Neither the enterprise SDK nor the University SDK charges on a per phone basis. A phone simply registers with one of these and then if it so chooses can have an alternative signing authority. Which means phone users don't pay and you don't pay per piece of software.
Now to setup the servers there is a charge to setup but the question was about alternative signing authorities on a per phone basis. And of course again the charge is token.
Well the only group that's made a credible claim is Motorola and Apple does have them limited to 2.25%. So you can believe what you want, but lots of companies would love to sue Apple and they haven't.
Yes that's what I meant. I won't count the Jailbreak community since it wasn't part of Apple's intent. Just as the really cool apps on Cydia today which allow you to take interface ideas from MeeGo, or use SSH don't count as iPhone features.
And the quantities of finished products has to be similar given high-end Samsung phones roughly equal sales of iPhones.
This includes their low end phones the quantities far exceed the iPhone.
The markup for Samsung when they're making the parts *and* the finished product has to be much higher than just making components for Apple.
The exact opposite. Apple while selling only 6% of the world phones takes home 75% of the world's profits from phones. Apple is amazing good at targeting the consumers that are mostly price insensitive. And because Apple is so profitable they are willing to pay the parts division a premium for the best parts while Samsung's own handset division needs to be cost sensitive.
Anyway Samsung's estimate for 2012 iPhone sales is $13b is sales and $2.2b in profits which is almost 1/2 their profits for the entire company for the year across all their product lines. Apple turned their display business from losses to profits.
Just to pick an example from outside of cell phones, my Retina Macbook pro has Samsung's terrific 450 mb / sec SSD controller. You won't find that controller on Samsung laptops.
Samsung would rather exit the phone business than lose Apple as a customer.
Please express how an Object Oriented GUI would have looked or worked differently?
Three examples
Take shortcuts / aliases. Because "traverse" was an object property you could have an icon to any directory not just a fixed drive like C:\. Windows has this today but it didn't at the time. More importantly this is independent of the way the drive is mounted so remote drives (like NFS) can be attached anywhere. This still is awkward on Windows though has been part of Unixes for 40 years.
Things like cut and paste would have generalized beyond text to video, sound, pictures.... Which is more or less what you have on OSX but Windows still doesn't have.
Another thing is abstract printers so print to fax, print to file (i.e. like pdf), print to text.... Which Windows is still a bit iffy about.
We may be talking about innovation, but not invention. There is a big difference. And IMHO, only invention should be protected.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. But generally when/.ers use this invention / innovation dichotomy they pretty much want to exclude almost all inventions of almost all companies / individuals in all of human history. Almost every invention or great idea is just a somewhat unique combination with a few tweaks of earlier ideas. Set the bar as high as people who use that phrase often do, and you end up with a situation where nothing can be patented.
Which is fine but the problem with weak patents is that companies don't share information they become highly secretive and hold back inventions forcing their competitors to reinvent the same technologies over and over and over again.
You don't. Provisioning files for an individual are free and installation is free. You do however have to pay Apple to be certified with them to create provisioning files for people that use Apple as their signing authority. Pick someone else as your signing authority and you don't have to pay Apple anything.
iOS original design was based on Javascript rendering and Javascript apps. The iOS interface came later i.e. native applications. The question was the iPhone 1's innovations.
Prada didn't have the web but other than that, yes a very similar idea. LG was clearly moving in the same direction as Apple and if Apple hadn't have gotten there its entirely possible by 2008 / 2009 LG would have.
None of those old Windows CE "PDA"s (remember those?) had animations, touch screens, etc
Yes, as far as I know they didn't have an animation based interface and they had resistive not capacitive touch screens.
As for your example that's a thin-film transistor screen which is pressure sensitive not a capacitive LCD. It doesn't use animation and it wasn't web based. So it met 0 of the criteria.
if Apple paid every patent owner that has a patent Apple infringes they would have to charge ten times as much as they do today
Apple isn't infringing and they more or less do pay patent owners for most of their patents. There are only a few outstanding at all. And even if they settle against Apple you are talking under $30 / phone.
If a crappy feedback is worth billions what would patents regarding using the mobile phone to actually make a call be worth, a googolplex?
Those are the ones they do license and we already know, about 8 euros each.
My old SE 990i looked very similar to the iPhone a full year before it was even released.
In what way? Physical button dialing, classic JavaVM interface. I dont' see anything similar about it beyond stuff that was common to more or less most phones with color screens.
Apple lost the look and feel lawsuit mainly on issues of standing. But assuming they had won. What would have happened is Microsoft would have had to use very different GUI paradigms in designing Windows. Windows would have had to look and act less like Mac. So they would have used different input methods like maybe the stylus on a tablet / stylus on a resistive touchscreen would have been common. Ideas from OS/2 and NextStep that were circulating in the GUI community about moving towards object oriented GUIs would have been incorporated into Windows. Maybe Be Inc's view of a multimedia desktop (i.e. like Aero). Heck Microsoft might have bough NeXT or Be Inc to transition.
In other words we would have been much better off.
What they can do is shift tens of billions of dollars per year in parts orders to Samsung's competitors. This might very well disrupt Apple for months, but the effect of Apple injecting companies like LG with growth hormones could rebound on Samsung for decades.
Moreover Samsung makes more money selling Apple parts than it does selling consumers phones. If one division or the other has to go, Samsung has already decided which it will be.
If a fucking bounce effect costs billions to use, how fucking much do you think a fucking complete mobile phone would cost?
Well Apple pays Nokia I think 8 Euros per phone for their patents. Motorola is arguing they are owed 2.5% (which on a $700 phone is a lot of money). So the answer is quite a bit.
Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.
Actually that's pretty much exactly what happened. The combination of: a) web based interface b) animation based UI interactions c) capacitive touchscreen alone
was a collection of components that had never been used together before. That's how Apple ended up inventing so many of the technologies that went into Android. That's what's causing the trouble.
Your bounce effect is important because of the focus on the web. A bounce is an animation. You need the animation because you are using a touchscreen and not a slider to advance down the webpage so the operator likes feedback.
I'm one of those apologists. I used an HP 28S and had programs on it that could do things like conformal mapping or integration over complex paths. And RPN, stack based was absolutely part of what made that possible. The reason is simple RPN expressions parse. Everything is either an operand or an operator, and all operators can be evaluated at the time they are read left to right. That isn't true of algebraic at all.
. I don't see PeopleSoft being replaced by an iPhone app anytime soon.
Peoplesoft runs on servers. PeopleTools, the developer stuff, will probably stay on PCs. But why would the viewing reporting tools not work fine on an iPhone?
Apple spends a ton on R&D. Apple has a reputation for quality and quality of service. Apple buys part in advance.
There is a good reason the average PC is $515 and the average Apple $1400. On the other hand there is room for $800 PCs. And companies like Vizio http://www.vizio.com/computing/ are forgoing making crap to focus on the $800 market.
Slashdot Mirror
I also provided the Samsung figures which compared their sales to Apple and the high per unit profits.
Neither the enterprise SDK nor the University SDK charges on a per phone basis. A phone simply registers with one of these and then if it so chooses can have an alternative signing authority. Which means phone users don't pay and you don't pay per piece of software.
Now to setup the servers there is a charge to setup but the question was about alternative signing authorities on a per phone basis. And of course again the charge is token.
https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/enterprise/
https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/university/
That was what the court found. That Apple had licensed technology from Xerox so it was unclear they had standing to sue. That's why Apple lost.
In this hypothetical though we are mainly addressing what happens if they won.
Well the only group that's made a credible claim is Motorola and Apple does have them limited to 2.25%. So you can believe what you want, but lots of companies would love to sue Apple and they haven't.
Samsung tried that defense it collapsed in discovery. The facts don't bear out your theory.
No it wasn't. The claim was that Apple invented something new. No one denies there was a cell phone market prior to Apple's entrance.
Yes that's what I meant. I won't count the Jailbreak community since it wasn't part of Apple's intent. Just as the really cool apps on Cydia today which allow you to take interface ideas from MeeGo, or use SSH don't count as iPhone features.
And the quantities of finished products has to be similar given high-end Samsung phones roughly equal sales of iPhones.
This includes their low end phones the quantities far exceed the iPhone.
The markup for Samsung when they're making the parts *and* the finished product has to be much higher than just making components for Apple.
The exact opposite. Apple while selling only 6% of the world phones takes home 75% of the world's profits from phones. Apple is amazing good at targeting the consumers that are mostly price insensitive. And because Apple is so profitable they are willing to pay the parts division a premium for the best parts while Samsung's own handset division needs to be cost sensitive.
http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Raymond-James-Apple-vs-non-Apple-cell-phone-EBIT.jpg
Anyway Samsung's estimate for 2012 iPhone sales is $13b is sales and $2.2b in profits which is almost 1/2 their profits for the entire company for the year across all their product lines. Apple turned their display business from losses to profits.
Just to pick an example from outside of cell phones, my Retina Macbook pro has Samsung's terrific 450 mb / sec SSD controller. You won't find that controller on Samsung laptops.
Samsung would rather exit the phone business than lose Apple as a customer.
Keynote runs powerpoint rather well. If your goal is to display that exists.
Please express how an Object Oriented GUI would have looked or worked differently?
Three examples
Take shortcuts / aliases. Because "traverse" was an object property you could have an icon to any directory not just a fixed drive like C:\. Windows has this today but it didn't at the time. More importantly this is independent of the way the drive is mounted so remote drives (like NFS) can be attached anywhere. This still is awkward on Windows though has been part of Unixes for 40 years.
Things like cut and paste would have generalized beyond text to video, sound, pictures.... Which is more or less what you have on OSX but Windows still doesn't have.
Another thing is abstract printers so print to fax, print to file (i.e. like pdf), print to text.... Which Windows is still a bit iffy about.
We may be talking about innovation, but not invention. There is a big difference. And IMHO, only invention should be protected.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. But generally when /.ers use this invention / innovation dichotomy they pretty much want to exclude almost all inventions of almost all companies / individuals in all of human history. Almost every invention or great idea is just a somewhat unique combination with a few tweaks of earlier ideas. Set the bar as high as people who use that phrase often do, and you end up with a situation where nothing can be patented.
Which is fine but the problem with weak patents is that companies don't share information they become highly secretive and hold back inventions forcing their competitors to reinvent the same technologies over and over and over again.
You don't. Provisioning files for an individual are free and installation is free. You do however have to pay Apple to be certified with them to create provisioning files for people that use Apple as their signing authority. Pick someone else as your signing authority and you don't have to pay Apple anything.
iOS original design was based on Javascript rendering and Javascript apps. The iOS interface came later i.e. native applications. The question was the iPhone 1's innovations.
Prada didn't have the web but other than that, yes a very similar idea. LG was clearly moving in the same direction as Apple and if Apple hadn't have gotten there its entirely possible by 2008 / 2009 LG would have.
None of those old Windows CE "PDA"s (remember those?) had animations, touch screens, etc
Yes, as far as I know they didn't have an animation based interface and they had resistive not capacitive touch screens.
As for your example that's a thin-film transistor screen which is pressure sensitive not a capacitive LCD. It doesn't use animation and it wasn't web based. So it met 0 of the criteria.
if Apple paid every patent owner that has a patent Apple infringes they would have to charge ten times as much as they do today
Apple isn't infringing and they more or less do pay patent owners for most of their patents. There are only a few outstanding at all. And even if they settle against Apple you are talking under $30 / phone.
If a crappy feedback is worth billions what would patents regarding using the mobile phone to actually make a call be worth, a googolplex?
Those are the ones they do license and we already know, about 8 euros each.
My old SE 990i looked very similar to the iPhone a full year before it was even released.
In what way? Physical button dialing, classic JavaVM interface. I dont' see anything similar about it beyond stuff that was common to more or less most phones with color screens.
Good point I should have said TouchWiz on that example.
Good point. If that's the case, i.e. using components in a unique and original combination doesn't count then the bar was far too high
Apple lost the look and feel lawsuit mainly on issues of standing. But assuming they had won. What would have happened is Microsoft would have had to use very different GUI paradigms in designing Windows. Windows would have had to look and act less like Mac. So they would have used different input methods like maybe the stylus on a tablet / stylus on a resistive touchscreen would have been common. Ideas from OS/2 and NextStep that were circulating in the GUI community about moving towards object oriented GUIs would have been incorporated into Windows. Maybe Be Inc's view of a multimedia desktop (i.e. like Aero). Heck Microsoft might have bough NeXT or Be Inc to transition.
In other words we would have been much better off.
What they can do is shift tens of billions of dollars per year in parts orders to Samsung's competitors. This might very well disrupt Apple for months, but the effect of Apple injecting companies like LG with growth hormones could rebound on Samsung for decades.
Moreover Samsung makes more money selling Apple parts than it does selling consumers phones. If one division or the other has to go, Samsung has already decided which it will be.
Where? I'd love to pick one up for my kid at $99.
If a fucking bounce effect costs billions to use, how fucking much do you think a fucking complete mobile phone would cost?
Well Apple pays Nokia I think 8 Euros per phone for their patents. Motorola is arguing they are owed 2.5% (which on a $700 phone is a lot of money). So the answer is quite a bit.
Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.
Actually that's pretty much exactly what happened. The combination of:
a) web based interface
b) animation based UI interactions
c) capacitive touchscreen alone
was a collection of components that had never been used together before. That's how Apple ended up inventing so many of the technologies that went into Android. That's what's causing the trouble.
Your bounce effect is important because of the focus on the web. A bounce is an animation. You need the animation because you are using a touchscreen and not a slider to advance down the webpage so the operator likes feedback.
I'm one of those apologists. I used an HP 28S and had programs on it that could do things like conformal mapping or integration over complex paths. And RPN, stack based was absolutely part of what made that possible. The reason is simple RPN expressions parse. Everything is either an operand or an operator, and all operators can be evaluated at the time they are read left to right. That isn't true of algebraic at all.
Anyone sitting at a desk all day running reports is going to want a PC like form factor, including a full sized screen. The issue is whether:
a) the cpu has to PC like
b) the OS has to be PC like
c) what percentage of the office worker workforce needs this
. I don't see PeopleSoft being replaced by an iPhone app anytime soon.
Peoplesoft runs on servers. PeopleTools, the developer stuff, will probably stay on PCs. But why would the viewing reporting tools not work fine on an iPhone?
Apple spends a ton on R&D. Apple has a reputation for quality and quality of service. Apple buys part in advance.
There is a good reason the average PC is $515 and the average Apple $1400. On the other hand there is room for $800 PCs. And companies like Vizio http://www.vizio.com/computing/ are forgoing making crap to focus on the $800 market.