[rollj83]

Honestly, I think most would say "why change what works". Tens of millions have voted with their wallets and decided that iOS is fine just the way it is. Nothing wrong with adding new features as the need arises.

"why change what works", the reason RIM is in its current position. Everything is cyclic, given enough time. History will repeat itself over and over.......

[Tre Lawrence]

"why change what works", the reason RIM is in its current position. Everything is cyclic, given enough time. History will repeat itself over and over.......

This type of statement is becoming gospel.

Apple's so-called complacency differs very much from RIM's, IMHO. RIM stood by while competitors stepped into its backyard and redefined the market. The advantage of Apple stumbling backwards into smartphone dominance (again, IMHO) is that it has the ecosystem which encompasses more than phones. Consequently, it can afford significantly more missteps than RIM ever could.

I think Apple can afford to let what works be the status quo... at least for a while longer. Until someone figures out the next thing in consumer electronics that pulls people away. RIM didn't see it coming, but neither did I. I admit that I thought the original iPhone was the silliest idea ever.

[badiyee]

Actually they have. Samsung outsells the iPhone and Android in general has over 60% of the smartphone market.

Well, the stock market sees things very differently, and that's how RIM got into a quagmire of one, isn't it? Because the stock market decides to say "RIM's dead", etc etc. But my point was when I said Google isn't going to topple Apple anytime soon is that when you have a public demonstration, Apple's iphone will appeal more to people rather than Google's own phone. Yes, if you compare say Apple to Samsung, its 50-50, but Apple to Google on the masses? They'll go like "well, i think google has 1 phone, called the Nexus isn't it?" (just like how RIM doesn't want to dilute the BlackBerry Brand by calling it RIM BlackBerry xxyyzz, I think CrackBerry Kevin said something about this in podcast 090)

Well therein lays the problem you cannot patent the "spirit" which is in other words abstract concepts, but Apple believes you can....

I don't believe Samsung stole much (much less than Apple has from others), they did indeed emulate the iphone (albeit very very close) but that's the way the cell phone and smartphone industry has been since the beginning and Samsung like most all other cellphone manufacturers weren't doing anything different than they always have. Look at past cellphones and smartphones, all manufactures have been copying each others designs since the beginning mostly due to the designs being obvious and to diversify their lineup and compete. It's just cellphone and smartphone companies focus has always been busy INVENTING technologies that go into the cellphones/smartphones and patenting those inventions because that's what is/was valuable and that's how they have always been pushing things forward. It seems generic/specific design has always been secondary for the most part and probably was never worth litigation as most litigation was to protect the actual inventions.

Apple then comes along and looks into the very large tool box that all other cellphone/smartphone built for the last 20-30 years and uses these past inventions, designs, prior art, and ideas to create the iphone. Apple didn't come up with the iphone concept and final design in a bubble. I'm certain they collected every modern cellphone and smartphone tore them down and saw what they liked, what they didn't, what worked and what didn't and this was the basis.... NOTHING about the parts of the iphone is original, NOTHING other than the combination of it's parts.... Apple says "we spent YEARS inventing the iphone...." yet I just heard on the radio while typing this that IBM spent 4-years developing the Watson computer and it took Apple a similar amount of time to develop the iphone? iphone vs watson - a consumer device with a big pool of innovation to draw from versus the cutting edge of artificial intelligence...

Perhaps one of the motivations behind Apples litigation frenzy is that they are too slow to develop products? Also, perhaps another reason is that Apples ONLY value and perceived competitive edge is in their designs, software and look & feel.... and spirit? Apple hasn't invented anything regarding the iphone but Apple believes they are so magical, so special and because of their bloody arrogance are trying to change the way the industry has always worked to mirror and protect how Apples business model works even though it's detrimental to the industry (an ultimately to themselves). Apple doesn't want to get down in the trenches to really compete against Samsung and the rest that churn out many devices all year around, bringing prices down while quality and capabilities increase at faster and faster pace... Apple wants to do it their way against the grain, one device, once a year maximize profit on their terms. Consumers and the media give Apple WAY too much credit, but I don't think the industry does. This is why I think Samsung would not settle with Apple on wishy-washy things like obvious design because to Samsung, design versus the competition is just not important and vital as it is to Apple. Apple thinks they are making art first gadget second where as Samsung views they are making a gadget first and foremost - this is probably why it takes Apple so long to make devices. Apple is VERY threatened and this is why they are going after everyone in efforts to slow things down to their speed or they're going to get creamed by the industry. I don't have a crystal ball but Apples business model being sustainable in the long run based on their current philosophy, which is the reason for their success and ultimately will be lead to their demise, if they don't adapt and adapt very quick. Apple is already feeling the pressures of the market... bigger screens, faster processors, bigger batteries the new ipad mini... They are starting to follow the market and not lead the market which they and so many pride themselves on why Apple products are a premium price. Magic and the love affair will eventually wear off and the masses will once again be driven by value which happens in every market once it matures.

EVERYTHING about the iphone has existed before it, including the design (LG Prada), touchscreens, smartphones, cellphones, PDA's, bounce back, multi-touch, pinch to zoom, square icons arranged in a grid etc.... Apple doesn't get to protect it because there is no invention or new innovations. If Apple invented the iphone and there LITERALLY was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like it before - meaning a handheld device with a touchscreen with icons that runs applications and make phone calls then nobody should be allowed to copy that. Apple just has everyone convinced (including the patent offices and some judges, now jury) that because they made some of these existing concepts, inventions and designs popular and pretty that they own the ideas - but they don't! The people that can't see what's going on here (majority seems to be Apple fanatics) do they need to justify that Apple got ripped off and blah-blah-blah so that they can feel special about their device? Sort of like when Instagram went cross platform to Android there was an uproar by Apple users? I clearly see what's going on and will not buy Apple anything anymore both because there is better value options out there and because I don't want to participate in Apples monopoly crusade.

Let's go back to the basics of what is the 'spirit' of having a handphone.

BlackBerry took the world by storm (not that it was intentional) because the idea of a phone that all the Nokia, Samsung, Motorolla, Erikson did was the more or less the same thing (calls and text) (and to a certain extent, Sony Erikson) and then BlackBerry said "hey, we bring the email to you!" It was fundamentally a game changer because now you don't bring a pager and a phone, but you have an email pager that has PHONE functions built into it.

When BlackBerry integrated the NOC's security into the solution, it was a massive differenciating factor. If I recall early BlackBerry devices had no MP3 player, no camera (because RIM gave excuses that the corporate sectors were very resistant to these kind of changes, etc) but RIM kept adding features because the market demanded for them. From GPRS to EDGE to 3G (They re-wrote the entire stack, after acquiring some companies, even GPS mapping tools) and we saw how the BBOS on Java was technically pushed to its very limits by each reiteration of the software (BBOS v7.1 is a very fine example, and how it differenciates itself from BBOS6)

Now here is where one story about RIM get dwarfed by Apple's hype. Basically Apple's hype has buried and cast this one big shadow over everything else (symbian, winmo, palm, etc) But when Apple came along, the spirit that they introduced in their line up was "why do you have to sacrifice aesthetics and accessibility? Your portable device should have a simple fluid, but functional experience. And the way they marketed themselves to the world about them being very innovative, (despite it really isn't, I mean its true they have a lot of things made simple in their phone, but even as of iOS6, looking at iMore poll, many of the features that the iOS fanbase over there are asking are already present in BBOS!) it caught on and people say "if you want something really beautiful that works, its Apple. and they keep going better and more beautiful".

The thing with Samsung now is that, its essentially stole that thunder from Apple in the way that what was used to be identified with Apple is now 'diluted' in the sense that people will actually say "hey, i heard Samsung makes this this this that that that kind of products", when if you turn back the time, people would have said "Samsung what?" in response to the very same sentiment.

So back to the "good artists copy, great artists steal", I am not sure (because i'm not a trend-seer, else i might have as well sold my "trend-seeing" to RIM or anybody who is willing to hedge a bet on it) that RIM can afford to immitate, but in this response I think they stole that spirit of what WEBOS could have become and made it better, and made it spesifically RIM. However at the same time, this spirit is shared by Windows (or so tech claims) and we'll need to see how RIM differenciate or extend that so that it would be literally be seen as a leader in what's is trying to do rather than playing catching up to WP8 (with some of all that new enterprise support features that RIM clearly doesn't have yet)

So I guess, its that "what RIM can do" that the idea of representation would not clump RIM alongside of Nokia, Windows and Android's ilk.

[hootyhoo]

*snip* But my point was when I said Google isn't going to topple Apple anytime soon is that when you have a public demonstration, Apple's iphone will appeal more to people rather than Google's own phone. Yes, if you compare say Apple to Samsung, its 50-50, but Apple to Google on the masses? They'll go like "well, i think google has 1 phone, called the Nexus isn't it?"

Respectfully, I disagree. If the iPhone appealed more to the masses, I think that it would be reflected in the sales numbers and the sales numbers show that people overwhelmingly pick an Android. Certainly some of Android's lead could be attributed to price, but certainly not all as the top shelf phones are the same price (or very close to it) as the iPhone.

As far as the "Google" phone, every Android powered phone that I've seen has "Google" on the back or on the front. I don't think that people in general view the Nexus line as the only Google phone.

[reeneebob]

As far as the "Google" phone, every Android powered phone that I've seen has "Google" on the back or on the front. I don't think that people in general view the Nexus line as the only Google phone.

That may be true in the states, but in Canada The only android phones that have Google on them are the Nexus phones. I have owned 3 android devices and none of them have Google on them, nor carrier branding. Just Samsung or HTC.

Sent from mah brainzzzzz via Galaxy S III and Tapatalk 2

[bp3dots]

Respectfully, I disagree. If the iPhone appealed more to the masses, I think that it would be reflected in the sales numbers and the sales numbers show that people overwhelmingly pick an Android. Certainly some of Android's lead could be attributed to price, but certainly not all as the top shelf phones are the same price (or very close to it) as the iPhone.

As far as the "Google" phone, every Android powered phone that I've seen has "Google" on the back or on the front. I don't think that people in general view the Nexus line as the only Google phone.

I've been in the business of selling phones for a long time, and I can tell you that if the iPhone was as available in terms of price point and stock, It would likely be right there with, or outsell Android. Tons of people want iPhones, but take Androids that are more affordable. (ie. free with contract, or $50-$100 for devices that out-spec the 4S)

On no-contract Virgin mobile, you can get an HTC Evo 3d for $300, while the 4S (Much less tech) is $650.

Contracted pricing, the 4S @ $200 is more than a lot of people have to spend, and is one big reason I've seen a lot of parents get their teens an Android device instead.

*All my opinion, from experience*

[pblakeney]

For review: The Penalty of Leadership

Cadillac was in trouble. The year was 1915. Cadillac had introduced a new V8 model and leapfrogged the competition, Packard among them. However, Packard and others encouraged rumors � not without some cause � that Cadillac had brought the V8s to market too early, and that there were or would be inevitable problems with them. One day, late in his office, Theodore MacManus, the lead copywriter for General Motors, dictated this piece to his secretary as he paced in his office, puffing his cigar. It appeared in the Saturday Evening Post (the text is repeated below):

�In every field of human endeavor, he that is first must perpetually live in the white glare of publicity. Whether the leadership be vested in a man or in a manufactured product, emulation and envy are ever at work. In art, in music, in industry, the reward and punishment are always the same. The reward is widespread recognition; the punishment, fierce denial and detraction. When a man�s work becomes a standard for the whole world, it also becomes a target for the shafts of the envious few. If his work is mediocre, he will be left severely alone�if he achieves a masterpiece, it will set a million tongue a-wagging. Jealousy does not protrude its forked tongue at the artist who produces a commonplace painting. Whatsoever you write, or paint, or play, or sing, or build, no one will strive to surpass or to slander you unless your work be stamped with the seal of genius. Long, long after a great work or a good work has been done, those who are disappointed or envious, continue to cry out that it cannot be done. Spiteful little voices in the domain of art were raised against our own Whistler as a mountebank, long after the big would have acclaimed him its greatest artistic genius. Multitudes flocked to Bayreuth to worship at the musical shrine of Wagner, while the little group of those whom he dethroned and displaced argued angrily that he was no musician at all. The little world continued to protest that Fulton could never build a steamboat, while the big world flocked to the river banks to see his boat steam by. The leader is assailed because he is the leader, and the effort to equal him is merely added proof of that leadership. Failing to equal or excel, the follower seeks to depreciate and to destroy�but only confirms once more the superiority of that which he strives to supplant. There is nothing new in this. It is as old as the world and as old as human passions�envy, fear, greed, ambition, and the desire to surpass. And it all avails nothing. If the leader truly leads, he remains�the leader. Master-poet, master-painter, master-workman, each in his turn is assailed, and each holds his laurels through the ages. That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial. That which deserves to live�lives.�

Copyright Cadillac Motor Company

I have this framed in my office and read it often......

[CrackedBarry]

And Apple is now doing the same thing. Their os is growing stale, their hardware upgrades are hardly upgrades anymore.

Are you smoking crack?!? Or comment from a parallel reality where Apple stuck with the Power PC?!?

Let's see: iPhone 3GS-iphone4: DOUBLED the screen resolution. Iphone4-iphone4S: DOUBLE number of CPU, DOUBLE the RAM. Ipad2-ipad3: DOUBLED the resolution, QUADROUPLED the number of GPUs (sic)

If RIM made the same leaps forward in their upgrades, you'd be posting from a Bold with a quad CPU and 2Gb RAM, lol!

[CrackedBarry]

Riddle me this; How else is someone supposed to expand an image/zoom in on touch screen device without using their their index finger and thumb?

Patenting something so basic is idiotic. The fact they were allowed to patent it is even more idiotic. Ugh.

There are dozens of ways that could be implemented: tap, double tap, a circular movement, tap and hold, etc, etc.

[LuvULongTime]

There are dozens of ways that could be implemented: tap, double tap, a circular movement, tap and hold, etc, etc.

This is the equivalent of the Kellogs people patenting eating cereal with a spoon, then telling other cereal companies to have their customers eat it with a fork, or their fingers.

Pinching the screen is a logical motion to achieve zooming in. This is not patentable IMO. Obviously the courts disagree, but I stand by my opinion. Decisions like this just stifle competition.

[pblakeney]

This is the equivalent of the Kellogs people patenting eating cereal with a spoon, then telling other cereal companies to have their customers eat it with a fork, or their fingers.

Pinching the screen is a logical motion to achieve zooming in. This is not patentable IMO. Obviously the courts disagree, but I stand by my opinion. Decisions like this just stifle competition.

There was this little thing the courts and government put a stop to years ago called monopolies. Hmmmmmm........

[badiyee]

Respectfully, I disagree. If the iPhone appealed more to the masses, I think that it would be reflected in the sales numbers and the sales numbers show that people overwhelmingly pick an Android. Certainly some of Android's lead could be attributed to price, but certainly not all as the top shelf phones are the same price (or very close to it) as the iPhone.

As far as the "Google" phone, every Android powered phone that I've seen has "Google" on the back or on the front. I don't think that people in general view the Nexus line as the only Google phone.

Ah but sir, in the general market that is not US centric, many uninformed customers do not even know "touchwiz" and "sense", other than it is a brand name. You don't see powered by Google on these devices, but you'll see lots of "AT&T" or "Verizon Wireless" or "T-Mobile" branding on the phones instead (where I live that is) with all those "powered by Google" scrubbed off.

and then people ask "if this is google, why this *points to Samsung* google here is different from that *points to HTC* google?

and anything from China, even if its a Meixu, is perceived as far inferior. (giggles)

[varunsain]

$$$$$$$s and another billion $$$$$$s takes over everything you ever have to say.

As of today, you have nothing more but infact 8 lesser options to choose from...

[tack]

This is the equivalent of the Kellogs people patenting eating cereal with a spoon, then telling other cereal companies to have their customers eat it with a fork, or their fingers.

Pinching the screen is a logical motion to achieve zooming in. This is not patentable IMO. Obviously the courts disagree, but I stand by my opinion. Decisions like this just stifle competition.

I think you are dead wrong. It was never done before and made it seem natural. That is the truly genius part about it, it seems natural.

Competition means there are winners and losers and innovation makes the difference. What you propose is make it all free, which stifles any motivation to innovate. Why should Apple or others innovate if it is free for others to copy it? That makes it a commodity market.

Apple was not denying the use of this. They offered to license it broadly. That means they have to pay. So if Apple, Samsung or anyone spends lots of money on R&D and innovation, they should have an advantage.

[badiyee]

I think you are dead wrong. It was never done before and made it seem natural. That is the truly genius part about it, it seems natural.

Competition means there are winners and losers and innovation makes the difference. What you propose is make it all free, which stifles any motivation to innovate. Why should Apple or others innovate if it is free for others to copy it? That makes it a commodity market.

Apple was not denying the use of this. They offered to license it broadly. That means they have to pay. So if Apple, Samsung or anyone spends lots of money on R&D and innovation, they should have an advantage.

a 30 dollar per patent per phone as requested by Apple in its licensing deal with Samsung is downright unreasonable. Apple wanted blood, and they were just looking for ways to publicly humiliate Samsung. That ligitation wasn't to protect Apple. It was just to flex their muscles and bully their way around based on Steve Job's self-pronounced thermonuclear war on Google.

[Branta]

a 30 dollar per patent per phone as requested by Apple in its licensing deal with Samsung is downright unreasonable. Apple wanted blood, and they were just looking for ways to publicly humiliate Samsung. That ligitation wasn't to protect Apple. It was just to flex their muscles and bully their way around based on Steve Job's self-pronounced thermonuclear war on Google.

In this case (not standards-essential patents) it is completely irrelevant whether the terms demanded are reasonable or not. The patent holder can demand any fee or terms he wishes, or even refuse to license the patent to any or all who request a license.

[xandermac]

That ligitation wasn't to protect Apple. It was just to flex their muscles and bully their way around based on Steve Job's self-pronounced thermonuclear war on Google.

I'm sure it was a bit of both. Punish the largest offender and send a message to the rest. Samesung got the slap they needed and got off lightly if you ask me. I'm waiting for the "chromebook" and "samesung mac-mini" lawsuit to be filed, those are just too blatant.

[tack]

In this case (not standards-essential patents) it is completely irrelevant whether the terms demanded are reasonable or not. The patent holder can demand any fee or terms he wishes, or even refuse to license the patent to any or all who request a license.

I agree.

Microsoft gets nearly half that for many Android devices on less patents. Unreasonable is relevant.

[kill_9]

That ligitation wasn't to protect Apple. It was just to flex their muscles and bully their way around based on Steve Job's self-pronounced thermonuclear war on Google.

Google has the money, influence, and dare I say moxy, to order a mob-style hit on every Apple executive and attorney to silence the patent non-sense once and for all. All existing patents should be invalidated by the highest court of the country and the patent office closed. I am sure one call from Brin to Putin and Apple would be silenced with a little radioactivity added to their morning coffee.

[anon(55900)]

Xerox Alto and Xerox Star
The Xerox Alto (and later Xerox Star ) was an early personal computer developed at Xerox PARC in 1973. It was the first computer to use the desktop metaphor and mouse-driven graphical user interface (GUI).
It was not a commercial product, but several thousand units were built and were heavily used at PARC, other Xerox facilities, at least one government facility and at several universities for many years. The Alto greatly influenced the design of some personal computers in the following decades, notably the Apple Macintosh and the first Sun workstations.

[twstd.reality]

I think you are dead wrong. It was never done before and made it seem natural. That is the truly genius part about it, it seems natural.

Competition means there are winners and losers and innovation makes the difference. What you propose is make it all free, which stifles any motivation to innovate. Why should Apple or others innovate if it is free for others to copy it? That makes it a commodity market.

Apple was not denying the use of this. They offered to license it broadly. That means they have to pay. So if Apple, Samsung or anyone spends lots of money on R&D and innovation, they should have an advantage.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY[/YT]

[Jake Storm]

Pwnd!

10 char.

[gwanstarr]

I thought this was a perfect point made by Maija Palmer in the FT Tech blog about the Apple vs Samsung case

"The trouble is, companies are required to licence standards essential patents to others on fair and non-discriminatory terms, which has made it difficult for Motorola and Samsung to use any essential patents as a bargaining tool with Apple... It seems a strange state of affairs when the company that holds patents for transmitting a signal to a 3G mobile phone can be trumped by the company that has designed how a photo bounces around on that mobile phone�s screen".

Apple v Samsung trial fuels patents bubble | Tech blog

[reeneebob]

Pwnd!

10 char.

What are we, 13 year olds on 4chan now? Pwnd? Really?

Sent from mah brainzzzzz via Galaxy S III and Tapatalk 2

[Superfly_FR]

�Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal�

And a good thief don't get caught ...