Slashdot Mirror
The Real Reason Apple Is Suing Samsung
doperative writes with this quote from a speculative piece at Business Insider about Apple's real motive behind its recent lawsuit against Samsung's Galaxy devices:
"Android is free. In some cases, it's even cheaper than free, with Google sharing some revenue from Google searches on Android phones with partners. This is hugely disruptive to both Microsoft and Apple's business models; Microsoft because they make money on software licenses, and Apple on hardware. And this disruptive approach is winning: Android is surging past iOS in marketshare. A lawsuit from a big company, even if doomed, still takes a lot of time, energy and money to fight off. So Samsung or someone else might settle, accepting to pay some form of license. If that happens, Apple can go around to the other manufacturers asking for the same license and have a much stronger claim. And now OEMs have to factor that cost into the decision to choose Android. And all of a sudden, Android has a price."
Samsung has fired back with a lawsuit of its own.
It's the same reason Microsoft got "licensing agreements" with all the other handset vendors and is suing Motorola right now. They put a gun to their head and said "release WP7 handsets or we'll sue you for patent infringement." All the others complied, and Motorola is being sued for patent infringement. This is why Microsoft loves software patents and doesn't oppose them outright.
Yes, both Apple and Microsoft are anti-choice and act in anti-competitive manners. This is nothing new, nor will anyone step in to stop it.
I seldom worry about apple's lock strategies. Once you start down the road of tight lockin you either have to sue your way out of it, or you are forced to let go.
In the case of music apple basically scared the music studios into stripping off DRM. Now apple is being aggressively stupid themselves. It will bite them on the arse. It will be interesting to watch. but apple can't affect android the way oracle can with java and davik.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I think the reason they're suing is because Samsung's skin does in fact slavishly copy the iPhone look and feel.
Could that be it??
> A lawsuit from a big company, even if doomed, still takes a lot of time, energy and money to fight off.
This should be no surprise; it's exactly what the RIAA does to individuals. You don't have to be RIGHT, you only have to tie up enough time, money, energy, and effort that it isn't worth the cost to the recipient.
So if you sue anyone making rectangular tablet computers with ions, you might get a revenue stream, but if not, you have still cost them a lot of trouble to round up related document, emails, put a case together, and so on. And you have cast FUD on anyone else who dares to not use your closed ecosystem - smaller players may not be able to defend themselves adequately.
A smart tactic, since the system allows it, but a highly sleazy one nonetheless.
1. Create Product
2. ?
3. Profit!
I guess step 2 is "sue competitors"
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
...bit of a problem or four in it, though:
* Apple is selling pretty much every iPhone they can make.
* the iPhone (in various versions) is the single top-selling phone model, bar none. While overall, yes Android *phones* are selling equal-to-better, no single Android model is anywhere close to matching the iPhone. Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG, HTC, or a larger phone maker?
* Suing over design won't achieve the premise in TFA... phone makers will just make it look/feel different to work around the stated patent(s). If Apple was truly chasing the goal of crippling Android as a whole, they'd be better off going after the *core* of Android (like, well, Oracle is doing. Speaking of which...)
* Oracle is already working towards something that would achieve the same thing, but to provide Oracle an income stream - so why would Apple feel it had to do something similar, when Oracle is already doing it for them, and has been running that lawsuit long before Apple fired a shot across Samsung's bow?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Don't Samsung manufacture a lot of (most of?) the flash chips that go into Apple products? Did they maybe have a tacit deal (collusion) that Samsung broke, and now Apple is getting revenge to send a message to all the smaller companies that also have a tacit deal with Apple? This is kind of ugly.
This doesn't make sense. Why? Because the Apple v. Samsung suit is supposedly about trademark/design infringement. Because the Galaxy looks way too much like Apple's products. Not about anything technical about it.
Or am I missing something here? And is there something fundamental to Android that this suit is about?
And if it is fundamental to Android, logically the suit should be targeting Google - the author of the Android system. But it seems Google is not involved in this one (yet).
Oh and Android surging over iOS is no surprise but just natural... iOS is limited to one current and a few old models phone, and one current and one old model tablet. Android is not limited and currently available on dozens of current, and possibly hundreds of old models of phones and tablets. Not exactly an even fight.
Sorry it's bedtime (midnight here) so not going to read TFA. Apple shouldn't have much to fear from Android - about as much as it has to fear from Windows in the personal computing world. It competes just fine there.
Microsoft that's the potential big loser here, as they have to sell their OS and are really competing head-to-head with Android. In a market where pennies count, they want to add dollars to the cost. Apple has no such issues, there is no price on an iOS license, afaik it's not even for sale other than in combination with a piece of hardware.
They are suing the primary supplier of their LCDs. Sure there are others out there, but few that make panels as nice as Samsung, and Apple is known for having some of the best OEM displays on the market. If the lawsuit looks like it is swinging in Apple's favor, Samsung can exert pressure on Apple by either jacking up the LCD prices or threatening to no longer supply them at all. They certainly have plenty of other customers (and their own product lines) such that they could carry on without Apple.
But if next month Apple MacBooks all had crappy LCDs in them, that would hurt Apple significantly (even more so if their big external $3000 - $4000 displays went that way).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Not only is the article random speculation, but the summary title seems to suggest it is something definitive.
News just in, the real reason Apple is suing Samsung is because they both had lawyers with free time on their hands. It's true because someone on the internet said so!
The article makes some hilariously silly assumptions, borne out by the fact that Apple is selling iPhones (and other iOS devices) as fast as it can make them - so there's really no "threat" to their profits from Android. If anything, a healthy smartphone/tablet market is a positive thing for everyone involved.
Apple is suing one manufacturer of Android phones who happens to make phones that look pretty much exactly the same as iPhones. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that Apple doesn't like competitors making phones that look like iPhones. If we were to believe the conspiracy theories of "Business Insider", then we would have to believe that Apple doesn't mind their designs being copied. And that I find quite unbelievable. The simplest and therefore most likely explanation for this lawsuit is that Apple doesn't like their designs being copied.
Android isn't free (as in beer or speech).
iOS is doing well and doing better than Android in many major markets.
Samsung can't design shit.
Saying that Apple makes its money of hardware is disingenuous. Nobody (you 3 don't count) buys macs to run linux or windows - though both run fine. And there are plenty of folks who will tell you that apple phones and tablets are nothing special, hardware-wise.
Apple sells systems. Well integrated, easy to use systems.
I happen to like 'em because they also run *nix. (I don't care that you 3 don't like the flavor)
...Pfft, nah, I have no issue with Linux, but I couldn't help adding that in there..
The free / disruptive logic is critically flawed, because a huge majority of people don't even know what an OS is, let alone whether it's free or not. The only way you could spin this is if you said it's free for phone manufacturers - which is a fair point - if they don't have to pay for it, it's more likely they'll put it on their phone. That's an argument against MS - but not Apple. Apple is defined by their software/hardware mix being unique, so to spin it as 'it's not free so it'll lose' makes no sense (Apple doesn't give out their OS to anyone, free or paid)
Seriously? I think it has more to do with a company trying to make a product that looks like Apple's. It leads to customer confusion and enough people have commented how when they walk into a store the sales person normally quips that the Samsung "Look's just like the iPhone, but... ". So it's pretty obvious to everyone, except for the FUD patrol, that there's enough similarities that it might be true.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
First, there are so many lawsuits among mobile companies that a single extra one isn't going to have a chilling effect. All of these companies have enough cash that the cost of fighting a lawsuit alone will not hurt them (a big judgement might be a different story).
Secondly, MIcrosoft licensing costs aren't very much for Windows Phone 7. Estimates of licensing costs are between $5 and $15 on a phone that, with a data plan, ultimately costs thousands of dollars. Or, in the case of Nokia, Microsoft is paying Nokia to use it. $5 is still a cost, but it's not the reason people don't like WP7.
Then the article gets plain idiotic. It says Apple makes money on hardware, not on their OS. But this is true of every single Android phone as well.
The next factual error is a surprising one, but still serious. Look at the numbers of iOS vs Android devices. There are a lot more people using iOS than Android (note the figures include tablets). Surprising, but if you're going to write a tech journal you should be on top of this kind of thing.
Finally there is no reason to question why Apple is suing. It's about money. Just like every single other lawsuit in the mobile space. They all think they can get some extra money by suing, so they do.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Your post is a lot of subjective adjectives. How is that informative? You don't have one singe piece of information in your post.
using the law to extort competition?
Obviously both Apple and Microsoft found that the Mafia wasn't wrong, the extortion business is profitable.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
You have any evidence of this at all? I mean the slightest?
Very few of Microsoft's former mobile partners have agreed to work with WP7. Even Sony, which was exclusively WM6 is now a fierce exclusively Android competitor. Microsoft hasn't sued any of them.
Motorola was on a patent war path. The timing of the Motorola suite suggests that Microsoft sued Motorola on behalf of some of its other hardware partners, which unlike Apple, it desperately needs.
I can afford to have this point undone.
I am not corporate shill, Google and Apple can mutually destroy each other for all I care. But if your post is a single sentence of five words with no grammar or punctuation, and you don't even bother to make a defined, supported, coherent point, then yes, I AM going to mod you down, and with the "Troll" marker, as there is no "Moron" marker in the moderation system.
This refers to the Anonymous Coward of the opening post, but could also be applied to you, jangle. If you are going to make a point, support it with something, and have a goddamn point to make in the first place. Your post is informative, yes: it informs me that you're only capable of blindly trashing some product that you don't agree with, using an old, outdated meme, without being able to support your points with logical arguments.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
I can only speak for myself but I don't think Android will go the distance. The quality isn't there. I jumped from Apple to Android a year ago, knowing that Android was in its infancy but expecting it to mature and improve. It hasn't. Yes some things have changed but for the most part it all feels a bit flimsy and incomplete, in my opinion. When I got my iPhone, three years ago, iOS was a more solid product than Android is today. (Of course iOS wasn't as feature-rich, but it was more polished, and nowadays it's catching up on features.) My blunt feeling about Android is that it proves the validity of Apple's locked-down approach: Apple has a solid, stable product, whereas Android has become fragmented and unreliable. I hope everyone else who jumped to Android is loving it and continues to do so, but for me, I'll be knocking on Apple's door again in the not too distant future. All the law suits are silly -- products should compete on quality and price, those are the realms in which consumers make our choices.
Because I'm not a Unix kernel hacker who can write his own kernel. I'm just a student, whose interest in technology doesn't extend to rewriting Unix kernels, as that's too much learning and way out of may chosen career path.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Here's the problem: it's not clear that anyone has ever won a "look and feel" lawsuit. (The legal term is "trade dress.")
Did the author did any research into this statement because Apple has won a "trade dress" lawsuit against eMachines back in 1999.
Nor should they. Fast-following and imitating is a big part of what makes free markets work. It helps competition and helps bring innovations to consumers faster.
There is a difference in copying functionality and copying design. I think if Honda or Toyota were to make bubbly sedans that look very much like the old VW Beetle, VW would have a problem with it even though their current Beetle is no longer as bubbly.
It's the same reason why Microsoft is suing makers of Android phones: to give Android a price.
If that were the case, MS would have sued all Android makers but they didn't. They only went after former customers who abandoned them for Android. If I were to guess the purpose of MS, it would be to keep a place in the market. MS competes directly with Android as makers can pick Android over WP7 when making a phone. MS doesn't want to be left out of any maker's lineups. Apple does not compete directly with Android because Apple sells hardware and the software.
Additionally, Android phones often compete with each other and WP7 on pricing. Most likely, Apple doesn't really care about what Android costs as they are making tons of money anyways. What is the term around here: Android phones are a race to the bottom?
Also if that was the reasoning behind the lawsuit, Apple would have sued more than Samsung for this reason. Why didn't Apple sue other makers over their Android phones for trade dress? Also Apple would have sued Samsung for more than the Galaxy line of products as Samsung sells other Android products. The question then is why Galaxy.
If you look at the Galaxy line, it is the line that looks most like Apple products. Whereas other makers and other Samsung models have different bevels, tapers, corners, etc, the Samsung i9000 specifically looks a lot like the iPhone when both are powered off. Take a look the comparison between a Samsung Galaxy and a Samsung Wave and a HTC D2. Now compare a Galaxy vs iPhone. When powered on, the UI is very similar. Again other makers and models used different UI themes, icons, layouts, etc. The Galaxy is very similar to the iPhone.
Will Apple win and how long will this lawsuit go on? I don't know if Apple will win, but at the very least, Samsung's next Android phone will likely not look anything like the iPhone 4 which is probably what Apple wants.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This cuts both ways; true, apple has a huge pile of cash, but they have limited time for senior management.
And if Samsung starts lawsuits in Korea, apple gonna be at a disadvantage.
In any event, does anyone in this thread have any idea how much a lawsuit costs, compared to say, S Jobs compensation, or the amount that Apple spends on marketing or some other number that puts cost into perspective ?
As anon once said, a hundred million here, a hundred million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money
...but the biggest part of the lawsuit against Samsung specifically has been over TouchWiz, which isn't associated with adding an "Android cost" at all, since it's only Samsung's UI deal. Apple has also gone after HTC, and one wonders if they just expected an easier resolution in the wake of the Microsoft/HTC licensing agreement. Nokia sues Apple and gets counter-sued right back. Mainly, it's THE sector of computing showing exponential growth, so alla them big companies gonna be leveraging for position. And that means lawsuits be flyin', yo.
Fanboyism/blind obedience is informative to some.
He implied that Apple Inc. is taking an inordinate amount of time and attention away from Samsung’s foundry unit-a possible reason why TI is upset.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4214774/Upset-TI-slams-Samsung-s-foundry-efforts
...but there's no denying the Samsung devices mentioned in the lawsuit borrow heavily from the iPhone's design. Right down to the icons- the stock Android icons were replaced with icons that look exactly like the iPhone ones.
Whether or not that's illegal though, I'm not sure. Apple reckons it is, and I guess the courts will decide.
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
... what do you think Apple want to be the market leading phone?
iPhone, for sure, but they know that's never going to happen because they'd have to cut their margins too much. Hell, it's questionable whether they could even make enough to get to number one. So it has to be something else, right?
So, do they want something innovative, like WM7? (I may be an Apple Fanboi but I'm a rational fanboi, and WM7 is really good.)
Or something well established and proven to be rock solid, like BB? (Ok, so the company has gone mad, but you can't beat an old-school BB for messaging)
Or do they want something that's a cheap iPhone knock off?
Because if someone says "this cheap iPhone knock off sucks", there's a pretty obvious response isn't there? "Have you thought of upgrading to the real thing?"
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
The only motive Apple needs, is their fiduciary duty to protect the value of the design work they've done. As a shareholder, I expect Apple to go after cloners with both barrels.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Big vendors are making money hand over fist with Android.
Big vendors who are used to inevitable patent fights are making money hand over fist with Android.
Big vendors who have patents of their own are making money hand over fist with Android.
While the final price of Android won't be known until the dust settles, it's not going to be high enough to do Apple, Microsoft, or Oracle any good.
Right, so why did you leave out the fact that you don't own an android device that doesn't have a locked bootloader and hence could not run any kernel but the one your carrier installed?
Because I have a Nexus S, where it's relatively easy to unlock the bootloader. The fact that I don't want to bother with this, because it offers me no benefits, is another topic entirely.
And why are you pretending I meant "create a custom kernel from scratch" when everyone knows "your custom kernel" means your custom kernel configuration? Is that due to ignorance or is it denial?
Neither. I don't know how to compile a custom kernel nor how to write a new one. Making that distinction is pointless in this case, since I already state I'm not a programmer, so both are out of my league.
Now you answer me this: how do you hope to prove that I'm shilling with these questions?
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
In just over one year:
Apple iPhone illegally tracks users - April 2011
Apple suee Samsung over "rectangle with rounded corners" - April 2011
Apple sues Amazon over the phrase "App Store" - March 2011
Apple hides and denies iPhone-4 defects - June 2010
Apple sues HTC over Android - March 2010
Not that any of this is new for Apple. Remember Apple's "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft, about 20 years ago?
Tag Team effort against Android?
April 2011: Apple sues Samsung over Android
March 2011: Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn over Android *
December 2010: Sony sues LG over Android
October 2010: Microsoft sues Motorola over Android
August 2010: Oracle sues Google over Android and Java
March 2010: Apple sues HTC over Android
* just when B&N announce the Color Nook as an Android Tablet
Because I'm not a Unix kernel hacker who can write his own kernel. I'm just a student, whose interest in technology doesn't extend to rewriting Unix kernels, as that's too much learning and way out of may chosen career path.
I am a kernel hacker but not all my computers are running custom kernels, far from it. That is because for almost all my machines a standard kernel is perfectly adequate. However, this has not always been the case. From time to time I have had hardware issues that required kernel customization in some way, typically backport of a driver or a driver compiled from vendor source. And of course there are kernels that I compile and install for experimental and development purposes. The fact that I am able to do this is very important. For one thing it allows me to update devices that would otherwise become obsolete and useless. And the fact that other people are able to do it is even more important because I benefit from the work they are able to do.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Please don't let you Apple zealotry get in the way of your common sense. Android is clearly a threat to Apple. Apple may be selling every iphone they can make right now, but what about five years from now? What if Android gets about 70% of the market, and Apple starts losing iOS developers?
This is the old Microsoft practice of baby stabbing. Android is growing fast. You would have to be a complete fool to think that Apple does not feel threatened by a more open, less expensive, technology.
Apple wants to harass, and intimidate, any company that has anything to do with Android. Microsoft, Oracle, and Sony, are doing the same thing. The excuse used to file the lawsuit is entirely irrelevant. What is important is to know that: if you support Android, you are going to be sued.
April 2011: Apple suee Samsung over Android
March 2011: Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn over Android *
December 2010: Sony sues LG over Android
October 2010: Microsoft sues motorola over Android
August 2010: Oracle sues Google over Android and Java
March 2010: Apple sues HTC over Android
* just when B&N announce the Color Nook as an Android Tablet
separated at birth?
This is a harassment lawsuit. Just like Microsoft suing HTC, Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn. There are many similar lawsuits around right now. The entire scox scam was a similar suit. This is the way that proprietary companies fight back against F/OSS.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/17/androids-pursuit-of-the-biggest-losers/
Don't be a stupid zealot. Android is growing fast, and is huge threat to Apple, and other proprietary companies. You would have to be a complete fool not to see that. Apple may be selling all the devices they can make right now, but what next year, and the year after that. Worthwhile Android are just now starting to come out. Apple has to stab those babies.
What the hell do you mean "red herring" on the Nexus S?
As for the "released source code" business, even if you compile that, how can you be sure that your compiler is not compromised and inserting some sort of backdoor? Did you write and compile it yourself? Do you trust the compiler compiling your compiler? This can be continued ad nauseam...
If that's your aim, why not try making logically supported claims instead of using old memes, calling those who like the product 'shills', and attacking people left, right, and center.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Seriously? With Android sales growing like wildfire, you cannot see how android would be a threat to Microsoft and Apple? Really?
Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out now. And you don't think Apple sees that as any threat? Come on now, don't be stupid. It's easier to kill an infant, than to wait until it grows up. This is a simple case of baby stabbing.
It seems like we are so desperate to find a conspiracy in all this that we are forgetting that Samsung happens to be one of the biggest parts suppliers for the iPhone and iPad. This has far more to do with the conflict of interest there than a direct assault against Android.
Stating facts in a humorous manner != "attacking people left, right, and center".
Caveat Utilitor
Certainly the ideas of rectangular device with rounded corners came out before the iPhone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Apple does an amazing job of taking ideas from others, and improving those ideas, and doing a great marketing job. But practically ever big idea from Apple, did not originate from Apple.
Apple did not invent:
- the PC
- the GUI
- the mp3 player
- the online music store
- the smart phone
- the tablet computer
- or much of anything else.
So isn't Apple just as much of a "copycat" as anybody?
Umm...no. The reality is almost the exact opposite of your claim. Devices powered by iOS --iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad-- are in fact outselling Android devices by 59% (37.9 million to 23.8 million). The summary also makes the same claim, that "Android is surging past iOS in marketshare", but it's as wrong as you are. Android-powered smartphones are outselling iOS-powered smartphones, but that's collectively; no single manufacturer even comes close to Apple. The iPhone is far and away the best-selling smartphone on the market.
Android proponents (I won't be disrespectful and call them "fanboys") and lazy journalists love to point out the fact that Android is outselling iPhone, but that's disingenuous; they're comparing a platform to a single device. In both platform-to-platform and device-to-device comparisons, Apple is still wa-aay ahead of the competition. At the end of 2010, Android had the largest smartphone market share at 33.3%, Nokia was second with 31%, and Apple third with 16.2% of the global market. Apple's smartphone market share translates to 4.2% of the total market for all mobile phones, and yet Apple is reaping 51% of the total profits of the entire mobile industry. And they're doing it with variations of a single device. That fact certainly gives the lie to the claims that the iPhone is "dead in the water". If these jaw-dropping numbers demonstrate that Apple is "getting desperate", as you claim, then I'm sure their competitors would love a big helping of the desperation they're imbibing.
Apple haters may have their reasons for disliking Apple, but they need to make a reasoned case if they hope to be taken seriously. Blithe disregard for the facts, and trumpeting bizarre assertions as fact, despite all evidence to the contrary, certainly doesn't help their cause. It only lumps them into the same category of fruit loop as the "birthers".
Stating facts in a humorous manner != "attacking people left, right, and center".
...and when it starts actually being funny, we'll let you know....
....but until then, it's jus' making you look like a douchebag.
What, you think you're the first person to laugh at fanboys here? Sheesh...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
When the average slashdotter's opinion of me becomes a priority I'll let you know. :)
Caveat Utilitor
Microsoft has been winning in desktop/laptop OSes, and Office software, for a long time. I guess that means that Windows is much higher quality that MacOS.
after reading the artical was fuck Apple. They are pissed another phone OS is beating them, so they are doing this BS to try to force other to give them money.....This is so screwed up.
what do makers of Android-powered devices have that most directly compares to Apple TV 2
Wii, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3.
None of these run Android.
iPod touch?
Android.
iPod touch has one app store for the "standalone music player" and the phones. On Android, on the other hand, many big-name developers publish only on Android Market on phones, not on AppsLib on pocket-size tablets such as Archos 43.
Standalone music players are a dying breed.
True, iPod nano and iPod classic "are a dying breed", but iPod touch is more like a pocket-size tablet because it browses the web and runs applications. Are pocket-size tablets a dying breed even in the United States market, where carriers price cellular voice and data as luxury goods and cost-conscious parents are more likely to buy a $300 device than a $300 + $70/mo for 24 months device?
Flawless Victory!
The system works as indented.
Apple better be careful. As long as Apple doesn't allow anybody to use their iOS on their phones, it seems hard to say how Apple is being harmed. What would happen to Apple's suit if Samsung states that they had to go Android because Apple refused to license iOS to them? That puts Apple on the spot of either shutting up or licensing iOS, which will kill the iphone money cow.
Apple wants a license fee for each tablet Samsung sells. Samsung manufactures the chips for the LCD display in the iPad. Samsung just needs to raise the cost of those chips to cover their legal fees and the new license fees (if they lose the case).
"So Samsung or someone else might settle, accepting to pay some form of license. If that happens, Apple can go around to the other manufacturers asking for the same license and have a much stronger claim. "
That would make sense if Apple was suing Google (for Android).. but they're not. They're suing Samsung for a specific hardware/software implementation. Tweak the hardware and the manufacturer's customized UI enough so it steers clear of Apple's patents, and there's no problem, therefore there's no need to license.
So far Apple is not suing anyone else as a "copycat".. all you need is more than single home button and you're clear of potential violation - I've seen lots of Android handsets with 4 hard buttons - that's enough to differentiate.
Regardless of which "came first" the Galaxy and the Iphone look very similar.
One of the purposes of the patent system is the opposite of what people think: the patent system is also meant to spread a inventions for the "common good", that's why the patents run out.
The scariest thing about patents is that you can patent an idea; you don't even need a solution to the idea. Also, you must actively litigate everyone, because if you don't, then you weaken your patent. So, here's the thing: you have all of these patent lawyers that know that their company's patents will be weakened if they don't sue, and that will mean a failure on the lawyers' part (the stick), and they won't get as much money on retainer, or hourly, if they don't sue (the carrot).
There is so much to hate about Apple, but this would happen even if their mobile phone market wasn't threatened. Our patent system is broken. -- my opinion, no reference.
Because Android is free, Apple sues Samsung for the uncanny similarities in hardware design, because Android being free keeps them from selling more iPhones than just every single one they can mange to manufacture. Yeah, makes sense.
Fandroids hate facts.
I really like my Android phone but I also dislike the constant changing metrics used to make it out as if Android now the leader. If you to compare Android, which is an OS, against iOS, which is also an OS then there are more iOS devices out there still.
If you want to compare models (ie Droid vs iphone 4) then the iPhone is winning.
Android devices are growing but uncontrollably and there is a ton of variety between the devices. I think it is a bit unfair to count them as one. The reason being is because if consumers are lead to believe there is just Android then they'll no problem in buying any Android phone or tablet and expect the same experience as you'd get on an iOS device. That's not the case and that is going to harm Android's image.
I hope Google does tighten the reigns on what hardware Android can be put onto and be considered an Android phone because quite frankly the thing I hate the most about Android is the quality of the apps. I don't think it's any surprise people rather put more effort into iOS apps. I want to have the openness of the Android OS and the quality apps that are on iOS. Considering an Android phone may or may not have a keyboard or even a touch screen then how can you expect a developer to cover all that variety and put out quality especially when the Android market is pretty shit at filtering things out that your device shouldn't see and if it's a case that someone isn't packaging their software right then Google at least needs to stop that.
I don't want Android to be the Windows of mobile phones.
The idea that Apple invented, and therefore owns, the idea of a device having the shape of rectangle with rounded corners is preposterous.
Even if it were not for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
the idea would still be preposterous.
Actually, you should stop -- you've bitten off far more than you can chew. You don't know enough to even ask the correct questions, but you feel free in your ignorance to criticize someone for saying something -- you're not sure exactly what it is that was said, but you know you don't like it. No-one in this discussion has refuted a single point raised by clang_jangle, yet the modding has been overwhelmingly negative. That alone should give any thinking person pause. Why is so much energy being expended so vehemently to support a multi-billion dollar corporation who wants to pwn, publish, and profit from all your data? It's the brainwash of the century, and most slashdotter are not only merrily along for the ride, they will try to harm you if you tell them the truth.
You guys crack me up. Does everything just have to be about Android?
Take a look at the history of handsets. NOTHING looked like the iPhone before the iPhone premiered.
The Samsung Galaxy models is a flat out copy of the iPhone you know it;s true.
Seriously... go look at the Apple keynote when the iPhone was announced.... they show all the current "killer phones" of the time. Those all look laughably ancient now. Samsung flat out ripped off Apple, multiple times. This has nothing to do with Android ( this time ) .
And lets all remember... Apple and Samsung have massive agreements in place as a supplier. This is just a bargaining chip and Apple rightfully defending its IP. Apple can't just not sue Samsung because they're best buds... if it's suing all these other companies for far less infringing devices.
Certainly if MS was doing this it would be plausible, since they'd actually have something to gain other than the loss of a competitor.
The main reason Samsung use Android is because there's not a lot of choice. Sure they could use Windows Mobile or possibly Symbian but there's no way a lawsuit like this is going to stop Samsung from making tablets entirely, and Apple aren't going to offer Samsung iOS. Even if it would, it's costing Apple about as much as it's costing Samsung so by the same logic, surely Apple would be disuading themselves from the cost of the iPad.
That article is 8 months old and doesn't even discuss HTC and ZTE, and doesn't dive into the significant positive contribution to Samsung's bottom line that smartphones appear to be making. Are you ignorant or trolling?
you mentioned Microsoft...why?
And then you get upset that somebody does a simple logical extension of your position.
Take a multivitamin, or something...
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/31/apple-is-still-sucking-most-of-the-profit-out-of-the-mobile-phone-business/
The era of outright robber barondom. When proceeding towards intellectual feudalism, it was inevitable that at some point stronger longs started standing on bridges and tried to toll whomever they can overpower. Now, a big company, in order to keep its profits, is suing others, to make them pay, which will in turn reflect on the on the customer as higher prices. and lo - there is compe ..... no really, just where is the competition in this ?
yes. capitalism definitely works.
Read radical news here
Do you even know what it means? Let's talk about sales then, whereby companies refer to revenue not market share, or volumes. You say that "Apple iOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by Android". Any accountant would disagree with you if they looked at the balance sheets, and by your metric Symbian is outselling all other platforms. Are you seriously suggesting that the totality of Android devices is generating more revenue for their respective manufacturers than iOS is for Apple? Much less twice as much revenue? Not even close, and you're the one who made the comment about Android devices vs iOS devices, so YOU made it about tablets. Furthermore, nowhere in my comment did I refer to YOU as a hater. I was merely pointing out how disingenuous it is that people constantly compare Android to iPhone instead of Android to iOS. And as for the "news you don't like" crack, nice try making me out as the Android-hating iPhone zealot. I own neither an Android phone nor an iPhone; in fact I don't own a smartphone at all, and I have no plans to get one. I'm merely sick to death of both camps spouting bullshit. And you own Apple stock? Ring-a-fucking-ding. So does every hedge fund manager and his dog. And the facts still stand that iOS is outselling Android, by the only measures that count to manufacturers: revenues and profitability. Volume and market share mean nothing if they're losing their asses in the process. Just ask Nokia.
You claim to own Apple stock, and have no intention of selling it any time soon. Why not? The lion's share of Apple's income derives from iOS, and you seem so certain that Android is overtaking it, so you're investing in a company that will likely suffer a major reversal, but you're determined to stick with it. Or don't you really believe what you said? So which is it? Do you really believe that Android is outselling iOS, but you're sticking with Apple regardless? If that's the case, then Elop must have been addressing you in his "burning platform" memo.
If you're absolutely convinced that sharp edges are a non-starter, go in the other direction. The design patent is for a device with a rectangular case with four uniformly rounded edges. The case could be trapezoidal or the corners could be non-uniform.
There are many ways to work around it.
Fiddlesticks, not this again. Android ain't free. As in beer. It costs a stack of $'s to make Android work on a device because is it *not* a product and it's not delivered to an OEM in any fit state to be put onto a phone as-is sold to a Western carrier. To get Android into shape costs oodles of dollars and hundreds of man hours (and most of that know-how and changes stay in-house BTW). That's not all Android's fault - it all depends on the hardware it's put on and what features you want it to run, but it's definitely not free, the costs are just elsewhere.
LG Prada (KE850): Introduced: December 2006. Released: January 2007
iPhone. Introduced: January 2007. Released: June 2007
Samsung F700. Introduced February 2007. Marketed: November 2007
All of these phones look a lot alike. And they were all introduced in a very short time span.
The iPhone could not have copied the Prada, because the iPhone was introduced too soon afterwards. But, by the same logic, the F700 could not have copied the iPhone.
Since the F700 looks so remarkably similar to the iPhone, how can Apple be sure that Samsung was not just copying it's own design?
Apple can not win a land war in Asia.
And if Apple is smart they will never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Haven't we figured out that governments are obsolete, archaic institutions that deserves to be left in the dustbin of history along with slavery? Or, at the very least, should it be ignored like we do religion? They should ignore the lawsuit, not bother to send anyone to court to fight it, not pay any fees or licensing cost, and when the government comes to steal from them, get it all on video, upload it to YouTube, and show the world that the reason why so many things suck in this world is because people are being threatened with violence by an obsolete group of violent thugs backed up by a tyranny of bureaucracy.
The discussion is about the user interface, not the shape of the handset, and you know it.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I just recently got my video game I worked on all last year published this week Play it if you want
Flash is a very fun language to program in, it has almost identical syntax to C/C++ so it is easy to pick up, it has garbage collection so it is hard to memory leak, array creation is beyond easy, and displaying graphics never was this easy.
I'm gonna keep making games in Flash, and maybe make some Android phone/tablet games.
I think Apple just shoots itself in the foot by not supporting Flash.
God spoke to me.
So, instead of properly answering the meat of my comment (that it's too late for Apple, et al, to successfully slow down Android's adoption via some sort of IP tax) you first try to show that only losers sell Android. Then confronted with evidence that that's a complete troll, you now pull out the "but Apple's making more money" card. While true, it's still a troll that completely misses my point.
Apple may still continue to suck most of the profit out of the cellphone market, but unless you can do something other than provide links to articles that are completely irrelevant to my point, you're still just pointing at wookies. Explain why a lame look and feel trademark and design patent lawsuit would make HTC, ZTE, or Samsung just throw up their hands and say "oh, Apple's right! Our bad. We're exiting the business."
Are you guys all crazy? do you actually believe that Apple thinks suing Samsung will in any way discourage Samsung or any other manufacturer from using Android? Samsung is one of the biggest companies in the world; they will use the OS that gives them the best chance of being successful, regardless of cost. Right now that OS is Android, and making Android less than free won't change this fact. Other manufacturers will be unaffected by this. The suit very specifically deals with Samsung software and hardware, not the android OS in general. The OP's theory makes no sense because if this suit's only purpose was to drive up the cost of Android it would only affect Samsung and still wouldn't be able to do it to the degree necessary to instigate any kind of migration away from Android. The reason Apple is suing is that the Samsung phones are shameless knockoffs. Whether or not you think this blatant copycatting is illegal should not prevent your eyes from seeing it. Even if consumers don't mistake a samsung phone for an iphone, the very fact that they are piggybacking the design means that apple will have a tougher time selling phones by eliminating a competitive advantage. If a $99 galaxy phone is sitting next to a $199 iphone, the similar design could very well convince a consumer to buy the cheaper samsung model. The only people who think this suit has to do with anything else are people who don't think Apple's very specific and iconic hardware and software design are competitive advantages, a.k.a. fandroids and crazies.
Or to put it in better context. HTC profit "soared" from $170 million to $511 million.
http://www.eurodroid.com/2011/04/htcs-profits-triple-thanks-to-androids-rise/
Apple's year over year profit went from
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii
$3.074 Billion 1st quarter 2010 to $5.987 Billion.
HTC's profit went up $337 million year over year. Apple's profit went up $2,913 million during the same time period.
The CEO of Motorola Mobility said he expects a loss because of the iPhone coming to Verizon.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-26/motorola-mobility-predicts-a-loss-this-quarter-as-competition-increases.html
So two of the big 3 big Android makers (the third being Samsung) are not doing that great.
Umm - you do know that Android is actually the new WiFi snooping tool for Google (you'll want to read point 47, and I am willing to bet that nobody has bothered yet with point 48).
It's free as in "I'll let you use my car for free, but you then agree to let me look at everything and everyone in your house, including your young daughter"
But hey, they said they would do no evil, so that's alright then. I bet Microsoft executives are kicking themselves for not having discovered that joke themselves years ago.
Google has done some fantastic things with search technology. Unfortunately, the MBAs in that company have taken over, and I am not sure the company will survive what they are doing to it right now, it is morphing into another Microsoft..
Insert
I don't see the logic here, "If that happens, Apple can go around to the other manufacturers asking for the same license and have a much stronger claim..."
Let's see now, if I go up to a person in the street and tell them I am the king of Siam and ask them to curtsy to me, and if they are stupid enough to do exactly that, does that mean that I will stand a greater chance of convincing others that I am the king of Siam and will be able to get them to curtsy too?
Always knew apple was Rotten to the core, Microsnot too, these company's need to grow up.
Microsoft has been winning in desktop/laptop OSes, and Office software, for a long time. I guess that means that Windows is much higher quality that MacOS.
That has been the case. It explains why Pre-emptive Multitasking Windows sold more than a Cooperative Multitasking OS that thought that 2 times 8 192 was 6 384K.
Apple's OSes were so bad they only got pre-emtive multitasking in the 21st Century when everyone had it in the 20th!
... I just happen to have a patent on business model disruption.
You sue me and I'll sue you. The fact is that android, or software should be free. Is someone going to patent the "For" loop in C, and have the patent office agree that it is valid, because one of the C language options is to allow multiple arguments in the definition.
All this does is say, instead of your device costing $60.00, I am going to get you to pay $600. And when I add 20 cents of extra memory, you are going to pay an extra $200.00
My view is that a country somewhere will ignore the patent laws and become a haven for sofware development. And that knowledge will result in a very large migration of skilled programmers, application architects, engineers, and more to that country. (I believe that Morocco and Tunisia will become two of those countries). Right now, you can get programmers there for 1/5th the cost of the salaries paid in the USA. Software engineering in universities does not require much investment.
an what does a custom kernel have to do with anything here ???? you know a kernel is a kernel nothing more nothing less. what's important is the rest system that runs on top of it.
Why is so much energy being expended so vehemently to support a multi-billion dollar corporation who wants to pwn, publish, and profit from all your data? It's the brainwash of the century, and most slashdotter are not only merrily along for the ride, they will try to harm you if you tell them the truth.
One can ask the same question and replace "multi-billion dollar corporation" with any corporation out there. as he said google or apple can bite the dust for all I care. Every one buy use the piece of technology that they see value in it that's it that's all If you chose IOS good for you, you chose Android good for you .. you chose smoke signals ? Equally good.
... may be they're irrefutable. If you prefer dogs over cats it's a subjective choice. You see a cat and say it's ugly it's not even an animal ... I'd like to kill it. what's there to refute?
No one has refuted his points his argument may be b/c they are not worth refuting
And you still don't get it that most companies would love to have HTC's problem of not yet catching up to Apple in total profit. "Not doing so great" describes Motorola, but not the phone businesses of HTC, ZTE, Samsung, or Huawei.
And instead of ever bothering to address my assertion that this legal fight is too late to help derail Android, you still keep harping on about profits, which, by your reckoning would seem to imply that Apple doesn't even need to worry about Android at all, because Android is for losers. Funny how Apple seems fixated on it, then.
And finally, you never saw fit to provide the more focused explanation I asked for:
Obviously, that's because you can't. No CEO of any of those companies is going to give up Android easily at this point in time.
Ballmer: Developers, developers, developers
Jobs: Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers
"You're forgetting ZTE and Huawei"
Wow $19.4 Million for ZTE.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/zte-posts-16-jump-q1-profit-bolstered-device-sales/2011-04-19
And as far as Huawei, they are a private conglomerate and I couldn't find quarterly profits.
"And instead of ever bothering to address my assertion that this legal fight is too late to help derail Android, you still keep harping on about profits, which, by your reckoning would seem to imply that Apple doesn't even need to worry about Android at all, because Android is for losers. Funny how Apple seems fixated on it, then."
Well, according to Motorola's CEO, it seems like all Apple has to do to derail Android is to actually allow a carrier to sell the iPhone.....
People do own Nexus devices (I have a Nexus One). They are easy to modify, and it isn't really anyone's fault but their own if they decide to buy one of the models that isn't (which is fine, because like the person you are being a dolt towards, some people have no interest in modifying them).
Yeah, but about $60 million of that is Android. Seriously, they're bleeding dumbphone business, and they need to move up the value chain before they become another Nokia. Don't be fooled, though -- they make a lot more handsets than Apple does, and love Android because it lets them do so for more than $30/handset. The thing is that ZTE's margins will never look like Apple's, but Apple needs to decide if it's going to cede the low end to ZTE, or allow its margins to look like ZTE's ( Well, according to Motorola's CEO, it seems like all Apple has to do to derail Android is to actually allow a carrier to sell the iPhone.....
Funny how it doesn't work that way in Europe. Maybe last quarter on Verizon had something to do with pent-up demand?
BTW, last quarter on AT&T definitely had something to do with entrenchment -- they sold a lot of $0, $19, and $49 iPhones. Which just goes to show that there really is a price-sensitive market out there. When AT&T, which had the iPhone forever, can sell more than Verizon when Verizon brings it out (and it was known before the start of the quarter that Verizon was bringing it out, so it's not really apples and oranges), you know something squirrelly is up.
Do you realize how little $60 million dollars is to a company like Apple?
Apple *always* cedes the lowend commodity market, whether it is computers, MP3 players, tablets, or phones.
http://igadgetsreport.com/2011/02/22/apple-ios-dominates-european-smartphone-usage/
There is no such thing as a new iPhone that has a real cost of $49. A non-subsidize iPhone 3GS is about $350. A low end dumb phone by ZTE really is $30- $50 without subsidy.
And still 60% of AT&T's smart phones were iPhones.
Yes, but ZTE is hungry for more smartphone business. And they are going to get it. And no stupid Apple look and feel patent will stand in their way.
For some value of lowend. But this is a huge market, with no iTunes lock-in, so it won't look like the iPod.
Because of the discount they won't be able to keep up this quarter...
Do you really think that someone who can afford an iPhone will ever seriously look at one of the cheap low end Android phones? Do you remember how all of the pundits said that Apple would get creamed by all of the cheap net books? How did that turn out?
As far as iTunes lock in, people chose to buy the iPod first to play their existing collection of music and then they bought a few songs from iTunes. According to Steve Jobs "Thoughts on Music" letter that was published in 2007, only 3% of the average iPod buyers music came from iTunes. Even now without any DRM, iTunes is still the number one music retailer in the world.
But now the "lock in" is with apps. If it hasn't already happened, Apple is predicted to sell more apps than music this year.
They don't discount iPhone 4's but if you mean the 3GS, the unsubsidized price of the 3GS is $360. Do you really think it costs more than $360 to manufacturer at 3GS in 2011?
And it's why MS enters into patent agreements with all of its partners, but doesn't want them to enter into agreements with each other.