Re: Dreamland

If Google rescued a cat from a tree it would get a downvote from El Reg commentards.

Re: Re: It might be unethical

MGale. so you know you don't have to download it? Then what's your problem? Nothing is being forced on you other than the convenience of not even being told you need to download something.

Re: There is only one thing to understand

Separating you from content you've not paid for, or preventing you from distributing it, is not evil. People whose business model depends on being able to do this will not use HTML5 if it is not compatible with their business model. Instead, they'd probably release an app for everything and the web as we know it would be left to die.

Re: Re: Friending

An active account does not mean someone will be alerted that there is a message.

Re: Re: Apple fanbois worried clearly.

"trademark sale documents" schmocuments.

They were found to have infringed, therefore they infringed. Just like when Android encroaches too far on what Apple thinks is their territory in the smartphone market.

--ath

Why so "worried" about Google when everyone here is using Lastpass and Facebook is already the "login central" for the web? Can't you see what's already happened? Do you really have to manufacture this google hatred on every article?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Slide to unlock, oh grow up Apple

Actually, it's "first to patent" which matters, not "first to invent". Neonode did not make something which Apple's patent describes, because Apple's patent has an icon and Neonode's invention does not. But if Neonode had patented their invention then Apple's own invention may have been covered by Neonode's patent even though it wan't a copy, just because it uses a swipe action to unlock the device. In the same way, Android did not copy Apple but did infringe the patent.

Re: Re: Slide to unlock, oh grow up Apple

It wasn't copied. Other makers did something different, but it was covered by Apple's patent. If the Neonode makers has patented "a swipe gesture" to unlock the phone then Apple's would be a "copy". Apple patented "moving an icon on a predefined path" and others were found to be "copying" even though what was being moved on their devices would not necessarily be considered an icon and the path was not physically portrayed on the screen.

Re: How in hell can "standards-essential patents" exist?

These essential patents cover extremely valuable technology. Apple adds an extra $130 to the price of an ipad if you want a 3g chip in it! If the original creators of the phone market didn't have a way to claim some of that value then they'd not have created the market in the first place, and Apple wouldn't be selling anywhere near as much hardware as it is.

Re:

That one stumped me too - Latitude *is* check-ins. I'd feel like an idiot if I told the world where I was, expecting anyone to care. Being the king of the idiots is no more of an incentive.

Serious?

Considering Android now has 3 ways of unlocking a phone without sliding an icon along a predefined path (the Apple patent), I'd say it's relevant to ask why El Reg considers this patent a "stroke of luck" for Google.

Unlock methods:

1) Face recognition

2) The one in this patent

3) Earlier android phones used something which was unlike Apple's method but was covered by their broad patent. The solution was that, instead of an icon sliding, the whole screen was made to slide - in any direction. Slide it far enough and the phone would unlock, sending Apple's lawyers scurrying back under their rock.

Re: Re: "Maybe Google can use some of these ideas?"

--ath

Gmail and Apple both have integrated messages which allow you to see and continue conversations across devices. But the Mac one can only be used for people with expensive hardware whereas the Gmail one can be used by anyone with hardware. The Mac one can SMS in the same app but with Gmail that's a different app. The Mac one can't send email - that's a different app. The Mac one can't send facebook messages - that's a different app. The mac one can't send twitter messages - that's a different app. The mac one can't send messages to AOL users - that's a different app. The mac one can't send messages to MSN - that's a different app. etc.

What you've got is a message app which can only reach a very small portion of the planet and is less horizontally integrated than Gwibber, which is free and is available on laptops with no expensive aluminium. You've passed the point of being pathetic.

Incidentally, google's contatcs sync across devices (icloud is a bit like it) so if you have someone's phone number and google id then you have them everywhere. If you don't have their phone number you won't be sending them an SMS nomatter what app you're using.

Re: Re: Sounds familiar

AC, I was doing that too (but not automatically wia the web). As a way to demonstrate to the itards that this stuff is not new, and should have been available to them years ago, Gmail is a valid service to mention.

Re: Re: Sounds familiar

--ath

http://support.google.com/chat/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=106015

You can call phones from a Gmail window too. And you can send messages to people who are not online. But to be fair, you can't SMS to a gmail account (AFAIK, though it may be available in Google Voice) - you'll just have to hope they have their phone with them.

I thought I should point out that the functionality apple has belatedly introduced has been available in other services for a long time, because Apple users tend to think they are always first to get this stuff and everyone else just copies Apple's ideas. Then we get a load of idiot comments from people with no idea what's available outside their aluminium prisons. You've demonstrated the general iGnorance perfectly.

Re:

I can't see a remove tool on that page!

Probi ng Anal ist

Why would Apple not suing LG have anything to do with LG not suing Apple? Only one could copy the other, and LG being first to market means their product cannot infringe on Apple's design. You can't say the same for Apple though.

Re: Re: Popularity affects law?

There's hardly any point protecting a trademark against violaters who make so little money that there's nothing to sue them for. It's like with the Winklevoss twins - people complained that because they didn't sue Zuckerberg when facebook had a few thousand members, they had no right to sue when it had a few hundred million.

Does apple operate in a bubble? Do the patent people? Why would anyone either apply for or grant a patent on a technology which everyone's been using for years?

The voice thing is actually to do with searching multiple sources at once and bringing the data back as a single response. Anyone using distributed databases (Facebook, Twitter, Oracle, Google etc) could be in trouble if this one gets upheld. It's a good one to highlight the absurdity of the software patent system.

Have you been on fanboy sites? Most of them seem to think apple invented the smartphone and everything a smartphone does. They don't even know that Apple is claiming other people's inventions or even that android is quite a bit different to Ios, they just think the other players are copycats.

Blackberry in '99?

I had this on my 2005 Treo, but apparently it was available on blackberries 10 years before this 2009 page...

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=4575

Ironically, the page is Android users demanding the feature

There are quite a few criticisms of Google based around the idea that it's impossible not to use anything which Google creates. Trust me, you WILL be allowed not to use Google's products.

The technology is already here.

I thought the whole point of getting Apple stuff was that you didn't have to care about computers. Not that this differentiates it from Windows in reality, but in the marketing that's what they're going for. Apple owners care more about fitting in than about computing.

Gmail account setup step 1 of 5 is where you enter your phone number.

Kindle Fire was designed to allow rooting.