Google is rich and powerful. If they were seriously interested in changing patent and copyright laws that stifle innovation, they would put their where their mouth is and lobby for real change. Instead they talk it when it suits them, but they know those some laws can be used to protect their profits. Ergo hypocrisy and no real change.
Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.
Currently Google is pre-selected as the search engine for iOS devices. We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly - they are an advertising company. Google ironically makes more money from iOS due to the higher usage of iOS devices around the world (and, in turn, more ad impressions).
Something as simple as having the user select their search engine of choice during device setup, and having the list alphabetical (Bing, Google, Yahoo) would cause a significant revenue decline.
If these behind-the-scenes talks with Apple and Google get worse, this will be the big sign.
Those aren't the patents of concern. The problematic ones are those held by companies like Apple, that aren't essential but are rather pathetic and used as weapons against competitors. Let alone the hazards of patent trolls armed by companies like Microsoft, Apple, and IV.
most of these patent articles are just FUD and click bait
Which patent trolling firm do you work for?
So if the technology is 'pathetic' and 'non-essential', who cares? Just don't use it.
Apple is using all means necessary to stop KIRFs. Some of what Samsung has done is flat out pathetic, and if you do your research they deserve all punishment received.
which becomes useless if you don't upgrade. Android OS versions each have their unique abilities and are all worthy in-themselves. I can still use an Android 2.2 device to its full extent, same can't be said about Apple products.
iOS6 has support all the way back to the iPhone 3GS. Apple supports previous hardware as well as anyone.
So there are over 3 times as many Android phones as iPhones, yet internet usage by Android is *lower*?
Something is fishy here.
Most Android phones are the low-cost, low-margin, free-after-subsidy variety that are used at texting phones. Most iPhones are actually used as smartphones.
I create Android and iOS apps for a living. At this point iOS apps have a much larger potential market, despite the fewer number of devices out there.
Come on, the idiocy of some USPTO issued patents is not a matter of opinion. If you push neutrality over facts you're gonna have a bad time-
Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one. Are there fundamental problems in the USPTO? Absolutely. Companies with no intention of bringing a product to market should *never* be allowed to litigate. The USPTO definitely lets too much through.
However I do believe there are many things the USPTO does right, and I do believe they are still needed.
Apple is no where near as rigid as they used to be for app releases. Previously I was rejected for having a blue phone number that utilized click-to-call on an iPhone. On an iPod it was still blue - however it wouldn't dial. Apple deemed it as a poor user experience. I had to change the phone number to a different color on the iPod.
Now anything gets through. The 'rigid criteria' are almost non-existent. It is basically a malware scan and make sure you aren't using private APIs.
I urge you don't make a business decision based on heart. You will lose money. Fact is every developer will tell you there is more money to be made in iOS.
Fact is most Android phones are the low-price, low-margin variety that are used almost exclusively for texting.
The price of the device does not determine how many apps are purchased nor the price at which apps are purchased.
True, however there are people out there looking for a great 'texting phone', and those people are looking for the lowest priced option. They aren't buying apps because they aren't interested in apps - rather than they aren't buying apps because the phone was cheap.
iOS apps make me more than my Android apps. One primary reason is iOS users actually use their devices far more than Android users.
I imagine they need SOMETHING to do while they have their phone out to look hip and trendy! Why not use one of those nifty apps to let others know that not only do you own an iOS device, you're doing something savvy with it!
You have to wonder if Apple has ever heard the phrase, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
I also have to wonder if my dog has ever heard that phrase.
I wonder if Samsung has ever heard the phrase? Samsung was making a killing manufacturing the components Apple designed. Apple has already found new homes for the majority of the components Samsung used to make for Apple.
Estimating from this chart*: about 40 million iPhones sold each year (it actually was increasing, so this is an underestimate), would bring in an additional 140 million dollars for samsung per year. And if you are Samsung, you know that Apple has got to be considering moving suppliers - but they have no current options! I would charge at least $25 more, which would make up the 1 billion dollar settlement.
The SGS3 is not a bigger seller than the iPhone. It has sold 30 million, while the iPhone 4S has surpassed this many times over.
Last quarter, when Apple released the iPhone 5, the SGS3 did outsell the iPhone 4S. If you add the iPhone 5 sales to the iPhone 4S sales and the SGS2+SGS3 sales, Apple comes out ahead.
Either Apple will start developing the chips themselves or someone else will.
Well that worked out well for Apple Maps didn't it? =)
Actually Apple just joined Intel as the only companies on earth that hand-design their own processors. AMD doesn't even do it anymore. So yes, Apple does design their own chips - Samsung just follows the blueprints in their factories.
Also Apple only designed the interface for the new Maps, which is pretty fantastic. The data behind Apple Maps is supplied by TomTom. Apple did not create their own mapping data set.
This is surely simple; Apple is using Motorolas patents; if they will not accept the FRAND offered by Moto then a Judge will surely be willing to grant a injunction against sales and promotion of all infringing products. As apple themselves have shown, this need not take years.
Or do fanbois think that 'rounded corners' drawn by one of their case designers a few years back represents a more important piece of IP than the detailed algorithms controlling signalling in a congested radio band that took real scientists and engineers years of research and skill to develop?
I can't believe people actually think this garbage.
Apple does not have a patent on 'rounded corners'. They have a trade dress patent which is a collection of almost a dozen individual features that create the unique image of an iPhone. They do not have individual patents on each individual feature, but rather one trade dress patent to stop KIRFs.
Ya go to a courthouse, and that's where some lying yahoo leads you down the garden path. But, on the other hand, if they bought the foreman's nonsensical opinions, and didn't even consider prior art - they were a bunch of scary peers.
They didn't consider prior art because they found Apple didn't infringe on Samsung's patent anyway. If you didn't infringe, the prior art argument doesn't matter.
Seriously it doesn't take long to research these things.
Even better are the Groklaw articles saying that he purposefully ignored prior art. Those hacks didn't even know he was talking about a Samsung patent, and they didn't consider prior art because they found Apple didn't infringe anyway - making Apple's prior art argument moot.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is rich and powerful. If they were seriously interested in changing patent and copyright laws that stifle innovation, they would put their where their mouth is and lobby for real change. Instead they talk it when it suits them, but they know those some laws can be used to protect their profits. Ergo hypocrisy and no real change.
Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.
Currently Google is pre-selected as the search engine for iOS devices. We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly - they are an advertising company. Google ironically makes more money from iOS due to the higher usage of iOS devices around the world (and, in turn, more ad impressions).
Something as simple as having the user select their search engine of choice during device setup, and having the list alphabetical (Bing, Google, Yahoo) would cause a significant revenue decline.
If these behind-the-scenes talks with Apple and Google get worse, this will be the big sign.
It still uses the painfully slow and limited Safari engine underneath it. It's not much more than a skin for Safari.
That painfully slow Safari browser just happens to be faster than any Android tablet *or* phone ever released.
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6309/49915.png
Those aren't the patents of concern. The problematic ones are those held by companies like Apple, that aren't essential but are rather pathetic and used as weapons against competitors. Let alone the hazards of patent trolls armed by companies like Microsoft, Apple, and IV.
Which patent trolling firm do you work for?
So if the technology is 'pathetic' and 'non-essential', who cares? Just don't use it.
Apple is using all means necessary to stop KIRFs. Some of what Samsung has done is flat out pathetic, and if you do your research they deserve all punishment received.
http://dcurt.is/chromebox-samsung
http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-vs.-apple-e1313955567548.jpg
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-3-Package-Design.html
which becomes useless if you don't upgrade. Android OS versions each have their unique abilities and are all worthy in-themselves. I can still use an Android 2.2 device to its full extent, same can't be said about Apple products.
iOS6 has support all the way back to the iPhone 3GS. Apple supports previous hardware as well as anyone.
Android 68.3 percent, well ahead of iOS at 18.8
So there are over 3 times as many Android phones as iPhones, yet internet usage by Android is *lower*?
Something is fishy here.
Most Android phones are the low-cost, low-margin, free-after-subsidy variety that are used at texting phones. Most iPhones are actually used as smartphones.
I create Android and iOS apps for a living. At this point iOS apps have a much larger potential market, despite the fewer number of devices out there.
seriously
Come on, the idiocy of some USPTO issued patents is not a matter of opinion. If you push neutrality over facts you're gonna have a bad time-
Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one. Are there fundamental problems in the USPTO? Absolutely. Companies with no intention of bringing a product to market should *never* be allowed to litigate. The USPTO definitely lets too much through.
However I do believe there are many things the USPTO does right, and I do believe they are still needed.
Push your agenda in the comment section, where it belongs. The article summaries should be much more neutral.
Apple is no where near as rigid as they used to be for app releases. Previously I was rejected for having a blue phone number that utilized click-to-call on an iPhone. On an iPod it was still blue - however it wouldn't dial. Apple deemed it as a poor user experience. I had to change the phone number to a different color on the iPod.
Now anything gets through. The 'rigid criteria' are almost non-existent. It is basically a malware scan and make sure you aren't using private APIs.
I urge you don't make a business decision based on heart. You will lose money. Fact is every developer will tell you there is more money to be made in iOS.
Fact is most Android phones are the low-price, low-margin variety that are used almost exclusively for texting.
The price of the device does not determine how many apps are purchased nor the price at which apps are purchased.
True, however there are people out there looking for a great 'texting phone', and those people are looking for the lowest priced option. They aren't buying apps because they aren't interested in apps - rather than they aren't buying apps because the phone was cheap.
iOS apps make me more than my Android apps. One primary reason is iOS users actually use their devices far more than Android users.
I imagine they need SOMETHING to do while they have their phone out to look hip and trendy! Why not use one of those nifty apps to let others know that not only do you own an iOS device, you're doing something savvy with it!
As long as I profit from it, I'm fine with that.
iOS apps make me more than my Android apps. One primary reason is iOS users actually use their devices far more than Android users.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustomb=1
Fact is most Android phones are the low-price, low-margin variety that are used almost exclusively for texting.
You have to wonder if Apple has ever heard the phrase, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
I also have to wonder if my dog has ever heard that phrase.
I wonder if Samsung has ever heard the phrase? Samsung was making a killing manufacturing the components Apple designed. Apple has already found new homes for the majority of the components Samsung used to make for Apple.
Estimating from this chart*: about 40 million iPhones sold each year (it actually was increasing, so this is an underestimate), would bring in an additional 140 million dollars for samsung per year. And if you are Samsung, you know that Apple has got to be considering moving suppliers - but they have no current options! I would charge at least $25 more, which would make up the 1 billion dollar settlement.
*http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/16/ios-devices-in-2011-vs-macs-sold-it-in-28-years/
Apple is expected to sell 47 million iPhones this quarter, so your estimate is a tad low.
The SGS3 is not a bigger seller than the iPhone. It has sold 30 million, while the iPhone 4S has surpassed this many times over.
Last quarter, when Apple released the iPhone 5, the SGS3 did outsell the iPhone 4S. If you add the iPhone 5 sales to the iPhone 4S sales and the SGS2+SGS3 sales, Apple comes out ahead.
Either Apple will start developing the chips themselves or someone else will.
Well that worked out well for Apple Maps didn't it? =)
Actually Apple just joined Intel as the only companies on earth that hand-design their own processors. AMD doesn't even do it anymore. So yes, Apple does design their own chips - Samsung just follows the blueprints in their factories.
Also Apple only designed the interface for the new Maps, which is pretty fantastic. The data behind Apple Maps is supplied by TomTom. Apple did not create their own mapping data set.
Your graphic doesn't show the phones turned on, which makes quite a difference.
Neither do the images in the famous iPad patent. So, your point?
Oh and by the way, when switched on, the iPhone looks startlingly similar to a shinier broadband phone, developed by AT&T in the late 90's.
So, again, your point?
And, if you do any research at all, you would know that the Galaxy Tab was found to not infringe on the iPad trade dress patents.
And there you go like a true fanboi using that widely debunked graphic which only shows a small selection of Samsung phones.
So you are saying that patent infringement occurs only when *every* product you offer infringes? How ridiculous.
Two words: Cross-licensing.
Apple refuses to do it. Everyone else does. That's why we're here discussing this at all.
Incorrect.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsoft-cross-license-agreement-includes-anti-cloning
This is surely simple; Apple is using Motorolas patents; if they will not accept the FRAND offered by Moto then a Judge will surely be willing to grant a injunction against sales and promotion of all infringing products. As apple themselves have shown, this need not take years.
Or do fanbois think that 'rounded corners' drawn by one of their case designers a few years back represents a more important piece of IP than the detailed algorithms controlling signalling in a congested radio band that took real scientists and engineers years of research and skill to develop?
I can't believe people actually think this garbage.
Apple does not have a patent on 'rounded corners'. They have a trade dress patent which is a collection of almost a dozen individual features that create the unique image of an iPhone. They do not have individual patents on each individual feature, but rather one trade dress patent to stop KIRFs.
http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-vs.-apple-e1313955567548.jpg
Ya go to a courthouse, and that's where some lying yahoo leads you down the garden path. But, on the other hand, if they bought the foreman's nonsensical opinions, and didn't even consider prior art - they were a bunch of scary peers.
They didn't consider prior art because they found Apple didn't infringe on Samsung's patent anyway. If you didn't infringe, the prior art argument doesn't matter.
Seriously it doesn't take long to research these things.
Even better are the Groklaw articles saying that he purposefully ignored prior art. Those hacks didn't even know he was talking about a Samsung patent, and they didn't consider prior art because they found Apple didn't infringe anyway - making Apple's prior art argument moot.
Hail Mary time!!
Actually 22% of Android users, 38% of Blackberry users, and 32% of users with dumbphones are expected to buy the iPhone 5.
There is much less cannibalism here than you lead on.
http://cdn1.techbargains.com/static/images/iphonepredictions/iPhone-infographic_noFooter.png