Slashdot Mirror

My wife has never upgraded her HTC Aria to the current OS, while I have. Why hasn't she??? THERE WAS NO NEED TO.

On the individual basis there might not be a need to upgrade for a lot of people, but it's terrible if you're looking at Android from the standpoint of the developer. Want Fragments UI? Want low-latency audio? Want to integrate NFC beaming? Want to integrate with the calendar or visual vociemail? Or anything else?

If your app wants to merely use any of these, you'll have to maintain separate versions, builds, and perhaps even codebases. If your app would require any of these to do its magic, you're going to be locked out from wide swathes of the market at any one time.

The Dread Fragmentation rears its head.

They aren't but to penetrate the US means working with Carriers, that's why Nokia hasn't said anything.

However, According to the blog "ThisIsMyNext" Elop said they will be coming to the US "early 2012"[1], along with LTE and CDMA support. Also they spotted a Verizon employee[2], so the might give a clue.

[1]: http://thisismynext.com/2011/10/26/nokias-windows-phones-coming-early-2012/
[2]: http://thisismynext.com/2011/10/26/verizon-staff-spotted-nokia-world/

They aren't but to penetrate the US means working with Carriers, that's why Nokia hasn't said anything.

However, According to the blog "ThisIsMyNext" Elop said they will be coming to the US "early 2012"[1], along with LTE and CDMA support. Also they spotted a Verizon employee[2], so the might give a clue.

[1]: http://thisismynext.com/2011/10/26/nokias-windows-phones-coming-early-2012/
[2]: http://thisismynext.com/2011/10/26/verizon-staff-spotted-nokia-world/

They have never mentioned 5-7 years of WiMax support. The equipment will be replaced by the end of 2013.

Check out this article http://live.thisismynext.com/Event/Sprint_Strategy_Update_live_blog?Page=1 about their recent press conference. Take note of the pics at 9:58 showing the new sites. The pic at 9:59 shows that the new multimode antennas do not support WiMax.

Sprint does mention supporting WiMax by continuing to sell WiMax phones through 2012. At 10:24 the pic seems to show that there will be support for current WiMax coverage during 2013 but that seems unlikely if their new multimode antennas will not support WiMax.

This also shows that WiMax will not be expanded beyond its current coverage, therefore the vast majority of customers with a 4g WiMax phone will not be supported at all.

I'm no expert on these technical details and it's possible I have interpreted these pics incorrectly. Perhaps someone here might be able to explain more.

Did you know that Google allows competition on Android with their own services?

I read this story: http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/
which is a clear example that Google does not (at least not always) allow this.

Example, did you know that Google allows hardware manufacturer or carrier to remove all Google services and apps from Android?

Example, did you know that Google does not pay anyone using Android or choosing Google services and apps in Android? Google does pay for device manufacturer and carrier part of the feed what it gains when user clicks an Ad when doing a search trough Google search widget when it is located to Android launch screen. But so does Google pay to Mozilla and every other who set Google search to search panel. It is same payment to every one.

You always write "Example", yet you don't provide any. I provided the example how Google hinders manufacturers to install competing services already in my thread start. (Not as a link, but I put Motorola, Google and Skyhook in context. Searching on Google, the link I posted here is the third in the list.) This contradicts quite obviously what you wrote about open development.

BTW, regarding your MS rant: I'm not saying I blame Google for their actions, so there is no point in showing that MS is acting equally ... hmmm.... revenue driven.
The difference is that MS does not advertise their system as open and does not claim to have the leading motto "don't be evil".

DISCLAIMER: I work for Nokia, but here I state my personal opinion only. Statements are only made based on public available information.

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

Who needs a development group when you can just wait for Apple to design it for you?

You're wrong.

http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

Right, or in the words of Matias Duarte "On Honeycomb we cheated, we cut the corner of all that smaller device support. That’s the sole reason we haven’t open sourced it."

"Then maybe Apple shouldn't have filed a lawsuit arguing in significant part"

Ah, weasel words. Aren't they great?

Here's a breakdown of Apple's complaint: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

Note the first list:

Hardware and software trade dress claims

a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width;
as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width;
a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.
Packaging trade dress claims

a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box;
a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece; and
use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box.

Yes, a rounded rectangle is in there as one item. Apple is not complaining that Samsung is making rounded rectangles (which several other companies who are not being sued are also doing). They're complaining that Samsung is making devices that so closely mimic Apple's that the two are difficult to tell apart (something even Samsung's lawyers have trouble doing, apparently), for all the reasons listed.

Here are some pictures: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/

The devices are very similar, the boxes are identical except for the names and pictures of the products, the chargers and sycing/charging cables are identical except for the colour... Samsung even ripped off some Apple icons for their marketing display.

As for FRAND, well, when you ram your patents into a standard you have to expect you're going to wind up with a little restriction on what you can do with those patents. If you don't want that then don't jam patented techniques into standards.

Demonstrating the similarity of the units is just one part of a larger pattern of behavior Apple is trying to show. Their claim is that Samsung violated both regular old hardware patents and design patents on a large number of factors including: "rectangles with rounded corners", "black", "anything with a twelve inch diagonal", "tapering edges to make things seem thinner", "icons", "envelope shaped icons representing mail", "those envelopes being red"

That's just part of the trade dress claims, not even all of them. You missed packaging trade dress: "a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box; a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece; and use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box."

You also lack specificity as those are summaries you quote, not the actual patents which are much, much more specific. For example, the part about the icons doesn't apply to anything with icons. It applies specifically to a black mobile device with rounded corners with a grid of exactly sixteen icons in a four by four grid with a grey area below it for more icons, as per filings: U.S. Registration No. 3,470,983 , U.S. Registration No. 3,457,218, U.S. Registration No. 3,475,327.

you're also forgetting the long list of icons it looks like Samsung cloned from Apple's device: No. 3,886,196 is the iOS phone app icon:

• No. 3,889,642 is the iOS messaging app icon.
• No. 3,886,200 is the iOS photos app icon.
• No. 3,889,685 is the iOS settings app icon.
• No. 3,886,169 is the iOS notes app icon.
• No. 3,886,197 is the iOS contacts icon.
• Pending No. 85/041,463 the desktop iTunes logo.

Say what you will about the other claims but trying to deny the similarity of the icons to Apple's trademarked ones.

I took the liberty of filling in the details for you, lest anyone be misled into thinking Apple's suit is remotely reasonable.

There is a whole crapload more as well and it all adds up somewhat convincingly. Read here. I thought it would be important lest anyone be misled into thinking your post was remotely representative of the actual lawsuit and all the myriad claims of infringement.

Actually read this http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/20/windows-8-metro-apps-windows-store-distribution/ "All roads, says Microsoft, lead to the Windows Store. That’s the message coming from the company’s newly posted Windows 8 Developer Preview primer doc, which specifically points out that Microsoft’s new app store will be the exclusive source for finding and installing Metro-style applications. The only exceptions allowed will be for developers and enterprise users, who’ll be able to side-load (i.e. download and install independently of the Windows Store) their Metro software of choice without restriction" and "The above restriction does not apply to so-called desktop apps on Windows 8"

Maybe their offline navigation, a better update policy, better security, better performance on same hardware due to native apps... Pick one or more.

The point is that Android is no option for Nokia. Google does not allow services being preinstalled on Android devices, which might compete with Googles own services. See for example http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/
With Nokia being owner of Navteq (map data), they would probably not be able to install this map data on an Android device.

So the question is not "Android or Something else", but "What else". It might be some reworked S40/Nokia OS, some adjusted Symbian, or the rumours are true and it is something Linux based.

Don't! Tinfoil hats are the product of a large multi-government conspiracy theory. While they are supposed to protect you from intrusive satellite rays, they in fact provide a nearly perfect parabolic antenna directed towards the communication- and electricity wires located in the pedestrian lanes! It's common knowledge that current brain-readers and brainwave-manipulation techniques require a proximity of 3 meters or less. At least do yourself a favor and use aluminum shoe soles as well, and maybe change the shape of your hat to a pointy had (like a wizard).

But seriously: When Stephen Elop came to Nokia, Symbian was already losing market share. Meego was basically a good concept, but 1. not ready and 2. didn't have the ecosystem people expect when bying a smartphone (like a good appstore, an accepted, not only phone-related social networking platform, and so on)
Android looked nice, but if you read e.g. http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ you can conclude that opting for Android would have meant to abandon the whole location based services, navigation software and ultimately Navteq. With the MS deal, they gain reach for location based services instead of losing it.
So, also I would have loved to see MeeGo as the new flagship, I think he actually had a point chosing WP7. Also I would not want to have a WP7 device (or an Android or iPhone) due to privacy concerns, I think it is mass market compatible within the next 6 months. And I will be happy to turn my back on the smartphone hype and buy a cheap feature phone with limited App Store and loads of open source Qt applications instead and to carry my netbook around for the cases the feature phone is not sufficient :-)

If you read e.g. http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ you can conclude that opting for Android would have meant they probably won't be allowed to preinstall their own maps application and location based services. Location based services is a business unit of Nokia which highly depends on reach / number of units where it is installed. For devices with price tags below 100$, the market is *huge*. Do you really think it would be clever for Nokia to donate this whole market to Google? Jumping to Android would have made sense for a pure hardware manufacturer, but not for a company owning Navteq and betting on location based services themselves.

You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but what if you would for once try to consider the possibility that Elop was *not* an MS trojan. Symbian was no viable option for the long future. Android neither. If you read e.g. http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ you can conclude that opting for Android would have meant to abandon the whole location based services, navigation software and ultimately Navteq. Meego was a good idea, but for the mass market it would have needed a better ecosystem (developers, better online profile management, community features, etc.)

It's pretty clear it was aimed to compete with the Nook Color... comparing it to the iPad/iPad2 is just stupid. http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/28/amazon-kindle-fire-vs-ipad-2-vs-nook-color-numbers/

And you don't see why being forced into a quick settlement would be a serious problem for Apple?

Besides the obvious one (Apple already pays Lodsys royalties), there's some history of Apple paying one time fees to settle disputes. Also, considering the number of injunctions Apple has won against Samsung, chances are, if both parties had to sit down and negotiate, and both parties really like being in the mobile phone space, I think Apple has a fairly strong negotiating platform.

iPhone is only $199 on contract, or do you think that a Chinese manufacturer is about to equal the iPhone build quality, and incorporate the long battery life, multi-core CPU, high DPI display, best of breed touch screen and stick 16gb to 32gb of memory in there for about $100 unsubsidized?

Who cares? If they're 80% as good for 20% of the price, the competition will by its nature cause Apple to have to reduce their margins to maintain their volume, or vice versa.

There's really not a lot of history of Apple cutting their margins to maintain their volume in the face of an onslaught of slightly inferior but cheaper products. iPhone is on the market a LONG time now. So is Android. I really don't see an onslaught of cheap Android phones keeping Tim Cook up at night. There will be $99 Android phones unsubsidized and free Android phones subsidized. Heck, there already are. At the end of the day, even with a slightly longer than usual time between iPhone 4 and iPhone 5 compared to past releases, they seem to sell okay. I'd cite a source, but come on, we all know they sell them just shy of as fast as they can make them. And they make a lot.

Have you seen the early reviews for the Windows 8 tablets? The fact that there is a fan and exhaust port blows my mind. They need to be launching with tablet hardware significantly better than the iPad. The iPad specs for weight, durability, and battery life should be the minimum for what they are willing to launch with.

There is NOTHING unique about the iPad, certainly nothing unique that other manufacturers do. Shape and size? The natural results of designing a case around a screen, CPU, RAM, battery etc.

Yes, clearly if you use off the shelf batteries your icons will be the same color foreground and background, have the same image and the same color gradient in the background. That's obvious; surely no one at Samsung looked at an iPhone/iPad and copied it without considering the copyright ramifications.

Seriously though, if you actually read the text of the claims and go through them (here's a link to an analysis of the phone claims) there is a whole lot of very similar design and styling and advertising and packaging that may well be enough to confuse less savvy consumers.

On top of that there are real, technical patents that Samsung seems to have willfully infringed (like Patent #7,812,828) or the new type of rocker switch used for the volume on both devices (but invented and patented by Apple). Regardless of how you feel about these patents or patents in general, your claim that there is nothing unique about the iPad is both wrong (in terms of patented hardware) and missing a big part of the point. Even if no one element is unique, combining so many of them in the exact same way violates trade dress infringement because it confuses and misleads consumers looking to buy one device into thinking another device is the same thing.

Enlarged Icons

As the article points out - why did Samsung choose a sunflower of all things for photos icon?

The resemblance between the 'media player' icon and the old iTunes icon is also a very close match.

The address book having a silhouette of a bust is suspect (but far from obviously wrong - let the court decide), as is choosing the icon they did for a notepad.

The "gear" for settings is, I think, not defensible; KDE's been using it for ages.

After further investigation, though, I haven't been able to find the design patents I spoke of. I've found numerous references that computer icons are valid material for a design patent (as well as a trademark and copyright.) Talk about a trifecta from hell... you can have something covered with copyrights, trade dress, and patents.

An look at the claims, with numbers:

I'm pretty sure both Samsung and Apple will be found to infringe something in the other's IP chest.; it's foolish to think that either is innocent. Samsung has a history of copying designs from other makers, and of playing the lawsuit game.

What that doesn't mention is that that the way Motorola and Skyhook decided to set this up - by presenting the Skyhook data as GPS data - risked contaminating Google's database with data from Skyhook that they'd have no way to identify or exclude, exposing them to a lawsuit from Skyhook...

This is my next..., soon to be The Verge. From most of the old staff of Engadget who left en masse in April.

http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/14/nokia-and-apple-settle-patent-disputes-apple-to-pay-one-time-fee-and-ongoing-license-fees/ This article explains the situation much better.

Google also imposes limits on the kinds of partners hardware manufacturers can have. This is completely normal.

Phones have to be certified by Google before they can run Android too. In fact there some worry that the process is too arbitrary and would allow Google to block devices from coming to market (with Android) :

"Interestingly, the license allows Google to change the applicable Compatibility Test Suite and Android Compatibility Definition at will up until the time a device is certified for launch by passing the CTS. So basically there’s nothing keeping Google from changing the CTS or ACD any way it wants in order to keep a particular device off the market."

One day, Google invented this totally awesome free and open source operating system for phones, which ran on hundreds of different devices from dozens of different vendors. It allowed people to customize their phones, run whatever apps they wanted, buy apps off of different stores and sideload whatever code they pleased.

Google also invented an awesome operating system for phones that they develop in secret, publish the source for only after select marketing partners have had a 6 month head start, and then only if the code "looks good enough," and their partners are only allowed a head start if they agree to not integrate their phones with services that would harm Google's strategic investments. These phones come in many different models, but only two of them, both coming from the same manufacturer, actually offer up-to-date support and updates. The rest are trendy abandonware, efused and ROMed.

I am continually informed by people here that these two operating systems are the same thing and that all the good stuff about the first operating system applies to the second one.

I'm glad you made those points regarding trade dress suits. I'm reminded of an excellent writeup I saw a few days ago which went into detail about the lawsuit and its merits. They really tried to put the importance of the different points in laymen's terms so that anyone could understand whether or not a particular part of the lawsuit was fluff or substance.

The complete analysis is here http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/