[Superfly_FR]

Of course I won't state anyhow of the source, neither will I go further in details that could lead to his/her identification. Please take it as a rumor and say this will be for the record, but also to put another brick in the debate about Samsung licensing BB10 or investing in RIM. They'll go "full monty" ... ouch ?

Edit : to be more accurate, the title may include this "Samsung TECHNICALLY ready for ..."

[husainpatan]

Of course I won't state anyhow of the source, neither will I go further in details that could lead to his/her identification. Please take it as a rumor and say this will be for the record, but also to put another brick in the debate about Samsung licensing BB10 or investing in RIM. They'll go "full monty" ... ouch ?

Is android apps not enough for Sammy?
Or are u suggesting googles parting ways with them. Samsung will be ruined.
Didn't get the purpose of this would be drastic step.

[JeepBB]

Of course I won't state anyhow of the source, neither will I go further in details that could lead to his/her identification. Please take it as a rumor and say this will be for the record, but also to put another brick in the debate about Samsung licensing BB10 or investing in RIM. They'll go "full monty" ... ouch ?

Hmmm... I'm not saying it won't happen, but I don't understand why Apple would release the necessary runtime libraries to Samsung to allow that to happen.

I can see what Samsung might hope to gain from that arrangement, but what would Apple gain from opening up their closed ecosystem to a rival?

At the moment, if you want to run Apple Apps, you have to buy an iPhone/iPad. Why would Apple want to make it easy for you to not buy their phone/tablet, and instead buy a rival product?

[Superfly_FR]

Is android apps not enough for Sammy?
Or are u suggesting googles parting ways with them. Samsung will be ruined.
Didn't get the purpose of this would be drastic step.

Actually, it's Android, Windows and Bada ... they're far from monolithic ;-)

[Superfly_FR]

Hmmm... I'm not saying it won't happen, but I don't understand why Apple would release the necessary runtime libraries to Samsung to allow that to happen.

I can see what Samsung might hope to gain from that arrangement, but what would Apple gain from opening up their closed ecosystem to a rival?

At the moment, if you want to run Apple Apps, you have to buy an iPhone/iPad. Why would Apple want to make it easy for you to not buy their phone/tablet, and instead buy a rival product?

I have no concrete answer ...

[robtanz]

TVs??????

Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

[jrohland]

Given how simplistic IOS is as an operating environment, I wouldn't think this was much of a technical challenge to Samsung. However, if you know anything about Apple's history of protecting their ecosystem, you would think, like I do, this is nonsense. Yes they may be able to run IOS apps on Samsung hardware but, I doubt this will ever be a legitimate product. Although it could show up in those countries where copyrights and patents are not so well respected.

[Superfly_FR]

Given how simplistic IOS is as an operating environment, I wouldn't think this was much of a technical challenge to Samsung. However, if you know anything about Apple's history of protecting their ecosystem, you would think, like I do, this is nonsense. Yes they may be able to run IOS apps on Samsung hardware but, I doubt this will ever be a legitimate product. Although it could show up in those countries where copyrights and patents are not so well respected.

As you stated, it's all about copyright rules ... and please note I've not mentioned appStore

[Premium1]

I hope they do. Something other than an iPhone/iPad running iOS would be interesting and Samsung makes some nice hardware

[Crypt1c]

Samsung ditching android would not be a big surprise to me, but saying they will be using iOS(or "apps") is an interesting statement.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

[alnamvet68]

Maybe I'm mis-informed, but doesn't Apple depend on Samsung to provide certain critical parts for the iPad? If so, I don't understand the frequent serial lawsuits Apple engages in against Samsung and others, and why the love-hate relationship between these two tech monsters? One would think that given this dependent relationship, that both would benefit from sharing of their respective technologies.

[jrohland]

Their Dear [dead] Leader Steve was the control freak of control freaks. That attitude permeates all layers of Apple. It does not surprise me they would brings suits, even when it is not in their best business interest, against anyone who tries to free their customers from their grip.

[Economist101]

Maybe I'm mis-informed, but doesn't Apple depend on Samsung to provide certain critical parts for the iPad? If so, I don't understand the frequent serial lawsuits Apple engages in against Samsung and others, and why the love-hate relationship between these two tech monsters? One would think that given this dependent relationship, that both would benefit from sharing of their respective technologies.

I believe the term you're looking for is "contract" and its brother "breach of contract." I think that will resolve the confusion.

You didn't think Samsung and Apple were operating under an informal agreement, did you?

Their Dear [dead] Leader Steve was the control freak of control freaks. That attitude permeates all layers of Apple. It does not surprise me they would brings suits, even when it is not in their best business interest, against anyone who tries to free their customers from their grip.

It hasn't been a problem so far. In fact, maybe RIM should sue Samsung.

[Eumaeus]

Maybe I'm mis-informed, but doesn't Apple depend on Samsung to provide certain critical parts for the iPad? If so, I don't understand the frequent serial lawsuits Apple engages in against Samsung and others, and why the love-hate relationship between these two tech monsters? One would think that given this dependent relationship, that both would benefit from sharing of their respective technologies.

This is business. Apple is no more or less litigious than any other massive multinational company; neither is Samsung; neither is Google, Motorola, RIM, or anyone else. All of these companies have the same tools at their disposal in their one and only mission, which is to make a profit: R&D, design, procurement, manufacturing, distribution, retail, advertising, litigation.

Look at it this way: every NBA team depends on the other NBA teams; they need someone to play, and if all teams aren't at more-or-less the same level of ability, the games are boring, and no one will want to watch. The players all know each other, and many have played on the same team over the years. But on the field, each team will deliberately commit as many fouls as they can get away with, in the service of their game plan. It isn't personal; it is just business.

When it comes to lawsuits about trademarks, a company is obliged to sue anyone who seems to be infringing; the law says that if you don't protect your trademarks, you lose them.

But back to the tools: each of those companies is legally obliged to use every tool at its disposal in the service of profit for its shareholders. They have no obligation to be nice, to lay off the underdog, to act like gentlemen.

It is in Apple's interest to buy manufacturing capacity from Samsung and to sue Samsung when it looks like--or when they think they can make a case that--Samsung is infringing on Apple's IP. It is in Samsung's interest to sell manufacturing capacity to Apple, and to copy Apple's success to the greatest extent that they can get away with.

So their CEO's will meet with the in-house lawyers in the morning about ongoing lawsuits against everyone and their brother, and in the afternoon have cordial meetings about ongoing mutually profitable relationships with the CEOs of same companies they are suing.

The agreements result in us having nice tech at good prices. The lawsuits encourage everyone to have new ideas, rather than rehashing old ones. It is foolish to have an emotional reaction to what has been the natural course of human commerce for three thousand years.

The ones to despise are the true Patent Trolls, companies that don't actually make anything, don't actually employ workers, don't actually invent new technologies or write new software, but buy up patents for the sole purpose of suing. Those guys are parasites.

[Superfly_FR]

I hope they do. Something other than an iPhone/iPad running iOS would be interesting and Samsung makes some nice hardware

wowowowowow ... did I mention iOS ?
Just ... apps. (and wondering ... what kind of OS could ... ).

[Superfly_FR]

Samsung ditching android would not be a big surprise to me, but saying they will be using iOS(or "apps") is an interesting statement.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

Why would they ditch Android ? I wouldn't go that way, they are already multi OS.

[sf49ers]

this is pure fiction and can happen only in ones dreams.

reasons?

why would it? is Apple beading cash to license it?
IOS is not Android? it is a closed source? nobody except Apple knows a freaking thing about IOS internals, Apple sues companies for ridiculously irrelevant things and can you imagine someone infringe their copyrights.
Thirdly hardware incompatibilities esp screen sizes etc

[adrenaline_x]

Nothing stopping Samsung from allowing a cydia store to run on their devices

I believe the Devs own the rights to their apps so its concievable they would allow them to run on a Non ios device.

There would be legal issues i'm sure if samsung ads a ios runtime to their phones. Unless they are making the process really easy to port their ios apps to samsung devices, tv, phones etc.

[Superfly_FR]

[...] nobody except Apple knows a freaking thing about IOS internals [...]

There's not much to know ... again, it's not running iOS on Samsung, it's running APPS ...

[jrohland]

...IOS is not Android? it is a closed source? nobody except Apple knows a freaking thing about IOS internals, Apple sues companies for ridiculously irrelevant things and can you imagine someone infringe their copyrights.
Thirdly hardware incompatibilities esp screen sizes etc

You don't need to know a "freaking think about IOS internals". In fact, from a copyright prospective, you don't want to know. A number of groups duplicated the function of IBM's original PC BIOS. WINE is a package on Linux that duplicates the function of Windows core. The original Macintosh BIOS and loader was duplicated many years ago for a Mac clone. Apple would not sell their OS without their hardware so the project was killed.

You can't copy IOS without the source code but, you can duplicate the functions in IOS pretty easily. Since IOS apps simply make calls to IOS functions and expect a specific return code, it is easy to write a function that takes the same arguments, performs the same action and returns the same code. The time consuming part is duplicating the user interface components. And that is where the copyright problems are. However, you could create a completely different looking UI that allows IOS apps to function.

You could, for example, take the Android UI, re-write it to run on IOS core and run IOS apps in an Android UI. This would take some work but, it is very doable.

As to the hardware differences, if you have a higher res screen, you can create a window on that screen with the iPhone res and aspect ratio to solve the screen issue. Just virtualize all the hardware and the apps won't know the difference. The CPU instructions are the hard part. You would really want to use the same CPU (family) as the iPhone.

[James Nieves]

The iPhone ed itself. Steve Jobs wanted to release the iPhone on a closed carrier network, which is to say steve wanted to play in the carrier game. SOLEY with their device. However in signing exclusively to ATT (because let's face it, using infrastructure already there is easier than building from the ground) they brought something they COULDNT control to the market. The demand for the iPhone and their innovation will literally eat Apple until they've employed all their IP before they can release new products (that are actually relevant). Samsung would need to create a ecosystem that supports APPLE apps not borrow iOS. Because it'll never happen. Ever.

[TheScionicMan]

IOS is not Android? it is a closed source? nobody except Apple knows a freaking thing about IOS internals,

Tell that to the iPhone devteam and others that jailbreak iOS, often within minutes of a new release.

[sf49ers]

You don't need to know a "freaking think about IOS internals". In fact, from a copyright prospective, you don't want to know. A number of groups duplicated the function of IBM's original PC BIOS. WINE is a package on Linux that duplicates the function of Windows core. The original Macintosh BIOS and loader was duplicated many years ago for a Mac clone. Apple would not sell their OS without their hardware so the project was killed.

You can't copy IOS without the source code but, you can duplicate the functions in IOS pretty easily. Since IOS apps simply make calls to IOS functions and expect a specific return code, it is easy to write a function that takes the same arguments, performs the same action and returns the same code. The time consuming part is duplicating the user interface components. And that is where the copyright problems are. However, you could create a completely different looking UI that allows IOS apps to function.

You could, for example, take the Android UI, re-write it to run on IOS core and run IOS apps in an Android UI. This would take some work but, it is very doable.

As to the hardware differences, if you have a higher res screen, you can create a window on that screen with the iPhone res and aspect ratio to solve the screen issue. Just virtualize all the hardware and the apps won't know the difference. The CPU instructions are the hard part. You would really want to use the same CPU (family) as the iPhone.

chilax buddy...IOS app compatibility involves a lot of this things and it is not easy as you think or made it to be, what you are saying is API replication but that is only one side of the story and there is more and how do you work around Apple's UI framework Cocoa or Object C or 100's of libraries providing the underlying functionality. If it was that easy as you made it to be then RIM would have done something like this bridge the app gap years ago or now with QNX.

Why are we going back to Mac BIOS, keep it simple, software development is something I do for my living for the past 15 years, basically it is not only difficult but impossible unless Apple makes their IOS source code open-source.

[sf49ers]

Tell that to the iPhone devteam and others that jailbreak iOS, often within minutes of a new release.

jail breaking is one trick pony and that doesn't mean they have access to IOS code. had that been the case China would have had 100 Apple corporations

[iN8ter]

Given how simplistic IOS is as an operating environment, I wouldn't think this was much of a technical challenge to Samsung. However, if you know anything about Apple's history of protecting their ecosystem, you would think, like I do, this is nonsense. Yes they may be able to run IOS apps on Samsung hardware but, I doubt this will ever be a legitimate product. Although it could show up in those countries where copyrights and patents are not so well respected.

Apparently you know nothing about Operating Systems and think a simple User Interface means duplicating all of iOSes frameworks and Libraries is a trivial task.

Go you!

Also, WINE is terrible and we've all seen how terrible it is at keeping up with how Windows evolves and expands the Win32 API. That is why Duplication efforts are all pretty terrible.

Reverse engineering and duplicating a BIOS module is not the same as rewriting the entire collection of iOS APIs to ensure cross platform App Compatibility.

On Android this is easy becuase you have access to the source and can reuse it. On iOS you will be forced to do things the WINE way which hasn't even worked out that well for the WINE team themselves. Good Luck. Samsung isn't known for having exceptional software developers, either...