Samsung Withdraws Counter-Suit Against Apple

tekgoblin writes "Samsung has withdrawn a counter-suit against Apple in their ongoing legal battle which concerns similarities in the iOS device lineup against the Galaxy S lineup from Samsung. The counter-suit concerned the design of the user interface being very similar to that of Samsung's: 'related to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products.'"

Comments

Who gives a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is not whether Apple or Samsung are right - it's that this shit is patentable in the first place.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[BenJCarter]

Amen.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

But if there were no patents or copyrights, then everyone would rip off the iPhone interface and... oh, wait...

Re:Who gives a shit!

[artor3]

The iPhone interface -- a bunch of icons arranged in a grid, each of which launches a different task. See also: Windows 95.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

It has more In common with Win 3.1 than 95. Windows 95 introduced the start menu.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

See MacOS 0.7

Re:Who gives a shit!

[TheRaven64]

PalmOS was much closer. I can't find a decent picture in 10 seconds of searching, but this should look familiar to anyone who has used an iOS or Android device...

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Lanteran]

Which would be out of patent protection if the interface was in fact, patented.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[CharlyFoxtrot]

And that itself was influenced by Apple's Newton. It's all a mishmash of influences. What matters is that eventually Palm hit on the definitive UI in the stylus era and iPhone finally hit the sweet spot in the touchscreen era.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[countertrolling]

Apple is just another evil corporation run by assholes.

Yes, I know, but it has a prettier face, so humor me, just for a moment.. TNX

Re:Who gives a shit!

[abigor]

I guess Xerox wasn't a corporation, but some sort of charity? Anyway, Xerox PARC was founded in 1970, making it pretty improbable that everyone "ripped off" Xerox in the 1960s. And the first mouse was invented at SRI and first shown at The Mother of All Demos in 1968, along with various other stuff we take for granted today. I guess Xerox "ripped off" SRI then, in your simple-minded universe.

In exchange for allowing Apple to make use of their work, Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO Apple stock. Welcome to the world of business.

You're sick of Apple fanboys? I'm sick of clearly non-technical people spouting rage at an industry they have absolutely no idea about.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Midnight Thunder]

I would say see Palm, followed by see HyperCard. We are back to 1985.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[bluegreen997]

In exchange for allowing Apple to make use of their work, Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO Apple stock. Welcome to the world of business.

Well it was not as cut and dry as that. This is from Wikipedia so it does not have a lot of the details but just want to show that it was not all everyone playing pattycakes:

The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product. Much later, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds. The lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge ruled "that Xerox's complaints were inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons," although it is commonly believed that Xerox simply waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[node 3]

This isn't a patent lawsuit. At least, it's not reported as such (patents may be involved, but I haven't seen that reported anywhere. However, given how news reporting works these days, it's hard to be certain). The lawsuit claims that Samsung's phones and tablets look too much like iPhones and iPads.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[UnknowingFool]

Another wikipedia article says that Apple took the ideas and concepts of the GUI but the implementation was more finished and different than Xerox's system.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... Apple licensed all that technology from Xerox. The didn't rip it off.

Apple also took the icon paradigm to places Xerox didn't, like clicking on icons to activate them (the Xerox Alto from the 1970's required a keyboard command to open a selected icon).

Slashdot is a bunch of assholes who can't research or accept facts before they shoot their mouths off.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[hairyfeet]

Actually you want a more exact copy see Palm. Mobile device? Check. Icons in a grid pattern? Check. Ability to add apps and games? Check.

That said TFA is kinda misleading as they only dropped ONE claim and they have...what? Something like a dozen? So they dropped the weakest one of the bunch, it still gives them plenty to smack Apple with. In any case it should be worth popping the popcorn and sitting back while the two big boys tear into each other like two cats in a bag.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[LordLucless]

Design Patents

Re:Who gives a shit!

[node 3]

That they exist isn't being questioned.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[kelemvor4]

Can't believe this is a 0 point post. Idiots claiming that MS Stole the idea from apple or vice versa need to at least see this; although it's not like this is an obscure reference. Tons of references to it on the net and even several documentaries on the subject.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[pandrijeczko]

For your informations, the invention of the GUI is attributed to Xerox, not your beloved Apple. Therefore Apple can be considered to have ripped off Xerox.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[countertrolling]

Gee, I didn't think I could have made it more obvious... Oh well, I'm not about to spoil it for the rest :-)

Re:Who gives a shit!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The iPhone interface -- a bunch of icons arranged in a grid, each of which launches a different task. See also: Windows 95.

The complaint was way more specific with a lot more points than just that. Then again, the GroupThink around here thinks patents are just 6 words long anyway.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's zero points because it's inaccurate.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[dudpixel]

I thought it was about a couple of kids playing in the sandpit...

Apple: Hey where'd you get that yellow tractor from?
Samsung: I invented it.
Apple: But it looks like my yellow tractor. That's not fair - only I'm allowed to have a yellow tractor.
Samsung: Well it might look similar because its yellow and its a tractor...but its mine - I made it.
Apple: No, no, its not fair!! That's it, I'm telling mum...

Which is why the courts got involved.

Now its up to mum to decide who hit who first and who is allowed to keep their yellow tractor...

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that Apple legally ripped off Xerox. So what? Microsoft legally ripped off Xerox too. If the Windows interface was illegal, then why hasn't a court of law deemed it so?

Re:Who gives a shit!

[macs4all]

Windows 95 introduced the start menu.

Which is rip off of the old Apple menu. And Windows 3.1 was a (very ugly) rip off of the original Mac desktop interface

Actually, kind of a cross between the Apple menu and the "Special" menu.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[macs4all]

Windows 95 introduced the start menu.

Which is rip off of the old Apple menu. And Windows 3.1 was a (very ugly) rip off of the original Mac desktop interface

"Mac desktop interface" and _every_ other desktop interface is a rip off of Xerox desktop from 1960s! Matter of fact, both atknison and jobs dudes had a tour of xerox and they saw the original desktop interface there, and once Atkinson got back, he started to implemented Lisa which was a copy of Xerox desktop.

Xerox also invented the mouse. And bunch of other crap that apple (and everyone else) just ripped off.

I'm sick of stupid apple fanboys claiming that apple invented the wheel and bread slices.

Apple is just another evil corporation run by assholes.

This meme belongs in the trash with the One-Button Mouse meme.

Here's the real scoop; but I doubt if you have the brain cells to care.

Oh, and Xerox did NOT invent the mouse. Douglas Engelbart did.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Belial6]

It has even more in common with Lotus Notes 1.0.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[pandrijeczko]

This is precisely why getting all emotional when you post a message on a public forum is not a good thing.

Your brain is putting a particular interpretation on what you type as you type it, but text is not particularly good at conveying emotion. Therefore, someone who reads it who isn't foaming at the mouth when they do so may well not see the textual nuances that you believe are in there.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was about a couple of kids playing with their GPL...

Weenie: Hey where'd you get that yellow tractor from? Dr. Evil: I invented it. Weenie: But it looks like my yellow tractor - but not quite. That's not fair - only I'm allowed to have a yellow tractor, that's why I put it under the GPL. Dr. Evil: Well it might look similar because its yellow and its a tractor...but its mine - I made it. Weenie: No, no, its not fair!! That's it, I'm telling mum...

Which is why the courts got involved.

Now its up to mum to decide who hit who first and who is allowed to keep their yellow tractor...

Re:Who gives a shit!

[dudpixel]

If you're going to troll, at least put some effort in.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to troll, at least put some effort in.

That's what Apple said - fucking ironic, isn't it, you Troll.

Re:Who gives a shit!

[dudpixel]

you're on weed mate. You were offtopic mentioning the GPL, and you're still offtopic. take a walk.

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia fundamental innovations sue you.

Summary is misleading, not dropped the suit but

[teh31337one]

they've consolidated them to focus on their defence in this suit.

Re:too wordes: PUSSYES

[Lysander7]

You mean "pussies".

Nortel Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Already having an effect I suspect. While not directly related, I think Samsung sees the writing on the 4G wall...

Re:Nortel Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

imma take a dump...

Well, guess what Samsung

[JamesP]

My current phone is a Samsung
My next phone is going to be an iPhone

Do you know why? Because

1 - Your POS sw called Kies is only avaiable for Windows
2 - Your POS sw called Kies is worse than iTunes
3 - You manage to screw up updates of a FREE, READY TO USE sw
4 - Cyanogen people kick your ass FOR FREE
5 - You screwed up the baseband on the phone, it doesn't work correctly
6 - Google, fix the GPS sw, it takes ages to sync

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[tero]

Well, don't use Kies then, it's not like anyone is forcing you?

And why on earth would you want to keep the default ROM on *any* Android phone?

I'm very happy with my Samsung phone.
But each to their own, hope you'll find iPhone does it for you.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Samsung has announced that they will officially cooperate with Cyanogenmod, and *stop locking down their phones* based on community feedback ... good luck with that on Apple.

Samsung has their problems, sure, but they are WAY more open and supportive to a non-locked-down environment than Apple has ever been.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[Funnnny]

I'm the one who keeping the default/stock ROM (JVQ), but with Odin
The current state of cooked galaxyS ROM is bad, battery, camera, radio is not at usable level. UI is a different story, the only ROM I found has a usable and nice UI is MIUI, CM7 is good but the stock application is too bad.
Android has some good potential, but it should has some good user-interface and a good set of default application, in this field iPhone is the best.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[JamesP]

Well, I wanted to upgrade to an official release. But apparently I won't be able to.

Of course I can go down the path of Odin, Cyanogen, etc but this is a CONSUMER APPLIANCE. It's supposed to be easy!

"why would I want to use the default ROM" same as above. Why should I have to 'fix' the products I buy?! What if there's a regression.

I like tinkering, I tried several things to make Kies run on Virtualbox under linux (but apparently that's not the issue)

"Oh but Apple is more closed than Android" yes, but they manage the updates. I have guaranteed official upgrades for a couple of versions. And I can always JB if I want.

Not to mention the GPS on the iPhone is not slow

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[thesh0ck]

no one uses kies. Just connect your phone with normal usb like a normal person.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[i_ate_god]

I have a Galaxy S

wtf is Kies? It didn't come with my galaxy s
And whats wrong with anything else? Battery life on the S is far superior than the N1, and beyond that, the S is pretty much the same as the N1 give or take a few gimmicks. *shrug*

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[JamesP]

I don't use Kies for that! USB storage works, CDC_ACM works (heh, that's a huge advantage over the iPhone)

I only wanted to use Kies for fw upgrade.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[i_ate_god]

motherfucker
not galaxy S, Nexus S

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[greentshirt]

The entire point of Android is openness and flexibility. If you do not like the stock manufacture-themed flavor of Android on your phone, you can use an app like Rom Manager to change to a different one. Can you do that on an iPhone? In Soviet Russia, rhetorical questions ask you.

As far as the battery being bad, you're doing it wrong. With no OS tweaks, and using just the stock Samsung ROM on the Captivate, battery is on par with any other smartphone. Sure, if you have your bluetooth, wifi, and gps permanently turned on, and your screen brightness cranked to maximum, you will run out of juice - but really, if that's how you're operating, your iPhone, your Blackberry and even your laptop will run out of juice as well. Forgetting stock for a moment though, using apps like Juice Defender to manager resource hogs, using a kernel that lets you undervolt and set different power regulators (eg, turn CPU to 100mhz when screen is off, etc) and making sure your application data-sync settings are set to realistic intervals will do magic for your battery life. In Sovie Russia, power manages you.

If you're using Android and complaining about the UI, you're doing it wrong. There is simply no other mobile operating system that provides you with so much easy customization. Even on your stock ROM you can download a different (and free) launcher from the market - say ADW. It will give you so much customization (and preset themes) that you will find it difficult to stop tinkering. You like the MIUI interface? Swell, just download the ADW MIUI theme and use it on your stock ROM. Choice is good, no?

Finally... are you really complaining about default-bloatware? Don't like an application? Uninstall it. Want a different application to use as a system default? Download it. From replacing your text messaging software, to the soft keyboard, to the camera, to the email client, to the browser, to the system launcher... Android gives you choice.

The only real problem with Android is that it treats people as intelligent beings who will make rational choices and decisions. As Apple dwarfs almost every other technology firm, a few things are made clear: people are fickle, buy image and brands over features and benefits, and there are more stupid people on the planet than intelligent ones. I'm not saying anyone who uses an Apple product is in this category, there are many legitimate reasons to use an iPhone or an iOS device over anything else. What I'm saying, however, is that Apple has very specifically targeted the "dumb market" and lures them in with an unparalleled branding and marketing strategy that has people who shouldn't own a calculator buying $700 smartphones.

Google played this one brilliantly, Android is here and the irony is delicious. Apple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior. They guarded their technical details jealously, IBM did not, it became easier to write for IBM hardware, clones began to appear, etc, etc, etc. Perhaps that didn't work out too well for IBM as a company, since their core business was consumer hardware and they lost that to clones, but Apple was the bigger loser. $DEITY smiled on them and gave them a second chance in the personal electronics and mobile computing realms. Rather than learn from the past and avoid losing the market again due to the same kind of control-freak behavior, they are doing the exact same thing again. In a decade, Android will be ubiquitous because every hardware maker gets to use it, and iOS devices will once again be relegated to a tiny share of the market. The technology market moves and shakes very quickly. All it will take is one line of highly successful Android MP3 players, phones, or tablets to completely reshape the field. All it will take is a sophisticated branding campaign from a hardware manufacturer who is saving millions on developing their own operating system and diverting those funds into marketing. It's not a matter of if, but rather, when. As for Google, they just wanted a mobile OS to eat advertising revenue from, and that's exactly what they got.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[d4fseeker]

Flashing another firmware _is_ easy, altough it wipes your device so I recommend an investment of 4$ in "MyBackup Pro" - having daily backups is worth every penny on ANY device. I can recommend DarkyRom.com, it just works(TM). If you want over-the-air (OTA) Updates, I can recommend HTC or Google Nexus series, altough I'll stick with Samsung if they keep the pace. Seriously, Android Phones should never have to be plugged into computers (except maybe for charging and usb-tethering) and work fairly well without any of that computer-based software voodoo.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[CharlyFoxtrot]

You want to talk irony ? All the things you mention in your post are things people absolutely hated about windows. The fact that you had to reinstall it, then tweak it, then download a ton of applications to make it useful, etc. People spent decades lamenting the fact Windows won out and now it's being held up as a paragon, a shining example of why Android will win over iOS. Now THAT'S irony.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[danomac]

"Oh but Apple is more closed than Android" yes, but they manage the updates. I have guaranteed official upgrades for a couple of versions. And I can always JB if I want.

OK, I call bullshit on this one. I had an iPhone 3G - I had to update it to get some additional functionality. It broke bluetooth for my headpiece and my car. It took Apple SIX MONTHS to fix it and release something. This affected more than half of their client base. And guess what? I couldn't downgrade. I was stuck for that time with no bluetooth.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[ColdWetDog]

Great. I'll tell my mom all about this.....

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[greentshirt]

That's a backwards argument. You don't NEED to reinstall, tweak or download applications to make Android useful. Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't (eg. Swype).

If that is all you want out of your phone, great, unpack, power up, enjoy.

If, however, you are inclined to explore, Android allows for that in a way that iOS does not. That is the point I'm making, so comparing modern android to Window's BSOD's and forced tweaking, etc, is not fair or accurate. The reason I compared it to the x86 PC architecture (which by the way is much more than just Windows) is to highlight that the path Google took with this was based on a highly successful historical model.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[Midnight Thunder]

You can replace Android on many phones, but this too is akin to jail breaking. Android is open in principle, but not so much in practice.

I am not saying this to make it seem like they are no better than Apple, since at least with Android the source is available. The issue is the handset manufacturers and the service providers.

The other point is beyond techies, the average Joe doesn't care so much about openness, as long as the device works as described.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[greentshirt]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought I was posting in my browsers Slashdot tab, not the Yourmom tab, or I would have made my post more Yourmom-friendly

In all seriousness though, I'm assuming you mean Android is too complicated for older users, and hence they will be drawn to iOS. Here, I disagree. Android is no more complicated than iOS, it just offers more options, features, etc, for those who are inclined to explore them. If you never want to go into the Settings menu, that is your prerogative and you can still enjoy a full featured smartphone experience. Even beyond that, due to the open source nature of the platform, nothing is stopping any manufacturer from creating a dumbed-down version of Android for use on a very basic phone for the elderly.

Choice is good, for the industry, for the consumer, for the developers and for your mom.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[Midnight Thunder]

For the average person this is no different than flashing your digital TV.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[greentshirt]

First, you don't replace Android on an Android-based smartphone. You replace the Android ROM, flavour, use-your-word-here. It's all based on Android-source however.

Second, on the flagship Android phones, currently the Samsung Nexus S, the handset manufacture works directly with Android developers to make everything fully documented and compliant with the Android vision as set by the Open Handset Alliance. These phones are now available from major service providers and subsidized on contract, so they are much more readily available to average consumers.

Third, and again, this point seems to be lost on so many people, the average Joe doesn't HAVE to care about openness, his device will work as described without any special knowledge or tweaking. However, should he decide to explore, he can. Despite what Apple would have you believe, choice is good.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[iluvcapra]

I you read this entire post you can officially claim to be a subscriber to greentshirt's newsletter.

Google played this one brilliantly, Android is here and the irony is delicious. Apple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior. They guarded their technical details jealously, IBM did not, it became easier to write for IBM hardware, clones began to appear, etc, etc, etc.

This did not turn out very well for IBM, if we talk about them specifically. They owned the market in 1980 and by 1985 it had completely walked away from them to silicon valley. One could hope that someone could market a Android than Google, and turn that into an alternate platform to draw people to alternate services, true open services not the Big Black Box that is Google, but considering the way the OHA has organized the market this doesn't seem likely. It's basically a cartel to make sure an AOSP Android never finds major support or market traction in the developed world.

The alternate characterization also applies, namely, that Apple failed to reap Microsoft-level profits because it insisted on being an integrator and marketing to end consumers, instead of leveraging an open product to monetize closed products, and converting the PC userbase into a locked-in pool of service demand that could be funneled, at MS's whim, to software developers, advertisers, and service providers. And that these devs, advertisers and service providers became Microsoft and IBMs real customers, and the end user would get screwed ten ways from Sunday as long as the real customers were kept happy.

The parallels with the Android business strategy should always be kept in mind.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[node 3]

And why on earth would you want to keep the default ROM on *any* Android phone?

Why on earth would you buy a device where first order of business is to replace the default ROM and default software?

I know this meets the needs of a small niche of people, but not for the phone buying populace in general.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[node 3]

The entire point of Android is openness and flexibility. If you do not like the stock manufacture-themed flavor of Android on your phone, you can use an app like Rom Manager to change to a different one. Can you do that on an iPhone? In Soviet Russia, rhetorical questions ask you.

I know nerds have a difficult time understanding this, but *MOST* people like something that works well right out of the box.

And, your first sentence is false. The entire point of Android is a venue for Google to serve more ads. The only reason it's "open and flexible" is that were it more closed like iOS (hmm... where's the "open and flexible" Android 3.0?), Google would have a hard time developing and selling it.

On the other hand, make it open and the nerds will love it. Make it flexible and the carriers and handset makers will crapify it up. Make it low cost or even "less than free" (i.e., sharing ad revenue), and they can undercut Microsoft's offering.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

All the things you mention in your post are things people absolutely hated about windows.

The pros and cons of openness. It is true that people don't like poorly written software and an open platform will tend to have more poorly written software. It is also true that Windows/x86 dominates Apple in the pc market.

Apple considers its OSes 'killer apps' in and of themselves and limit themselves accordingly. Over time history has shown that open platforms tend to spur multiple 'killer apps' Tinkerers and garage companies have more access to Android development and that will lead to thousands of niche apps that won't be available on iPhone. Not to mention in-house software when businesses start to seriously explore integrating their smart phones to their existing in-house networks.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[greentshirt]

It didn't work out well for IBM because they gave away the technical specifications of their core business offering. This would be akin to Google opening up their patents and search algorithms. Google have not done that, they have created a platform for their core business offering to thrive in. Very different.

As for your second note, yes, in the last decade Apple have done well. At one point, Myspace was also doing well. In the fast-paced tech-world, all it takes is one miss-step and you're relegated to historical marginalia. I think Apple got too greedy and thought they could continue market dominance indefinitely instead of including others. This was a massive miscalculation.

Finally, PC != Microsoft. I was discussing more the openness of the x86 architecture and the wide and varied hardware support it enjoyed than MS dominance. They are two very different things.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[node 3]

Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't (eg. Swype).

Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.

If, however, you are inclined to explore, Android allows for that in a way that iOS does not. That is the point I'm making, so comparing modern android to Window's BSOD's and forced tweaking, etc, is not fair or accurate.

Then why was your long post almost entirely about how flexible Android is with regards to modification? Why are you now acting as though that's just a side feature?

The reason I compared it to the x86 PC architecture (which by the way is much more than just Windows) is to highlight that the path Google took with this was based on a highly successful historical model.

This is complete nonsense based on *one* example and lots of false assumptions. And it's especially ironic given that Apple's supposedly inferior model has them being the most successful player in at least three different markets, using the exact opposite model to what you think is the best one.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[greentshirt]

Tell me, what software feature that an iPhone has out of the box, does a modern Google android phone lack?

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[node 3]

Choice is good, for the industry, for the consumer, for the developers and for your mom.

Choice is good. Quality is better.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[node 3]

The alternate characterization also applies, namely, that Apple failed to reap Microsoft-level profits because it insisted on being an integrator and marketing to end consumers

That's correct, but you got the reason for this wrong. It's because businesses were the primary computer customers of the era, and DOS PCs were better than Macs for business, even though Macs were more advanced systems. And in the less important (at the time) consumer realm, Macs were *far* more expensive than the Commodore 64, Apple ][, and Amiga (among others).

In the creative market (especially printing), Macs far outclassed any other system, and that was their biggest success during the 20th century.

Windows 95 onward maintained the PC's superiority in the business world, and extended it into the consumer world. It wasn't until the 21st century that Apple's products became superior choices for the consumer. This is also around the time the consumer market became the most important market.

And that's why Apple is now worth more than Microsoft and Intel combined.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[CharlyFoxtrot]

There's a nice quote I read on a blog once: "Those who learn the lessons of history are doomed to try to repeat it."

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[node 3]

Tell me, what software feature that an iPhone has out of the box, does a modern Google android phone lack?

Tell me where I mentioned anything like that? I said it works right out of the box, not that it has any specific software feature that Android doesn't have. I'm sure such things exist (in both directions), but they are mostly irrelevant (unless you have a specific example in mind that is quite impressive) if the system is unappealing from a user perspective.

As a consumer, the Android system itself isn't terribly appealing. That's why your posts (and the posts of others) harp on about how extensible and "open" Android is. Because *that's* the thing that appeals to you. In that regard, iOS is inferior to Android. But the scope of that difference in terms of market share is extremely small. Very few people care about that.

Usability. And by that, I mean things like consistency, responsiveness, visual feedback, discoverability, natural interaction, visually appealing. iOS has it, Android doesn't.

Now tell me, since you seem to think this is such an important topic, what software feature does Android have, out of the box, than iOS doesn't? And explain why this is important to the average user. Your chosen example, "swype" is just a type of keyboard. It's a nice feature to be sure, and if it was consistently the sort of thing you could say about Android, it would be more like WebOS when compared with iOS, in that it's something that makes for a compelling alternative to iOS in terms of the OS itself.

But that's *not* indicative of Android as a whole. On the whole, Android is universally seen as clunkier, less consistent, and an overall mixed bag, compared to iOS. And it's really only the geeks who really don't mind such things.

And iOS has *much* more software available, including software that people actually *want*, like Netflix, Hulu, and Skype. On Android, those things come out later, and when they do come out, are highly limited.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[ColdWetDog]

Actually, my snarky point was that some implementations of Android don't 'just work'. True, it's easier to modify Android phones and customize them but that isn't the demographic that Samsung is going for. It's people like my mom who wouldn't know a boot loader from a sail boat.

And that is a big problem for Android - too many implementations are poorly done kludges. The incredibly odd part about this is the various modding groups have shown that it's possible to create a high quality product, but the big companies can't seem to be arsed to put enough effort to get there. You have to give Apple credit - they're pushing the customer experience farther and harder than anybody else.

And thanks for the tip on the Doro. My mom has a Jitterbug (actually a rebranded Samsung) but I'm not really overwhelmed with their system. I may look into it.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[iluvcapra]

As for your second note, yes, in the last decade Apple have done well.

I never made this point, my argument doesn't require it; I think what I said can prevail wether Apple is the largest tech company on Earth or bankrupt.

I'm not sure your argument about the "fast pace" of the "tech-world" are very airtight, considering the decade of missteps on the part of major players like Microsoft, and I'm not sure your rather brief (and typically moralizing) scenario for Apple losing dominance because of "failing to include others" is sustainable in the face of companies like Oracle and Nintendo, companies that share nothing, partner with companies in highly restrictive ways, only market end-to-end solutions and are still highly profitable and successful, with millions of happy customers.

Finally, PC != Microsoft. I was discussing more the openness of the x86 architecture and the wide and varied hardware support it enjoyed than MS dominance.

Eh... saying that "the PC" isn't the same as Microsoft is a hard line to draw, DOS and Windows were indispensable components of PCs, nobody ever successfully marketed an x86 PC with anything else back when this sort of thing was important, and today there's really only one company that mass markets x86 PCs that run something other than Windows: Apple. And while x86 was "open," the Wintel platform was decidedly not, and I don't think there's a useful distinction between x86 and Wintel, because nobody ever marketed x86 PCs with anything else, and the fact that the x86 ISA was open and documented didn't make a bit of difference to application developers, because applications require an OS, and today the application devs basically can choose between Windows and OS X, neither of which are particularly open.

The openness of x86 doesn't "rub off" on other parts of the stack, just as the openness of the Android hardware and OS doesn't rub off on the Google platform apps or internet services, which must rank among the most closed of all commercial closed sources today. Google won't even tell you what kind of computers they run search or docs on, let alone exactly what they're retaining and how they use it.

Finally, while we can all concede that Wintel was a far more open platform than Apple's, and this led to all kinds of positive feedbacks and network effects that allowed Wintel dominance in PCs of the 90s, my point is that this was not a good thing for end users. Microsoft became a lazy, anti-entrepreneurial company that lived off of monopoly rents and basically arrested all innovation in home computing for a decade. When the OS vendor stops caring about the end user and cares more about protecting their partner's business model, mediocrity is the result.

Microsoft's dominance was a direct, though probably not intended, consequence of IBM opening the x86 hardware platform; the openness didn't extend and wasn't useful to the end user, just to people with computer factories and their partners, the people writing OSs. And today, we find a nominally "open" Android that is basically nothing more than a dumb terminal for closed Google services and user metric aggregation -- the openness isn't to the benefit of the user, just to companies like Google, Samsung and Verizon.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[LordLucless]

Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.

Argument by assertion. So compelling!

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[node 3]

Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.

Argument by assertion. So compelling!

It might help your case if your "rebuttal" wasn't an assertion. Two, in fact.

Besides, I'm not sure what your issue with assertions is. They are at the very heart of any "argument". You'd be hard-pressed, really, to have an argument, or even a discussion of any weight or significance, without involving assertions. This particular assertion you quoted is an opinion. Unsupported factual assertions can sometimes be weak points in an argument, but opinions? Are you honestly trying to invalidate my opinion?

As for my opinion, what really matters in a discussion like this is how widespread it is. It doesn't take much observation to conclude that people tend to see the iPhone and iOS as outclassing Android. Even nerds don't generally try to claim otherwise. They tend to (reluctantly) cede this point and instead harp on about Android being "open" and how Apple is somehow going to find themselves repeating the Mac vs PC scenario (an assertion with extremely tenuous support).

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[LordLucless]

That's because I wasn't making a rebuttal - it's very hard to refute a point when your opponent hasn't made one.

The problem isn't with assertions - it's with assertions not backed up by any further claims or discussion. Look at the parent. He stated that "Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't". Great! Objective criteria! If you want to debate that, find things the iPhone can do. Make an argument that feature-set isn't the defining element of a product. Whatever. It can be debated.

"Outclass" has no objective meaning. Unless you elaborate further, it's just another way of saying "better". At that point, the argument devolves into "Android is better!", "Nuh-uh, iOS is better!". Under what criteria does iOS "outclass" Android? Intuitiveness of OS? Responsiveness? Integration with other services? Design? Give us something to build our debate on.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[geminidomino]

Assuming they live up to it.

Samsung is just like any other corp... You can't give them credit for what they say they will do until they actually do it.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Over time history has shown that open platforms tend to spur multiple 'killer apps'

The first application to be dubbed "killer app" was Visicalc, for Mac. Then there was Lotus 1-2-3, for the IBM PC, no clones around at that time. I don't think the "openness" of the platform has anything to do with it, "developer friendliness" might but that's a completely different matter (though they can overlap.) Look at Linux, self proclaimed kings of openness, where's the glut of killer apps for them ?

Tinkerers and garage companies have more access to Android development and that will lead to thousands of niche apps that won't be available on iPhone. Not to mention in-house software when businesses start to seriously explore integrating their smart phones to their existing in-house networks.

It seems every day there's a new story about someone doing something cool with the iPhone. People use the hardware they have to tinker with and an awful lot of people have iPhones. As to companies, Apple has the Enterprise Developer Program that allows distribution of in-house applications and enterprise mobile device management solutions. Something I'm not sure exists in the Android world.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[node 3]

Yes, it was a rebuttal. It was meant to dismiss my entire post by playing a "logical fallacy"-type gambit. You never asked for clarification (like you're doing now), you just acted as though I was making a spurious claim.

And yes, I pointed out it's an opinion. That's what it means when you say it's not objective.

As for elaboration, where would you like me to begin? Design, responsiveness, developer APIs, usability, aesthetics, integration with music and app stores, security, lack of malware, third party software, third party hardware... It would be easier to list the ways in which iOS *doesn't* outclass Android. That list is very small, and *very* geek-centric.

1. Open source (mostly... where's the source for Android 3.0?)
2. Multiple hardware vendors.
3. Side-loading of apps.
4. Untethered, PC-free synching (sort of a mixed bag right now between iOS and Android, which will change significantly with iOS 5).

I'm sure there might be something more, but that's fairly exhaustive. And like I said, these are things that appeal disproportionately to geeks. All of these combined don't amount to even the slightest consideration in the mind of most people.

As I said before, what matters in this context is how the general market sees the two systems, and the general market almost universally sees iOS as outclassing Android. That's why, in the tablet market, where carriers, geography, service plans, and subsidies don't significantly alter the market, iOS trounces Android.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Galaxy S and it takes me less 15 seconds (most of the time less than 10 seconds) to have my GPS position after turning it on. Go to "Settings", "Location and security" and leave "Use wireless networks" to On (like it is with an iPhone). When this option is on, GPS is fast. When it is off, it takes about 2 minutes.

When you received your Galaxy, this option was On. Why did you turned it off if you didn't know what it was going to do?

BTW, with my car GPS (a Tomtom 350XL) it takes less than 5 seconds to get a lock... except if I turn it on at a different place than where I turned if off the last time. In this case, it takes more than a minute to get a lock. Which makes me think that all GPS are the same.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[LordLucless]

No, it wasn't a rebuttal. It was meant to spur you to actually provide an argument. As it is, it took two posts for you to even attempt that. You didn't present it as an opinion - you didn't say "I think the iPhone outclass Android" or "I'm of the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android" - you said "iPhone outclasses Android". That's presenting it as a fact.

Design, responsiveness, developer APIs, usability, aesthetics, integration with music and app stores, security, lack of malware, third party software, third party hardware

And again, you have a list features with no real discussion:

• Design: Where and how are the aesthetics of an iPhone superior to Android
• Responsiveness: What aspects of the Android interface lag, or are less responsive than iOS?
• Developer APIs: Both have them; what makes iPhone's superior?
• Aesthetics: How is this distinct from "Design"
• Integration: Well, I'll dispute the plural since iPhone can only interface with a single app or music store, while Android can use many. I'll give you music store, since Android doesn't do that natively, but what makes iPhone's app store integration better than Android's Google Market?
• Security: Again, any examples?
• Lack of Malware: iPhone, malware is hardly unknown. I'll grant you, Android is more vulnerable than an un-jailbroken iPhone - that's the trade-off you get for being in control of your own device. If you stick to each device's respective app stores, your chances of getting malware are vanishingly slim - AFAIK, there's been one instance where a bunch of apps were uploaded with malware on Android, and Google had them down within days.
• Third Party Software: Looking at sheer numbers, Apple has the advantage - although Android is accelerating faster. I don't really think numbers are a great measure anyway - the proliferation of fart apps and cheap clones tends to cloud the issue. In practical use, I've never heard of an app on the iPhone I wanted that I couldn't get an equivalent of on Android. The reverse isn't true - I've got a couple of apps on my android that my iPhone-ing friends can't replicate, simply because the Android gives devs greater access to the hardware (location-based stuff, generally, such as Locale)
• Third Party Hardware: Can you give an example of an area where Android lacks hardware support? I do see more hardware for the Apple than the Android, but frankly, most of it is crap. Both Android and iPhone have your basic car adapters, music docks, headsets. Yet to find anything available for one but not the other that I'd want.

On to your other list:

• Open source: I'd hesitate to say even most geeks care about this that much. This is targeted at handset manufacturers rather than end-users
• Multiple hardware vendors: On the other hand, I think people do definitely care about this, and this is an outgrowth of the Open Source point. The sheer variety of Android-powered devices means that people can pick devices tailored to their needs, rather than the one-size-fits-all iPhone model.
• Side-loading of apps: The number of people I know who've jailbroken their iPhones suggest to me that people do actually care about this
• Untethered, PC-free synching: I know I was a bit puzzled when one of iPhone using friends started raving about it when he installed iOS5 - it seemed so basic to me, I didn't even know iPhones lacked it previously

And I'll further add customization and widgets - Android lets you configure your phone how you want it - from wallpaper to widgets - whereas iPhones are significantly less custo

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[macs4all]

Forgetting stock for a moment though, using apps like Juice Defender to manager resource hogs, using a kernel that lets you undervolt and set different power regulators (eg, turn CPU to 100mhz when screen is off, etc) and making sure your application data-sync settings are set to realistic intervals will do magic for your battery life. In Sovie Russia, power manages you.

WTF, over?!?

Wouldn't you rather just, like, USE your phone/tablet, instead of having to do things the engineers of the product should have, like Power Management?

pple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior. They guarded their technical details jealously, IBM did not, it became easier to write for IBM hardware, clones began to appear, etc, etc, etc.

Nice revisionist history there, bub.

IBM guarded their technical details (BIOS) every bit as jealously as Apple. However, a bunch of people reverse-engineered those secrets, and as a result, IBM eventually had to leave the personal computer market altogether...

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[macs4all]

Apple considers its OSes 'killer apps' in and of themselves and limit themselves accordingly. Over time history has shown that open platforms tend to spur multiple 'killer apps' Tinkerers and garage companies have more access to Android development and that will lead to thousands of niche apps that won't be available on iPhone.

Ah, the familiar mating cry of the Android fanboi: "Just you wait!"

Well, we've all been waiting. Where are all the drool-worthy apps? Ya know, the ones that make iPhone users go "Damn! I gotta get me one of those!"

[crickets]

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[petman]

And iOS has *much* more software available, including software that people actually *want*, like Netflix, Hulu, and Skype

I don't suppose you could give example software that are not totally irrelevant to people outside of the U.S.?

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[GauteL]

"And why on earth would you want to keep the default ROM on *any* Android phone?"

Avoiding violating your warranty for one thing. Using a well-tested phone and software setup together is a second good reason. The third reason is that not everyone is actually interested in messing around with Android ROMs. They just want a well functioning smart phone out of the box. In most cases I believe this is true for Android. However, I'm seriously regretting having suggested a Samsung android phone to my wife.

The only supported way of syncing this phone and upgrading the firmware in a supported manner is via Samsung Kies. And this software really is a POS. I've heard all the complaints about iTunes, but despite being a pig, it does actually work. It does the job. I've now tried to sync her phone on three different computers with either Kies or the Samsung PC Software suite and it simply will not recognize the phone. I've now given up and plan on returning the phone asap since it is still in warranty.

I've thought about Odin. But frankly, I don't have the time or the energy to be messing around with it.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[JamesP]

I have a Galaxy S and it takes me less 15 seconds (most of the time less than 10 seconds) to have my GPS position after turning it on. Go to "Settings", "Location and security" and leave "Use wireless networks" to On (like it is with an iPhone). W

Except that 'GPS position' is not exact. (and sometimes it is way off, but my wireless carrier is to blame then)

Yes, it's fast, but it's not as precise as GPS. You can use it for 4sq, but forget it for navigation.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[gyaku_zuki]

You WERE making a spurious claim ;)

Anyways:

"As for my opinion, what really matters in a discussion like this is how widespread it is. It doesn't take much observation to conclude that people tend to see the iPhone and iOS as outclassing Android. Even nerds don't generally try to claim otherwise. They tend to (reluctantly) cede this point and instead harp on about Android being "open" and how Apple is somehow going to find themselves repeating the Mac vs PC scenario (an assertion with extremely tenuous support)."

I'd love to know which nerds you talk to, perhaps we can see your sample data. Whilst the whole Mac vs PC argument is a silly one, you come across like a fanboy, simply because you make statements of iOS superiority with no backup in fact - that's what's getting a slightly hostile reception in this discussion. Sure, it's an opinion, and so your opinion can be as ungrounded in fact and reality as you want, but don't expect people to agree with it on that basis.

"And it's especially ironic given that Apple's supposedly inferior model has them being the most successful player in at least three different markets, using the exact opposite model to what you think is the best one."

I'd love to hear what these AT LEAST three markets are that Apple are apparently leading. Leading implies to me having the most market share - and the only one they have currently is tablets and possibly MP3 players, though I couldn't find any recent figures to verify this. They DON'T have the lead on smartphones, nor on PCs, or TV. I'm pretty sure that is the sum total of Apple's markets. Have I missed some?

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.

Argument by assertion. So compelling!

As opposed to "Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do"? How convincing. You sure have yourself convinced.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

I you read this entire post you can officially claim to be a subscriber to greentshirt's newsletter.

Google played this one brilliantly, Android is here and the irony is delicious. Apple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior.

No, they lost because their look-and-feel lawsuit was struck down - not because MS didn't copy them slavishly, but because the legalese in their developer contract allowed them to. IOW because Apple wasn't control-freak enough.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung

[LordLucless]

At least that's an objective statement that can be proved or disproved

"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

If only Apple would withdraw it's lawsuit against Samsung over the same ridiculous "look and feel" claim. Why should either Samsung or Apple have exclusive rights over what's ultimately a rectangular grid of icons? It would be like giving the company that released the first touch-tone phone exclusive rights over the layout and appearance of the touch-tone keypad.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be like giving the company that released the first touch-tone phone exclusive rights over the layout and appearance of the touch-tone keypad.

You need a better example, because that's exactly what happened in the US, up until Ma Bell was broken up. The phone company owned the very wiring in your house as well as the phones, not just the keypad design.

Also, note that Apple is only suing Samsung for producing a device that looks a lot like the iPhone in many more ways than just a rectangular icon grid. Apple isn't suing Google over the Android UI, just Samsung for making the Android UI look more like the iPhone UI than other Android phones. In other words, a significant lack of originality on Samsung's part.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Theovon]

If it were the icons Apple was unhappy about, they'd be suing Google, because that's a function of Android. Rather, Apple's beef is with the bezel of certain Samsung phones looking remarkably like earlier iPhones. And in my opinion, they do look remarkably similar, with minor differences in things like the home button.

But notice that I said "earlier iPhones." None of the Samsung phones look like the iPhone 4, while Apple has left behind the look of the original iPhone. So why is Apple so up in arms about Samsung copying a look they've deprecated? Well, one reason might be that Samsung was selling these phones while Apple was still selling the 3Gs, although I'm not sure if that's true. However, there are design patents and trademarks and copyrights pertaining to this look and feel that Apple legally must defend or else they risk losing exclusive rights to their IP.

It's also pretty lame that Samsung can't be bothered to get their own design team to make their own unique look and feel. Apple spent a lot of R&D on theirs, so it's not right that Samsung just copies it. And don't tell me that the similarities are just coincidence. Of course, copying happens all the time. Even more significant than the look and feel was the concept of the iPhone itself. It was certainly not the first smart phone, but was the first to bring this level of usability to a touch screen without a stylus. THAT's really the hard part.... and it was Google that decided to ride on Apple's coat tails there. Now, it's vital that Apple have competition, to keep Apple on its toes, but that competition has to be innovative in its own right or else Apple will have really nothing to compete against except clones of itself. I saw this one Nokia phone that had a feature that Apple didn't come up with, which was to make the whole display a button that was clickable, so touching was one kind of input, and that was separate from clicking. I thought that was pretty cool.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[UnknowingFool]

There are two fundamental but seprate questions that people lump together here. (1) Should look and feel patents exist. (2) Are iOS products distinct enough to qualify.

As to the first one, there are many, many companies that pour tons of research and money in designs and they think those designs should be protected. Without these design patents, any car company can copy the look of the VW Beetle, any soda company can copy the red and white designs of Coca-Cola. Do you think these companies should be able to protect their designs?

The second question is up for a court to decide if you think (1) is legally acceptable. Now bear in mind that as for (2), most other phone makers (and other manufacturers) go out of their way to make sure their design is distinctive so that consumers can tell their products apart from their competitors. That's why Pepsi does nit use the same colors and logos as Coca-Cola. In my opinion, Samsung tried to get as close as possible and thought they were safe but it was too close to Apple's liking. Remember Apple has won look and feel suits with eMachines before. Also Apple did not sue anyone else over design.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[sessamoid]

If it were the icons Apple was unhappy about, they'd be suing Google, because that's a function of Android. Rather, Apple's beef is with the bezel of certain Samsung phones looking remarkably like earlier iPhones. And in my opinion, they do look remarkably similar, with minor differences in things like the home button

I don't own an Android phone, but looking at the photos of the Samsung phones and stock Android, Samsung clearly changed several of the icons and interface elements to mimic the iPhone in ways that Google seemed to have intentionally avoided. That's aside from the obvious hardware similarities that other Android phones do not share.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Theovon]

Thanks for the clarification. Someone should mod you up. :)

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

"Also, note that Apple is only suing Samsung for producing a device that looks a lot like the iPhone in many more ways than just a rectangular icon grid."

Such as, say, the phone's shape?

Apple isn't suing Google over the Android UI, just Samsung for making the Android UI look more like the iPhone UI than other Android phones.

Which particular aspects of the iPhone UI do you think should be owned exclusively by Apple? If Apple were to sell its UI as a product (just the UI, not the operating system), what would the sales brochure look like?

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[sribe]

In my opinion, Samsung tried to get as close as possible and thought they were safe but it was too close to Apple's liking.

Yep. The iPhones were each distinctive in their design when released (and still are); you can easily spot them from across a room and I'm 100% sure that was a deliberate goal of Apple's. This Samsung is the only phone that I have ever mistaken for an iPhone from a few feet away, and I'm pretty sure that was a deliberate goal of Samsung's. Everybody else tries to make their phones distinctive in some way, materials, size, radius of the corners, bezel, colors, finish--because they all want that effect, that if the phone becomes really popular, people know it and recognize it and remember it. But not Samsung...

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

They shouldn't be able to patent a design. If a company happens up a solid design or puts money into that really shouldn't matter. They will have the exclusive design until it can be copied . What they should be able to do is get a trademark which clearly distinguishes the real deal from the fraud.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

As to the first one, there are many, many companies that pour tons of research and money in designs and they think those designs should be protected. Without these design patents, any car company can copy the look of the VW Beetle, any soda company can copy the red and white designs of Coca-Cola. Do you think these companies should be able to protect their designs?

"Look and feel" isn't a design patent issue, but rather a "trade dress" (trademark) issue. The red and white design of the Coca-Cola can is an example of trade dress, but I don't think that's quite the same thing as claiming exclusive rights over a GUI's design. Unlike soda can logos, GUIs and their layouts are largely functional in nature and should therefore not be subject to trademark protection. Icons used as part of a GUI may be subject to copyright protection, but similar-looking icons should be perfectly legal (e.g. a calendar icon can only look so much different from another calendar icon). What remains of a GUI's look and feel beyond all that should not, in my opinion, be protected by "look and feel" trademarks.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect you would feel different if it was your product that was wholesale ripped off by another company

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[andydread]

Going by your logic Apple clearly copied Samsung F700 which was shown to the public a whole year before the Iphone came out.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[petsounds]

Yeah, suing over the look & feel of a UI seems a bit silly considering Apple already lost that fight in the 80s -- when Apple sued Microsoft and lost for Windows "copying the Mac's innovative look and feel". I'm kind of surprised the judge hasn't already thrown the case out. Perhaps that's why Apple has now sued Samsung in South Korea as well; perhaps the law over UI infringement is different there?

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[fidget42]

"Also, note that Apple is only suing Samsung for producing a device that looks a lot like the iPhone in many more ways than just a rectangular icon grid."

Such as, say, the phone's shape?

Apple isn't suing Google over the Android UI, just Samsung for making the Android UI look more like the iPhone UI than other Android phones.

Which particular aspects of the iPhone UI do you think should be owned exclusively by Apple? If Apple were to sell its UI as a product (just the UI, not the operating system), what would the sales brochure look like?

Good thing you were able to find a Samsung phone that doesn't look like an iPhone, rather than looking at every news article about the suit. Like this one. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/yowza-apple-hits-samsung-with-lawsuit-over-iphone-clones/12360

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike soda can logos, GUIs and their layouts are largely functional in nature and should therefore not be subject to trademark protection. Icons used as part of a GUI may be subject to copyright protection, but similar-looking icons should be perfectly legal (e.g. a calendar icon can only look so much different from another calendar icon). What remains of a GUI's look and feel beyond all that should not, in my opinion, be protected by "look and feel" trademarks.

Trade dress, as I understand it, can only be protected in consumer electronics for those elements that are not "functional", but merely cosmetic. A simple button or icon is not protected, but the color, placement, and shape of those can be protected under trade dress. The background graphics clearly fall under trade dress, as do the color and shading of various UI widgets. Obviously, much of the physical design falls under trade dress.

As the poster above noted, the Samsung phone in question is the only one I've ever mistaken for an iPhone at a glance. Pretty much all the rest of them are somehow distinctively different. Samsung was pretty clearly trying to mimic the iPhone as much as they thought they could get away with.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[phantomfive]

It's a funny picture and cool story, but it's just not true.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I've posted this before, but what the hell. Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases. It was so blatant that reviewers couldn't fail to mention it. It doesn't matter where you fall on the issue, who you think should win or if there should even be a lawsuit at all, that much should be clear.

First Look: Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design
Review: The IPhone Look Alike Samsung Eternity SGH-A867 (AT&T)
Samsung Galaxy S Review : "In the time we’ve been carrying the Galaxy S, more than a few people – geeks included – have mistaken it for an iPhone 3GS. The glossy black plastic and metal-effect bezel both echo Apple’s second/third-gen smartphone"

Check out the comparison shot in the first link and tell me that isn't of a whole different order than your comparison picture.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

Trade dress, as I understand it, can only be protected in consumer electronics for those elements that are not "functional", but merely cosmetic.

Exactly. GUI's are largely functional in nature and therefore for the most part not worthy of protection.

A simple button or icon is not protected, but the color, placement, and shape of those can be protected under trade dress. The background graphics clearly fall under trade dress, as do the color and shading of various UI widgets. Obviously, much of the physical design falls under trade dress.

From a usability standpoint, button placement may be crucial and therefore cannot be dismissed as being merely "cosmetic" in nature. The shape of the buttons is rectangular, which is hardly unique to Apple's iPhone. Background graphics other than simple colors and gradients would be covered by copyright, but those that aren't (e.g. solid black) may be too generic to be worthy of trademark protection.

All in all, most of what constitutes a GUI is, in my view, not worthy of trademark protection.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it was 100% deliberate that they made the phone look like a black rectangle.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

That article doesn't give any proof that the F700 was not shown at CEBIT 2006, and its author obviously has no concept of development times and how/when prototypes and production models make it to trade show floors.

Besides, the LG Prada was winning design awards months before Jobs announced the Iphone. If anybody copied anyone, it was Apple copying LG!

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is really about intent to misslead. Samsung is intentionally trying to muddy the waters and confuse people so that they think that the Samsung is essentially the same as the iPad. There's no coincidence it's a marketing ploy and Apple invested billions in building their brand and Samsung is trying to take advantage of people being attracted to the iOS interface.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[UnknowingFool]

I think if you copied the Coca-Cola bottle or the VW Beelte, both companies' lawyers would like to have a word with you. After both have limited function when it comes to design. If you think that neither of them deserves protection, then Apple does not either. If you do then Apple deserves their day in court. Whether they win is up for a court to decide.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

I've posted this before, but what the hell. Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases.

Imitation is a necessary aspect of fair competition. Without it competitors would be forced to engage in conscious avoidance of competing designs, which I generally see as an overly burdensome thing. I think our IP-centric culture has blinded us to the fact that human progress owes a great deal to people imitating and even duplicating what others have done in the past.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[UnknowingFool]

There is a difference between a trademark and a design patent. Both exist. That's why the Coca-Cola bottle is distinctive as well as the logo. That's why the VW Beetle is distinctive.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

I think if you copied the Coca-Cola bottle or the VW Beelte, both companies' lawyers would like to have a word with you. After both have limited function when it comes to design. If you think that neither of them deserves protection, then Apple does not either. If you do then Apple deserves their day in court. Whether they win is up for a court to decide.

Try reading my post next time.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

The issue is really about intent to misslead.

How so? The name of Samsung's phone is "Galaxy", not "iPhone", and the phone itself is clearly and prominently branded as "Samsung" rather than "Apple".

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[fidget42]

I've posted this before, but what the hell. Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases.

Imitation is a necessary aspect of fair competition. Without it competitors would be forced to engage in conscious avoidance of competing designs, which I generally see as an overly burdensome thing. I think our IP-centric culture has blinded us to the fact that human progress owes a great deal to people imitating and even duplicating what others have done in the past.

There is imitation and the the is what Samsung did, but you knew that. I find it hard to believe that you are that misinformed.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That's the whole point of the Pablo Picasso quote famously used by Jobs : "Bad artists copy. Great artists steal." Imitation is a good learning tool but it doesn't become innovation until you steal what's good and put it together in a novel way to create something new and improved. I guess the argument against duplication goes that imitation without innovation could actually stifle progress by rewarding knockoffs over original thought. It's a difficult line to draw though.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[EEPROMS]

Apple's beef is with the bezel of certain Samsung phones looking remarkably like earlier iPhones.

Yes but the early iphones look exactly like the the award winning LG prada, you know the full screen mobile phone with a silver bezel around the edge and icons in a checkerboard layout that was released a year before the iphone.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, suing over the look & feel of a UI seems a bit silly considering Apple already lost that fight in the 80s -- when Apple sued Microsoft and lost for Windows "copying the Mac's innovative look and feel".

That was copyright, this is patent.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

There is imitation and the the is what Samsung did, but you knew that. I find it hard to believe that you are that misinformed.

Did Samsung copy Apple's code? No. Did they otherwise engage in copyright infringement? No. Is their Galaxy phone an exact copy of the iPhone? No.

What Samsung did qualifies as imitation. The question is whether or not it should be legal under trademark law. I think it should be.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[UnknowingFool]

This isn't about copyright infringement. This isn't about trademark infringement. This about design patents and not other patents.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I do like the fact that the in the Samsung Kies program the picture of the cable connecting the phone to the computer shows an apple connector to the galaxy s, and not the micro usb connector that they actually have.

I assume the design guy who made the image just hadn't seen a phone that's not an iPhone, and couldn't imagine what it would look like.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

This isn't about copyright infringement.

I know.

This isn't about trademark infringement.

Wrong:

"Apple’s lawsuit claims that the look and feel of Samsung’s products, as well as the packaging that they come in, infringe upon Apple’s 'trade dress.' Trade dress is a term that has its origins in older cases in which judges referred to the wrapping that a package came in as its dress. Nowadays, the term refers more broadly to product packaging and to the look and feel of the product itself. Apple’s lawsuit makes both types of trade dress claims. It claims that Samsung has copied so many features of the iPhone and iPad that a consumer seeing a Samsung product would actually believe them to be made by, or affiliated with, Apple. But it also claims that the packaging that Samsung employes mimics several details of Apple’s well-known method of packaging its product line." -- Copyright & Trademark Blog

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[R3d M3rcury]

Why should either Samsung or Apple have exclusive rights over what's ultimately a rectangular grid of icons?

The question is, when is it copying?

You're right. A rectangular grid of icons is certainly not copyrightable/patentable/trademarkable. But, suppose the ordering of the apps, by default, happens to mirror what is on the iPhone? Suppose the icons have been changed to look very similar to the ones on the iPhone? Suppose the dock has the same items, in the same order, as those on the iPhone and the dock itself looks similar? And let's say it's all placed on a device that looks something like an iPhone 3GS?

I agree that any one of those might be legitimate. But when it all comes together, in my opinion, it comes out like someone said, "Make it look like the iPhone." And that's copying.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[StormReaver]

Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases.

Even if that's the case, it shouldn't matter. These are very, very trivial design issues that should not be patentable to begin with.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The issues aren't "very trivial" I think, but otherwise I tend to agree. I just don't like it when people deny the obvious.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like LG felt when Apple ripped-off the earlier Prada design to make the Iphone?

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[UnknowingFool]

Try reading mine.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[UnknowingFool]

If you actually read the lawsuit filing, you would gave understood the Apple is filing for patents (specifically design patents), trade dress, and trademarks. ALso trademarks are related to but are not trade dress. And the trademark elements Apple alleges is specifically for icons.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't exactly what happened in the US. That Ma Bell claimed they had certain rights over the equipment doesn't mean they did and their attempt to assert those imagined rights didn't last for very long with Hush-A-Phone being decided by the Supreme Court in '56 allowing phone "modifications" and Carterfone being handled by the FCC in '68 allowing network attachments. Ma Bell was broken up on an anti-trust case where they were found to be subsidizing their phone operations with money from other operations.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[w0mprat]

Apple's design is so generic the patent reads more like the description of a form factor than any unique look at feel. Just about every point has an "obvious" factor to it. Most of them show up elsewhere in the computing world, the only thing novel is packaging it in a handheld device.

This sh1t should not be patentable. I wonder if a small company tried, it they would have got it granted? I wonder how integrity the patent system has anymore.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

If you actually read the lawsuit filing [sbnation.com], you would gave understood the Apple is filing for patents (specifically design patents), trade dress, and trademarks. ALso trademarks are related to but are not trade dress. And the trademark elements Apple alleges is specifically for icons.

Trade dress and trademark protection both derive from trademark law (see Lanham Act), so I fail to see your point. Contrary to your earlier claim that Apple's lawsuit is all about "design patents", trademark law is a very significant factor in Apple's lawsuit against Samsung. I don't know who you think you're fooling by arguing otherwise. Perhaps yourself?

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[StripedCow]

The whole point of user-interfaces is that they should be similar on all devices. For example, how annoying would it be if some company had "patented" the design of the generic "play" button on music players. Every player would have a different play button. It is definitely something that would hinder users, and would be a hindrance for the industry as well.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[neoform]

Such as, say, the phone's shape [amazonaws.com]?

Are you seriously implying that Samsung released a phone in Feb, Apple saw it, copied it, tested it, mass produced it, advertised it and released it... 4 months later?

Seriously?

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Samsung made the Galaxy hardware look a little nicer than the ickPhone.

I don't think Apple would have cared so much overall if the Samsung hardware made people think of their smelly, old iPhone designs.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope - they were innovating....

"Glossy plastic... metal-effect bezel...." -- OH COME ON, how generic does it get??

People mistake Galaxy for "the next" ickPhone because it looks nicer than any current ickPhone (and why Apple hates it so).

--

Ever seem how completely dark the background of a Super-AMOLED display looks? Nothing else (including any model of ickPhone) comes close.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Adrian Lopez]

Nah. Just that often what looks like copying isn't copying at all.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of user-interfaces is that they should be similar on all devices.

Samsung's UI isn't similar to other Android phones - what now?

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, suing over the look & feel of a UI seems a bit silly considering Apple already lost that fight in the 80s -- when Apple sued Microsoft and lost for Windows "copying the Mac's innovative look and feel". I'm kind of surprised the judge hasn't already thrown the case out. Perhaps that's why Apple has now sued Samsung in South Korea as well; perhaps the law over UI infringement is different there?

1. Apple lost against MS because the judge decided that the developer contract allowed MS to copy the look and feel.
2. Apple won look and feel suits against Digital Research (GEM) and eMachines (among others).
3. Samsung has sued several phone makers for copying their phone designs.

IOW FU.

Correct it's an accellertion / linking

[rtfa-troll]

That seems to be 100% right. Samsung is still asserting the same claims, but now in the lawsuit Apple originally launched against them. They've also raised Apple another two patents.

Palm

[zmooc]

Too bad Palm is sort of out of business. They came up with the buttons-below-the-touchscreen concept that's been copied by just about every touchscreen-enabled device since 1997.

(Which reminds me... Sony, please, please make new Clies!!1 Thank you.)

Re:Palm

[fidget42]

Too bad Palm is sort of out of business. They came up with the buttons-below-the-touchscreen concept that's been copied by just about every touchscreen-enabled device since 1997.

You mean, like this pre-Palm device? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Newton_MP100.jpg

Re:Palm

[phantomfive]

I went to Best Buy yesterday, and WebOS is all over the place. The Veer is prominently displayed, and their tablets look better than the Xoom (though not quite as good as the Galaxy.....the interface is cleaner, though). HP hasn't been advertising much the results of their purchase of Palm, but they are definitely trying to make profit off their investment.

Re:Palm

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, like this pre-Palm device? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Newton_MP100.jpg

Or, like this pre-Newton device. The Sony PTC-300 preceded the Apple Newton by two years, and it had permanent icons along one side, and sometime, icons along the bottom, depending on the app.

By the way, the PTC-300 was preceded by two other Sony models: PTC-500 and PTC-550.

Re:Palm

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 300 and there are no icons along the bottom. An app putting an icon in the lower right doesn't count as an example of most used app icons on the bottom.

Re:Palm

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 300 and there are no icons along the bottom. An app putting an icon in the lower right doesn't count as an example of most used app icons on the bottom.

An icon at the bottom is an icon at the bottom. Period.

It is no revolutionary stretch to simply make that icon a "most used app icon" nor to merely move such icons from the side of the touch screen to the bottom of the touch screen.

Apple didn't invent anything new with the Newton.

You missed

[MRe_nl]

"two" "words" "enough" and "said".

Don't be deceived

[phantomfive]

Even after dropping the countersuit in California, Samsung is still suing Apple in eight different courts, six countries, and three continents. [source]

Lawsuits on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that about 1/3 to 1/2 of /. reads concerns someone suing someone else OR corporations suing over patents. I'm calling 'Bullshit' to all these lawsuits. That is what is wrong with America.

Whole screen click was Blackberry not Nokia

[gnugnugnu]

> I saw this one Nokia phone that had a feature that Apple didn't come up with, which was to make the whole display a button that was clickable, so touching was one kind of input, and that was separate from clicking. I thought that was pretty cool.

BlackBerry Storm: The Novelty Wears Off Fast
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1860717,00.html

the first smartphone with a clickable touchscreen. I even enjoyed the few minutes I spent playing ...
But after 24 hours of actually testing the new BlackBerry side by side with its main competition ... the novelty quickly wore off. I hate the click screen, and none of the handful of people I let try it had anything nice to say about it either.

Re:countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew

[Anonymous Coward]

heh gotta love APK's insane formatting, gives him away every time whether he chooses to label his ac posts or not.

Mirror Mirror

[SuperKendall]

Argument by assertion. So compelling!

Since your "counter argument" here is of exactly the same form, I am left only to consider which argument said something.

"Out of the box an iPhone outclasses Android" - a statement claiming that the iPhone works better than an Android somehow.

Your argument - meta complaint that the argument made is simply an assertion. Yes, and? You don't even offer an assertion. You don't even complain the assertion is wrong!

Re:Mirror Mirror

[LordLucless]

That's because I wasn't making a counter argument.

claiming that the iPhone works better than an Android somehow.

That "somehow" is the problem. Given no criteria by the parent, the only possible "counter argument" I could make was "No it doesn't". Simply making assertions leads the debate down the "yes it is!", "no it's not!" path. As I said, not exactly compelling.

iPhone can do that

[SuperKendall]

If you do not like the stock manufacture-themed flavor of Android on your phone, you can use an app like Rom Manager to change to a different one. Can you do that on an iPhone?

Of course, If you jailbreak, you have many flavors of UI tweaks you can make.

With no OS tweaks, and using just the stock Samsung ROM on the Captivate, battery is on par with any other smartphone.

Three days without charging? That's what I get from an iPhone 4, on average.

Your statement is not what I've ever heard ANY non-technica, Android user ever say. Or for that matter many technical users.

From replacing your text messaging software, to the soft keyboard, to the camera, to the email client, to the browser, to the system launcher... Android gives you choice.

So does the iPhone. Most users will have more choice on an iPhone because of the greater range of applications. Technical users that only consider forms of system modification to be "choice" are just as well served by jailbreaking, in fact even more so since many mods are simply alterations of existing apps that work pretty well, instead of whole new applications.

Re:countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew

[yarnosh]

Wow, now I feel dumb. I totally got drawn into some troll's journal when he referenced our thread. I knew he was a troll, but I did it anyway. Oh well. At least I didn't make more than one comment in the journal.

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheat the moderation system - here's where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends) to downmod them via his registered account, logout, & ac stalk, harass, and troll them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652

Here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

---

In fact, here's what countertrolling says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:

"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502

Sounds like a sick individual to me.

(Don't get lured into their journals either. That's their main goal along with getting these data points that way. Just ignore them and they will be powerless before you know it (no mod points)).

You have never invented anything new

[Brannon]

in your entire life.

Re:You have never invented anything new

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, I hold several patents and I have created many inventions. I know when something is innovative, and innovative -- Apple ain't!

99.99% of the time, someone else has done the heavy lifting for Apple. The only thing that they invented completely on their own was the GUI trashcan... oh, and perhaps the "round mouse." Everything else was derived or lifted from other inventors.

Why not let the market decide?

[mswhippingboy]

Q1 2011

Android sales 37.3 million handsets

iPhone 18.65 million handsets and steady

In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone

Just because you have the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android does not make it fact, no matter how many Apple slanted blog posts you read. I have both an iPhone 4 and a DroidX and I have to say you don't know what your talking about. I'd take the DroidX anyday of the iPhone, not just because of it's openness, but simply based on pure performance, ease of use and user experience.

Re:Why not let the market decide?

[node 3]

Q1 2011

Android sales 37.3 million handsets

iPhone 18.65 million handsets and steady

In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone

Selective cherry picking of stats, like the usual Android fan. Even so, that isn't a measurement of whether people think the iPhone outclasses Android.

There are significant factors involved in buying a mobile phone that has nothing to do with the relative quality between Android and iOS or Android phones and iPhones.

Just because you have the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android does not make it fact,

Of course it doesn't. It's an opinion. Opinions aren't facts.

no matter how many Apple slanted blog posts you read. I have both an iPhone 4 and a DroidX and I have to say you don't know what your talking about.

What do you mean? You mean I don't know what my own opinion is? That's a strange claim to make...

I'd take the DroidX anyday of the iPhone, not just because of it's openness, but simply based on pure performance, ease of use and user experience.

Good for you. No matter how shitty an interface, there's going to be someone who thinks it's better than the rest. Even Linux, even emacs, even edlin, has its fans.

Now, look around and tell me you honestly think yours is the majority opinion. Some slashdotters really do live in a bubble!

Re:Why not let the market decide?

[macs4all]

In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone

Cockroaches outnumber humans by a rather incredible margin. Which do you think is superior?

Re:Why not let the market decide?

[snoyberg]

In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone

Cockroaches outnumber humans by a rather incredible margin. Which do you think is superior?

Depends on the human.

Re:Why not let the market decide?

[mswhippingboy]

Now, look around and tell me you honestly think yours is the majority opinion. Some slashdotters really do live in a bubble!

And some live in the reality distortion field.

Re:Why not let the market decide?

[mswhippingboy]

Cockroaches outnumber humans by a rather incredible margin.

True, but we are discussing phones here. Try and keep up.

Which do you think is superior?

Depends on your metric. If by superior, you are referring the number of organisms or relative stability of species through millions of years, clearly the cockroach is superior. If you are referring to ability to screw up their own habitat, humans get the prize.

I just love and Apple fanbois can redefine reality no matter what. When iPhone was way ahead of Android in sales, the percentages mattered. Now that Android is beginning to walk away with the prize, all of a sudden sales don't matter.

However, from a certain perspective, your analogy to cockroaches is apropos. Going forward, Android is going to be everywhere; in phones, tablets, set top boxes, handheld games and who knows in what as yet unannounced devices. iOS is limited, and will continue to be limited to Apple devices so, unless Apple takes over the world and no one uses anything other than Apple products (not likely, especially in light of current sales trends), Android will continue to evolve and continue to become ubiquitous.

Re:Why not let the market decide?

[node 3]

The question is which is the case here?

It's pretty simple. Either people like iPhones better, and slashdot Android fans are in a bubble. Or they like Android better, and and I'm in an RDF.

Looking at how Android compares in any market that isn't as artificially affected as the cellphone market is, iOS handily stomps all over Android. More iPhones have been sold to date than Android phones. iPhones aren't as broadly available as Android phones, nor as heavily discounted, subsidized, or promo'd, yet one phone line is holding its own against a hoard of Android phones. When iPhone became available on Verizon, Android *lost* market share to the iPhone. Apple makes more money on iPhones than all Android makers make from Android combined.

There's a lot to indicate that current sales rates don't adequately reflect consumer opinion on Android vs iPhone specifically. When people have a fair choice (tablets) they choose iOS hands down. When people buy higher end smartphones, they overwhelmingly choose iPhones. When they buy a decent phone on their carrier, where iPhones might not even be available, for a lower price and potentially lower rate plan, only then do they really start buying Android.

Apple holds thousands of patents

[Brannon]

and have made hundreds of billions of dollars with their innovations.

You are a sad, lonely, depressed little human who believes that you elevate your own pathetic little existence by openly mocking the accomplishments of thousands of engineers who have actually contributed something to humanity.

Re:Apple holds thousands of patents

[Anonymous Coward]

You regularly resort to direct personal attacks, and you seem to have an unnatural devotion to a corporation. I merely state fact. Now, which one of us is sad and pathetic?

Furthermore, you also seem to be very naive about what constitutes innovation, and you apparently have no sense of design/innovation history.

A lot of Apple's IP was bought/licensed. Take, for instance, the Mac/Lisa GUI -- the only part that "revolutionary" GUI that originated with Apple was the trash can. Every other element in that GUI came from somewhere else. So, right off the bat, Apple establishes their pattern of lifting the most of their product from the ideas of others. Honestly, the list goes on and on from there.

I am sorry that you are offended by criticism of your precious corporation, but sometimes the truth hurts.