6" Ipad "mini" are true, then surely again by this reasoning, Samsung should be able to sue Apple for being first with designs of that size (the Galaxy S, and Galaxy Note)? You can't have it both ways. Will we see Apple forced to pay royalties to Samsung for these products, or else have them banned?
Re: Pretty much what others are saying.
There were rectangular phones with rounded corners before Iphone 1, just as there were phones with touchscreens, including full size ones. And there have continued to be a variation of phone styles since 2007 too. I'm not sure what you mean by a "Blackberry knockoff", or have against Blackberry anyway - I'd rather draw from that OS, than IOS. Thankfully Android did follow in the steps of the existing mainstream platforms like Symbian, not IOS. As a result, it didn't lag years behind in basic things like 3G, copy/paste or apps, and became the successful number one platform, unlike IOS.
As for looks, companies were well aware of people buying phones based on looks or coolness long before Apple. I mean for heaven's sake, that's business and marketing 101. There were plenty of good looking phones before 2007, and there have been plenty of ugly looking phones since (including Apple since Iphone 4 - it has an ugly profile, tiny screen, and the obvious logo looks like a tacky fridge magnet, one that exists only to be a commercial advert for Apple).
I find this very worrying.
If Samsung broke some court rules, fine them for that (though I still find it unethical that they were forced into this farce in the first place, I'd add - and it's unclear why putting their own documents into the public domain is wrong when they aren't court evidence - why should they be censored?). But granting Apple a win has far reaching implications.
I mean seriously, let's do a reality check here - "Samsung broke the rules, therefore let's give Apple a monopoly on rounded rectangles"?!
Firstly it is an immensely disproportionate punishment, considering the billions at stake from losing. It is also a punishment for users, the tens of millions of us who buy Samsung products (more than Apple). I don't want the products I love banned, nor do I want *my* money going to Apple (well, I'm in the UK, but it isn't fair for US Samsung users). And what are the implications for other companies that Apple might demand money from, because they also have rounded rectangular devices?
A fair trial is already impossible for Samsung, due to the endless Apple hype we've had for the last 5 or more years. E.g., last night on the TV[*] I noted that practically *every other advert* was giving a free advert to Apple, whether it was "Get this app on your Iphone/Ipad" or showing the obvious tacky light up Apple logo on a laptop, or mentioning Apple products by brandnames whilst other products are generic (Iphone vs phone, Ipad vs tablet, Mac vs PC or laptop), or obligitary mentions (one insurance advert goes to mention "your Ipod" as an example they'll cover, and then follows that with "your Iphone" - sorry, like most people, I don't have an Iphone). All this, despite Android having the largest smartphone share, over 50%; despite even one Android phone company alone outselling Iphone; despite Iphone never having been number one (it was Symbian before); despite Windows laptops being more common than Ipads; despite the outrage we get if a company dares to only cater for the mere 90% of Windows users, but forgets the 10% of Mac users - but apparently, catering for the 10% of Iphone users only is okay.
There is simply no comparison to criminal trials - it would be as if every other advert on TV was saying "This guy [defendant in a case] is a great guy!", with the near entire media going on about how he's innocent. That would already be contempt. Yet we're meant to believe that whilst that's okay, the jury will be biased instead from one single Samsung document?
[*] Sorry, "on my LG TV" - I need to start speaking like an Apple user.
Re: @Mark . - that would be a "yes" then
I suspect any email policy is more to do with work processes than lack of space (e.g., avoiding people being bogged down with endless emails). Yes, I'd probably argue against such a system on the whole, but how a company chooses to operate is not up for us to question.
Having seen vanilla Android and TouchWiz, I don't see the latter as looking like IOS - does IOS even have homescreens yet, or are you still left with the poor solution of selecting from millions of rows of icons?
A few similarities doesn't mean an attempt to mislead consumers, and it's no different to the way that Apple introduce features that were first in other products (which they've done for large numbers of things in their phones).
Once again, the Apple fan labels other companies as "copying" for anything that Apple did earlier (even if they weren't first), yet ignores Apple for doing the same.
I can read (why is it that you can't debate without throwing insults all the time? You seem to be angry over this case), and I think this case and the claims are barmy. If you claim my understanding is incorrect, it's up to you to explain why - so far, you haven't.
Well hang on - if the jury is capable of listening without prejudice, why is it a problem for Samsung to publish material that won't be admitted in court? You can't have it both ways.
No I don't think it should be decided by people commenting here either. It shouldn't be a court case at all, anywhere.
(Actual so-called "fandroids" are very rare. Most the time it's people just fed up of the Apple hype all the time. Indeed it's funny you assume that if people don't support Apple, they must favour Android - a typical tactic to pretend they only have one competitor, to make Apple seem like a 50/50 choice. Personally I like other platforms too, be it Symbian, Windows or Linux.)
Re: @Mark . - that would be a "yes" then
Samsung evidently don't have an in-house policy of keeping emails permanently.
I'm not saying no one should be allowed to sue anyone. I'm saying that, aside from this case being barmy from the outset, it's also sad Samsung's time and money has to be wasted like this.
You are a perfect example of someone who's been prejudiced by the years of media coverage of Apple, thus proving a fair trial isn't possible. Despite being shown factual evidence of countless phones that have used rectangles, rounded corners, full size touchscreens, any number of buttons, you still believe "Apple did it first", despite them being late to the party in 2007.
What is this "very specific design" you refer to?
[snipped abusive comments]
I'm not commenting about how the law works - evidently the law does allow trials to be held over who invented rectangles, and for devices to be banned in the meantime. That doesn't mean we have to like it, or that the system isn't worthy of criticism and ridicule.
If the system is that one company can claim they thought of rectangular devices with round corners first (a dubious claim anyway given earlier devices on the market, and even if it was true, something that shouldn't be patentable anyway), and then the other company has to waste time and money on legal fees and red tape and employee training costs, rather than spending money on innovating, then yes, I find that rather sad.
Re: The F700
Excellent point, I wasn't aware of that device. I wonder why such devices aren't being submitted as evidence too, it shouldn't matter who made a device for "prior art". Maybe HTC should sue Apple...
Re: Actually BOTH sides asked for a trial
So I wonder why Apple's devices haven't been banned then until the outcome of the trial - if both sides are suing, seems an even more case of one-sided judgements.
Indeed - although in fact, Google already have their "Google TV" platform.
It's not had much success so far, though I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes more common. LG are already planning to roll out Google TVs in the US, and may switch to it as their main platform.
Interesting point about the hardware upgrade slot - that solves the problem of hardware being out of date (the main advantage of separate boxes being you can upgrade the box without buying a whole new expensive TV).
Re: Does too little costs too much
Genuine question - what are the good things it does?
The thoughts I had were the cost. For £50-£100 you can get loads of boxes that do wireless and Internet streaming. For around £160 you can get the "smart TV" boxes from the likes of LG that also add things like applications. Yes having Android compatibility is a bonus, but I'm not sure worth paying that much money (plus LG will be switching to Google TV soon anyway, so I'd rather see what they produce). I have an LG smart TV, but am considering getting a box for a second existing TV in the bedroom. What is it that the Nexus Q does better, for the extra price?
Re: Well I'm enraged by this trial
Apple are the ones calling for this trial, not the judge. My criticism applies to the judge too.
And your comment about bias is ridiciulous - you have a point of view here too, should I write that off as bias too?
True, but the problem is that by that argument, the media shouldn't be reporting anything else with respect to Apple or Samsung phones either. But I don't see them pausing on all the hype that Apple continues to receive.
The problem is that the issue of "smartphones from major multinationals", one of whom being the number one company (not Apple), is a far bigger issue than one single specific criminal event. Given the fanaticism over companies, especially Apple, it seems an impossible task to prevent any risk of jury prejudice over Apple versus Samsung, not to mention that such damage is already long done before the trial starts. Compared with most criminal trials, where this isn't an issue. This is particularly a problem given the prevalent "Apple did it first" myths, that are specifically relevant to this trial. (Not to mention that talking about this trial as if it were a criminal trial, not some company claiming it invented rectangles with rounded corners, is a bit mad imo...)
If risk of jury corruption is an issue, then this trial should be thrown out on the grounds that a fair trial is already impossible.
Well that's the point - those earlier Apple devices look nothing like their devices today. So why are Apple's designs allowed to change over time, but when it's another company, it's "copying"?
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire