Dan Pallotta wrote an article titled "When My Business Failed". It included a quote that explains the Apple/Android war perfectly:
> I've learned that the adage about innovation is true — that at first, people say your idea is absurd, then they say it was obvious all along, and then they say it was their idea to begin with.
That's exactly what I've seen with Apple since Steve Jobs returned. Remember all the "giant iPod" comments when the iPad was released? Or the "this will fail without a keyboard" when the iPhone came out? Those people shut up now. With each product Apple released, people dismissed it immediately.
Now people are saying they're "obvious" ideas. The argument that Apple shouldn't be allowed to defend their designs all center around how "obvious" they are. Of course, they weren't obvious when Apple released them. They're only "obvious" now that other companies have copied those ideas. I won't get in to design with most of you because you aren't designers but the simplest solutions are usually the hardest to come up with. It's easy to make something complicated. It's very, very hard to make it simple or intuitive.
You can't rewrite history. When the iPhone was being developed, Android looked like Blackberry. Those are the facts. What should be obvious is that Eric Schmidt sat on Apples board and suddenly pivoted Android before being removed for "conflicts on interest." And you wonder why Steve Jobs was pissed? That's a serious breach of ethics.
Most of the anti-Apple comments are absurd. Like the Xerox thing: Apple didn't steal anything. They paid for something Xerox didn't believe in and weren't going to develop further.
If you have an issue with patents write your congressperson. Donate to not-for-profit organizations trying to fix the patent system. Contact the companies that abuse the patent system (especially if you're a shareholder or large customer) and tell them what you think. But don't use patents as an excuse to attack companies you irrationally hate.
I love how you turn some people into "people" like it was all people. Remember the Palm os? No? Revionist history? Wasn't that before iPhone? What about Knight Ridder's iPad in the 90s? Doesn't ring a bell? Thought so.
I also love how revisionist history of Android being a black-berry clone, then suddenly not is still propagated. When Google first took over Android, it's aim was to work on all platforms - to be open. That's still the aim... blackberry, or iPhone like - it doesn't matter.
I feel it important that the tech community discusses the validity of patents, not -only- write letters to a congressman. Let the world discuss how broken and harmful they are.
Also, I advise you to pick your examples a little better to blindly defend companies that you love.
My love is first and foremost to society. I have no particular preference to Apple, Google, Android, Canonical, Microsoft - or whatever. But anything that harms society, I will take offense to.
Before you shoot me down for being anti-Apple, I own no Samsung or Google/Android products, but I own an iPad3, iPhone4 and three iPod touches. However, I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition, and in effect, harm society.
> I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition
Who has Apple sued that aren't blatantly copying the iOS UI? Are they suing Microsoft over Windows Phone? Are they suing HP over webOS? Are they suing Nokia over Symbian? Are they suing BlackBerry?
I don't see how permitting blatant copying of a company's UI is supposed to encourage innovation. If we want to encourage innovation, then we must encourage companies to innovate -- not copy.
The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.
It's interesting that Microsoft chose to purchase a license outright rather than work out a cross-licensing deal. It seems like MS did this to lay the groundwork for Apple to purse their competition in the Android space, since Apple could then go to court and say, "Look, even Microsoft paid for a license!"
> The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.
I'd be willing to bet good money the the reason that Apple licensed iOS UI patents to Microsoft was to make Microsoft sign something saying that they wouldn't copy the iOS UI too closely, rather than for Apple to make a killing on licensing fees. Making a killing on licensing fees is Microsoft's approach, which they have used successfully against Android.
Apple took this same approach they're taking now back with Windows 1: They licensed Mac OS UI elements to Microsoft, but then ultimately sued Microsoft when Apple felt that Microsoft violated the terms of that license and made a UI that was too similar in look-and-feel to Mac OS.
If anything, this is evidence that Apple is not trying to squelch competition or innovation. They don't seem to mind competition at all, and will even license their technologies, as long as other companies aren't slavishly copying Apple's design.
I also love how "people" talk about Palm phones even though they've clearly never actually used or seen one. Because if you there is no way you would make a comparison between them and the iPhone. They are world's apart.
Also no offense but you might want to cut down on the hyperbole. Society is not going to be harmed by companies like Samsung having to find other ways to style their phone or design their UIs.
> They are world's apart .. you might want to cut down on the hyperbole.
Rustynails backed his comment with evidence and reasoning, while your reasoning is backed by.. hyperbole.
You seem like the type who would defend patents over for-loops because - Hey, it wasn't obvious to you. How about you come up with an objective test to determine if something is "obvious", and maybe the rest of us will take you seriously. Until then, please, lay more hyperbole on us.
Just because people didn't like something doesn't make it "non obvious".
It's not like the iPhone was the first phone with a software keyboard, I remember people using the XDA years before that. In many ways the iPad essentially is a "giant iPod" , just turns out there was a market for a giant iPod.
Edit:
Actually now I think about it I remember a conversation I had with a friend who is a big Apple fan at around the time that the iPhone/iPod touch came out. Something like this:
"Hey, this iPod touch is cool. Now you can watch movies on the go!"
"Yea, but the screen is kinda small, I don't want to watch a movie on a 4" screen. If they brought out a bigger version of this that I could stuff in my briefcase I might be interested."
"Don't be ridiculous, nobody would want to buy that!"
I also remember him trying to explain to me how GPRS/Edge was superior to 3G..
...and yet, somewhere inside Apple, there's a prototype of the next iPad. And it looks different. Maybe completely different.
Lightbulbs look different than when I was a kid. Oxo re-invented the look and feel of measuring spoons. Objects as mundane as doorknobs have so changed their design over the years that vintage models can be sold for a premium.
It's practically a truism that after the next device comes out -- no matter how simple the device -- there will be people claiming that it's design is "obviously" the only way to do it. I've stopped listening to those people, because they're almost never correct.
What was their idea exactly? Be the first to adopt working capacitive touch technology for a phone, and implement absolutely obvious and natural user interface for it? Really? Idea?
To me their success lies in timely choice of technologies to use and good implementation. Not in unobvious ideas.
> I've learned that the adage about innovation is true — that at first, people say your idea is absurd, then they say it was obvious all along, and then they say it was their idea to begin with.
That's exactly what I've seen with Apple since Steve Jobs returned. Remember all the "giant iPod" comments when the iPad was released? Or the "this will fail without a keyboard" when the iPhone came out? Those people shut up now. With each product Apple released, people dismissed it immediately.
Now people are saying they're "obvious" ideas. The argument that Apple shouldn't be allowed to defend their designs all center around how "obvious" they are. Of course, they weren't obvious when Apple released them. They're only "obvious" now that other companies have copied those ideas. I won't get in to design with most of you because you aren't designers but the simplest solutions are usually the hardest to come up with. It's easy to make something complicated. It's very, very hard to make it simple or intuitive.
You can't rewrite history. When the iPhone was being developed, Android looked like Blackberry. Those are the facts. What should be obvious is that Eric Schmidt sat on Apples board and suddenly pivoted Android before being removed for "conflicts on interest." And you wonder why Steve Jobs was pissed? That's a serious breach of ethics.
Most of the anti-Apple comments are absurd. Like the Xerox thing: Apple didn't steal anything. They paid for something Xerox didn't believe in and weren't going to develop further.
If you have an issue with patents write your congressperson. Donate to not-for-profit organizations trying to fix the patent system. Contact the companies that abuse the patent system (especially if you're a shareholder or large customer) and tell them what you think. But don't use patents as an excuse to attack companies you irrationally hate.