Support NeoGAF

[mescalineeyes]

If iOS isn't really much beyond an app launcher, and you both launch the same app, is the UX really that different for an identical app?

That's the thing. They are not identical. Most apps aren't and 99.9% of the time the one on android is notably worse.

 

[Marty Chinn]

That's the thing. They are not identical. Most apps aren't and 99.9% of the time the one on android is notably worse.

Really? I didn't know this was true. From a developer perspective it doesn't even make sense since it's harder to develop two apps than to make your app cross platform. This is the first I've heard that this is generally true. Not doubting you, just surprised. I'd like to see some side by sides....

 

[BootlegSnackz]

have we already seen this article?

http://gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-apple-v-samsung-ruling-may-not-hold-up


I mean it's not exactly about whether samsung copied apple or not, but if the jury verdict will hold up because they it seems like they were all arguing things they didn't really understand, plus add the fact that they didn't want to be there.



It just seems like a rushed verdict to me and should be thrown out. that's my opinion.

but did samsung copy apple? probably.

but should apple have a patent on the shape of a smartphone and on the look of a phone UI?

probably not.

 

[mescalineeyes]

Really? I didn't know this was true. From a developer perspective it doesn't even make sense since it's harder to develop two apps than to make your app cross platform. This is the first I've heard that this is generally true. Not doubting you, just surprised. I'd like to see some side by sides....

There's some good ones though, like Dropbox. Those guys are heroes.

But stuff like: Facebook, any Twitter app compared to Tweetbot, Twitter compared to Twitter, Nike+, Groupon ... Android is noticably worse, and I doubt anyone can argue with that.

but iOS has no widgets so, there's that

Until recently I don't think you could write Android apps in C or iOS apps in Java (not sure you even can still). Kinda makes any real cross-platform approach difficult.

They allow middleware now on iOS, but no Java.

 

[maharg]

Really? I didn't know this was true. From a developer perspective it doesn't even make sense since it's harder to develop two apps than to make your app cross platform. This is the first I've heard that this is generally true. Not doubting you, just surprised. I'd like to see some side by sides....

Until recently I don't think you could write Android apps in C or iOS apps in Java (not sure you even can still). Kinda makes any real cross-platform approach difficult. Pretty much just webapp embed apps that can be done this way.

Facebook is pretty much identical on both platforms, it's just a web control on both these days. And pretty shitty on both, too. Not sure what ^^^ is talking about there.

 

[Zeth]

Not the most important one, the web browser.

Dear god, Chrome is sluggish compared to Safari in many places. I'm talking nexus 7 vs iPad 3 side by side. It's constantly jerky and unresponsive. Rendering when zooming is slow, where it's invisible on iOS. One embedded video bogs down a page, try giant bomb. I like Android a lot, but it's still not quite as responsive. Posting this with Nexus 7 by the way.

Fake edit: I'm sure it wins quite a few benchmarks still.

 

[Puddles]

That's the thing. They are not identical. Most apps aren't and 99.9% of the time the one on android is notably worse.

So basically Android = the PS3?

 

[mescalineeyes]

So basically Android = the PS3?

Android doesn't have any good exclusives

Spoiler

other than that, frighteningly accurate haha

 

[Lynn616]

5 things wrong and 1 thing right doesn't make everything right. They "skipped" pinch to zoom, not bounce back, they didn't read the judges instructions, they made multiple mistakes on infringement, inducement and monetary awards, all while trying to say they weren't rushed and took their time... it'll be an interesting appeal.

So does that mean pinch to zoom was not found to infringe?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Facebook is pretty much identical on both platforms, it's just a web control on both these days. And pretty shitty on both, too. Not sure what ^^^ is talking about there.

Nope, it's native on iOS now. It rules.

 

[Technosteve]

Nope, it's native on iOS now. It rules.

facebook app not actual shit, inconceivable

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Phone wars, something actually dumber than console wars. :/

 

[Cheebo]

Android doesn't have any good exclusives

Spoiler

other than that, frighteningly accurate haha

And Apple has a eerily similar sort of Nintendo like position with philosophy, brand loyality, and fanboy devotion

Except Apple actually makes money unlike Nintendo.

 

[Roo]

Phone wars, something actually dumber than console wars. :/

Spoiler

Sony Xperia series FTFW!!!!!

 

[Cheebo]

Spoiler

Sony Xperia series FTFW!!!!!

Sony is the 3DO of smartphone wars. Almost no one has one and the ones who do are embarrassed to admit it.

 

[CrookedRain]

Dear god, Chrome is sluggish compared to Safari in many places. I'm talking nexus 7 vs iPad 3 side by side. It's constantly jerky and unresponsive. Rendering when zooming is slow, where it's invisible on iOS. One embedded video bogs down a page, try giant bomb. I like Android a lot, but it's still not quite as responsive. Posting this with Nexus 7 by the way.

Fake edit: I'm sure it wins quite a few benchmarks still.

Honestly, what do you expect when comparing a $200 device to a $500 device?

 

[CrankyJay]

Interesting take on the S3 and how it might be ban proof.

Disclosure: i am an iPhone 4 owner

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...irst-smartphone-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/

 

[numble]

Honestly, what do you expect when comparing a $200 device to a $500 device?

It's not because of the cost of the device. The iPad 2 will still run better with half the RAM and a worse processor compared to the Nexus 7.

 

[Tabris]

I know I was arguing a couple days ago with people that the only unique thing in this is the whole free open source OS aspect, and everyone has to pay someone to license the technologies they invented.

Case in point, Apple is paying Motorola a licensing fee for their technologies in Germany.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/28/apple-strikes-licensing-deal-with-motorola-in-germany/

Apple pays. Microsoft pays. Motorola pays. Samsung needs to learn how to pay.

 

[Kinitari]

I know I was arguing a couple days ago with people that the only unique thing in this is the whole free open source OS aspect, and everyone has to pay someone to license the technologies they invented.

Case in point, Apple is paying Motorola a licensing fee for their technologies in Germany.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/28/apple-strikes-licensing-deal-with-motorola-in-germany/

Apple pays. Microsoft pays. Motorola pays. Samsung needs to learn how to pay.

Those are FRAND patents - ie, patents that are licensed for pennies on the device, and are necessary for a phone to function. The argument is mostly that the cost to patent something like tap to zoom/pinch to zoom was -at it's lowest- something like 5 bucks a patent per device - I think now after the hearings its something like 40 bucks ea device.

Because tap to zoom/pinch to zoom are not FRAND/Necessary, they can be charged exorbitant amounts, regardless of their actual complexity. Something like pinch to zoom or tap to zoom isn't really a difficult thing to program in, and there would be tons of different ways to write the code - but the -concept- has been patented, which is fucking ridiculous.

 

[numble]

Those are FRAND patents - ie, patents that are licensed for pennies on the device, and are necessary for a phone to function. The argument is mostly that the cost to patent something like tap to zoom/pinch to zoom was -at it's lowest- something like 5 bucks a patent per device - I think now after the hearings its something like 40 bucks ea device.

Because tap to zoom/pinch to zoom are not FRAND/Necessary, they can be charged exorbitant amounts, regardless of their actual complexity. Something like pinch to zoom or tap to zoom isn't really a difficult thing to program in, and there would be tons of different ways to write the code - but the -concept- has been patented, which is fucking ridiculous.

Let's not be obnoxious and spread misinformation.

FRAND patents don't need to be licensed for pennies, they just need to be licensed in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner. Google is seeking 2.25% of sale cost for a couple of h.264 patents, for instance. It wouldn't be considered against FRAND simply because it was expensive, but you could argue it is against FRAND if they gave it away for pennies to some and not to others, or if you can prove that other similar h.264 patents don't have as high of a cost.

At its lowest, tap to zoom/pinch to zoom was NOT $5 per patent per device. It wasn't even $5 combined. It's not $40 per device after the verdict--it's actually probably even lower than the total of $4.04 quoted by Apple's expert.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ined-about-samsung-copying-in-2010-live-blog/
This is the Apple royalty expert at trial:

11:07: Musika is explaining what he means by “reasonable royalties.” He looked at Apple’s utility and design patents and whether Apple wanted to license them; how much money Samsung made; how much Apple lost; what the perceived value of the patents are, etc. Musika identified an individual rate for each patent: $3.10 (Patent 915- Apple design patent), $2.02 (Patent 381) and $2.02 (Patent 163). Apple has come into the market on the basis of its design…and its designs are of critical economic importance to Apple.”

With design patent and trade dress, Musika got to $24 per unit in royalty payments. If you just got calculated damages based on royalty payments, it’s about $540 million.

915 is pinch to zoom.
381 is bounceback.
163 is tap to zoom.

The trade dress accounts for most of the royalty request.

The jury foreman said they cut Apple's royalty request in half:
http://t.co/aZb3YF4r

The high rate per device you see from the verdict is because it includes trade dress, and because they found infringement without taking a license, so Apple is awarded the profits per device.

You are getting your software invalidation arguments wrong--pinch to zoom isn't one of those concept patents--those are things like, "emailing a photo on a mobile device", "playing music while using other apps", or the patents in the latest suit by Google against Apple, which includes patents like:

• a patent for "control over a plurality of media applications including telephony, video conferencing, analog video, digital video, and AC power line signaling"
• a patent for "the ability to sync the messaging capabilities of multiple devices"
• a patent for "pausing content in one device and resuming playback of the content in another device"
• a patent to "process messages logically for a user in the context of space and time" (location-based reminders)
• a patent for a "wireless communications systems for providing content to wireless communications devices" (read the patent and I think this is about email and SMS/MMS notifications)

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/20/motorolas-new-patent-lawsuit-against-apple-the-details/

Concept patents also include the infamous business method patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent

Pinch to zoom is a very specific method for zooming on a touchscreen device. If it were a patent on a concept, that would be like Apple patenting the ability to zoom on mobile devices. The arguments against pinch to zoom are based on stuff like prior art, obviousness, natural evolution, that there should be limits on length of validity of patents in fast-moving industries, that there shouldn't be patents just specifically for mobile devices, or just a belief that there shouldn't be software patents in general.

 

[Kinitari]

Let's not be obnoxious and spread misinformation.

FRAND patents don't need to be licensed for pennies, they just need to be licensed in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner. Google is seeking 2.25% of sale cost for a couple of h.264 patents, for instance. It wouldn't be considered against FRAND simply because it was expensive, but you could argue it is against FRAND if they gave it away for pennies to some and not to others, or if you can prove that other similar h.264 patents don't have as high of a cost.

At its lowest, tap to zoom/pinch to zoom was NOT $5 per patent per device. It wasn't even $5 combined. It's not $40 per device after the verdict--it's actually probably even lower than the total of $4.04 quoted by Apple's expert.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ined-about-samsung-copying-in-2010-live-blog/
This is the Apple royalty expert at trial:


915 is pinch to zoom.
381 is bounceback.
163 is tap to zoom.

The trade dress accounts for most of the royalty request.

The jury foreman said they cut Apple's royalty request in half:
http://t.co/aZb3YF4r

The high rate per device you see from the verdict is because it includes trade dress, and because they found infringement without taking a license, so Apple is awarded the profits per device.

You are getting your software invalidation arguments wrong--pinch to zoom isn't one of those concept patents--those are things like, "emailing a photo on a mobile device", "playing music while using other apps", or the patents in the latest suit by Google against Apple, which includes patents like:

• a patent for "control over a plurality of media applications including telephony, video conferencing, analog video, digital video, and AC power line signaling"
• a patent for "the ability to sync the messaging capabilities of multiple devices"
• a patent for "pausing content in one device and resuming playback of the content in another device"
• a patent to "process messages logically for a user in the context of space and time" (location-based reminders)
• a patent for a "wireless communications systems for providing content to wireless communications devices" (read the patent and I think this is about email and SMS/MMS notifications)

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/20/motorolas-new-patent-lawsuit-against-apple-the-details/

Concept patents also include the infamous business method patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent

Pinch to zoom is a very specific method for zooming on a touchscreen device. If it were a patent on a concept, that would be like Apple patenting the ability to zoom on mobile devices. The arguments against pinch to zoom are based on stuff like prior art, obviousness, natural evolution, that there should be limits on length of validity of patents in fast-moving industries, that there shouldn't be patents just specifically for mobile devices, or just a belief that there shouldn't be software patents in general.

I actually do appreciate this post, as it clears up quite a bit of misconceptions I had (ie, I assumed that it was still 40 dollars a device, although I did know that the prices were inflated cause of trade dress... which I obviously don't agree with either) - I mean, I still don't agree with the general premise of some things - for example, the prices put forth for pinch to zoom/tap/scroll bounce (still way too high) - I feel a bit more comfortable with the prices for H.264 as it is utilizing a very specific technology, but not -super- comfortable, as it's a bit controversial in how Google has gone about enforcing it. Also don't agree with the idea that 'pinch to zoom' or 'tap to zoom' isn't a concept patent. They describe the 'method' of execution, tapping and pinching - but not the code to do so. If someone writes completely different code and has it function the same way - yet still has it infringing, I would call it a 'concept' patent. Pinch to zoom/tap to zoom is on par with "move your finger up and down the screen to scroll" Which... fuck I bet there is a patent for. Which is infuriating.

Same as with googles 'syncing across multiple devices' - if the code is written differently, it shouldn't infringe - of course that's in my opinion.

Edit(this is actually my 4th or so edit, but this is a big one): I do find the nature of the Google(well Motorola, but we know it's Google) and Apple conflict that just transpired interesting. It's obvious that Google threw all this stuff at Apple in response to what happened to Samsung (or at least, are making it seem like it) - and I am wondering if they were hoping for an actual trial so that things could be dragged through the mud? That would make sense, and it would explain the timing and the uncharacteristic move by Google, but Apple I guess figured it out and decided settling for whatever amount (I would love to know) would work better for their image. All this patent shit is bullshit, but I kind of wish that Apple fought it, and we had another blowout. I think if it happens enough, maybe A) the public will start getting annoyed B) Companies will start to think it isn't worth it.

 

[Kurdel]

These Google patents are much more vague than the Apple ones... I mean, if this concept is executed differently, what's the problem? "receiving a message on two different devices" is on a completely different level than "pinch to zoom" on the fucked up meter.

Can't wait to see how the cross section of anti-Apple / anti-Patents venn diagram will spin this!

 

[Kinitari]

These Google patents are much more vague than the Apple ones... I mean, if this concept is executed differently, what's the problem? "receiving a message on two different devices" is on a completely different level than "pinch to zoom" on the fucked up meter.

Can't wait to see how the cross section of anti-Apple / anti-Patents venn diagram will spin this!

I completely agree that they're vague, but not 'much more' - the idea that touching and moving your fingers on a touch screen could be patented, or at least the results of which, are super easy to control. You can patent every useful gesture, and all of a sudden, to have a functional smartphone you need to pony up.

But let's be honest here - we all know that Google timed their 'assault' with said patents right after this trial ended for a reason. Using such patents non-defensively is not characteristic of them. I'm not sure I approve to be honest, so I hope the reasons are altruistic - ie, attacking Apple enough to make them 'back off' from future methods of litigation.

 

[ganbareneopokekun]

i found this video, steve got asked about suing other companies ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpXKRjHIl-Q

and its from 2000 .. this war about copying will go in forever ;D

 

[Argyle]

Bloomberg interview with jury foreman:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/jury...ung-trial-verdict-ikNjTofgRRecKM4cFXZoZA.html

"...the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art, and vice versa. And that means that they are not interchangeable, and that just changed everything right there."

(sigh)

 

[Technosteve]

i found this video, steve got asked about suing other companies ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpXKRjHIl-Q

and its from 2000 .. this war about copying will go in forever ;D

oh god he said this is Merka hahaha

 

[maharg]

"with my technical background... I've never heard of a turing machine."

 

[Kinitari]

"with my technical background... I've never heard of a turing machine."

The other day I told a girl (jokingly) she was so socially awkward, that she wouldn't pass the turing test. People (including her) laughed. I felt smart. I think that's my whole story.

 

[Happypwnstar]

Just saying, apple is hypocritical not saying other companies are't but they basically stole the GUI and "borrowed" the one button mouse. With out taking basically everything from Xerox apple wouldn't exist. Samsung just took a popular look and made something similar.

 

[tino]

Next? Go launch Nike+ on Android and iOS side by side. For example.
Literally every app is worse on Android than on iOS. It's basically like watching a toddler play ball and then seeing the Yankees.

Most of the time an iOS app doesn't react "faster", it has a "smoother" the transition. Many iOS fans don't know this.

If you have been a Mac owner for a while and have used both OS9/X and Windows, you know OS9/X UI has much smoother respond to human input. For example, unraring a file and then move that winrar window, I gaurantee you will see screen tearing on a windows machine. On a Mac machine you won't, no matter how slow the unzip process is. Apple simply put much higher priority to human input and UI interaction.

Why do I explain this to you? Because I want to remind you that not many people care about how smooth the UI is. If people care about this, OSX would have had much high marketshare. Instead people value price of the product much more so than UI smoothness.

If this is something you care about, you can go ahead and stick with an iPhone becuase in this particular area neither windows nor android care about it much. Ok actually google did pay attention in Jelly Bean but again, not many people care about it enough.

I have seen a lot of iPhone fans discussed this "faster" iOS UI but many people couldn't articulate it. Many people can't tell the diffrence between responsiveness of the UI and the quickness of the OS.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Far from identical situations, but modern computing would be far worse off if Xerox had aggressively defended it's inventions like modern computing companies do. The desktop metaphor was a Xerox idea, for christ's sake!

It's a good example of how an industry benefits greatly when people are free to make use of the best ideas that are already out there without worrying about differentiating just for the sake of differentiation. Likewise, the smartphone business would be far better off if none of these lawsuits had ever happened.

 

[numble]

Edit(this is actually my 4th or so edit, but this is a big one): I do find the nature of the Google(well Motorola, but we know it's Google) and Apple conflict that just transpired interesting. It's obvious that Google threw all this stuff at Apple in response to what happened to Samsung (or at least, are making it seem like it) - and I am wondering if they were hoping for an actual trial so that things could be dragged through the mud? That would make sense, and it would explain the timing and the uncharacteristic move by Google, but Apple I guess figured it out and decided settling for whatever amount (I would love to know) would work better for their image. All this patent shit is bullshit, but I kind of wish that Apple fought it, and we had another blowout. I think if it happens enough, maybe A) the public will start getting annoyed B) Companies will start to think it isn't worth it.

They sued before the trial ended, before the verdict was announced.

Apple only settled over FRAND patents in Germany. This is a case at the ITC over non-FRAND patents. It may be because Motorola's Germany case was forcing Apple to turn off push email functionality on their devices in Germany. In fact, since the article says they've only settled on *some* FRAND patents, it could be that it *only* are the push email patents.

 

[Talon]

Apple licensed Xerox's patents. This doesn't even relate in the least. PARC had no intention to pursue a GUI commercially, so Apple asked to license what they saw, and they expanded upon it.

And based on what even Gates and Ellison have said, Xerox's work was years away from practical consumer application.

That's how patents are supposed to work. You protect the originator but open up that work for iteration. Then after a fixed amount of years, it's open season on the originated method.

 

[LCfiner]

Not only did apple license the Xerox stuff, but that comment about the mouse is wrong, The Xerox machine used a three button mouse. Apple decided to keep things simple and designed the entire UI around the menu bar and the one button mouse.

 

[maharg]

I don't think Apple actually licensed anything from Xerox. There was a business arrangement, which included pre-IPO apple stock, that gave Apple access to Xerox' research projects but I don't think it was a license in the way any of what we're talking about here involves.

Xerox did try to sue Apple during the Apple v. MS trial. It was dismissed, but I'm not clear on why.

 

[numble]

They sued before the trial ended, before the verdict was announced.

Apple only settled over FRAND patents in Germany. This is a case at the ITC over non-FRAND patents. It may be because Motorola's Germany case was forcing Apple to turn off push email functionality on their devices in Germany. In fact, since the article says they've only settled on *some* FRAND patents, it could be that it *only* are the push email patents.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/google-loses-leverage-as-motorola.html

Reading FOSS, which broke the news, it looks like the push email patent is not a FRAND patent.

And it looks its not really a settlement--the deal is that Apple has agreed to license the FRAND patents at a yet to be determined rate, and Motorola is basically forced to accept it under German law. Motorola can no longer use these FRAND patents to sue Apple.

Apple has made an offer to license Motorola's declared cellular standards-essential patents from Motorola for the purpose of selling products in Germany. In light of Motorola's obligation to license these patents on FRAND terms, the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe has determined that Motorola must accept Apple's licensing terms or be in violation of German antitrust law. Accordingly, given the requirements of German law and the ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe, the question of liability is no longer an issue in Germany, although the parties will continue to litigate the amount of damages Apple must pay Motorola for the past infringement Motorola alleges and the amount of a FRAND license

 

[CharminUltra]

Not sure which one is the original image, but not only is this one funnier, it's also a whole lot more accurate.

BTW:

Device resale site Gazelle is citing Apple's $1.05 billion patent suit victory over Samsung as a main driver behind an increase in Samsung phone resales.

Gazelle notes that Android phones already have a lower resale value than do iPhones. The 16GB iPhone 4S currently sells for as much as $300 on some resale sites, while the Samsung Galaxy S II sells for $90. Gazelle says that the influx of Samsung phones over the last three days has driven their resale price down 10 percent as supply has increased.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/08/28/samsung.phone.prices.drop.10.percent.due.to.supply/

Sweet, sweet justice.

 

[maharg]

A phone one generation behind sells for less than a current generation phone? SHOCK AND AWE.

(also is that implying that people are selling their phones en masse because of a court ruling? Because lawl)

 

[buhdeh]

A phone one generation behind sells for less than a current generation phone? SHOCK AND AWE.

(also is that implying that people are selling their phones en masse because of a court ruling? Because lawl)

You expect better from him?

 

[maharg]

Apparently we've gone from consumers being so idiotic they can't read SAMSUNG plastered all over everything to consumers being so clever they're all up to date on a court case with tangential effects on the devices they already own.

 

[numble]

Apparently we've gone from consumers being so idiotic they can't read SAMSUNG plastered all over everything to consumers being so clever they're all up to date on a court case with tangential effects on the devices they already own.

The implication is that features like pinch to zoom will be removed.

You expect better from him?

You have an opinion on the statements of Gazelle?

 

[Talon]

I don't think Apple actually licensed anything from Xerox. There was a business arrangement, which included pre-IPO apple stock, that gave Apple access to Xerox' research projects but I don't think it was a license in the way any of what we're talking about here involves.

Xerox did try to sue Apple during the Apple v. MS trial. It was dismissed, but I'm not clear on why.

This was covered in Isaacson's book.

Xerox PARC was working on a GUI, but they were severely underfunded. There was one VP that was gungho about what they were working on and tried to prevent Apple from coming in multiple times. After negotiating with Xerox at a higher level (and some drama from that VP), a small team at Apple got access to Xerox in exchange for stock. Xerox saw this as a big win for them (and they probably made a nice profit from the equity stake come IPO) because PARC wasn't really a factor in their business.

Xerox had no intention of commercializing what the PARC team was working on. Their project had no menu metaphor at all (which makes you wonder, what in the hell it actually did) and the windows existed in a finite space (meaning no layering).

In fact, I recall Apple hired at least one person from that team to come over and actually build something usable.

The implication is that features like pinch to zoom will be removed.

Pinch to zoom was not covered in any of three patents. In fact, Apple doesn't own a patent on pinch to zoom. Utility Patent '915 is very narrow; it's only about detecting and differentiating between 1 and N-finger interactions. It doesn't cover the translation. Now, sure, '915 is obviously the necessary first step to start a pinch to zoom process...

Ars Technica and The Verge have been better about stating this than Forbes and (LAWL) BI, but they're still inconsistent about it.

 

[maharg]

This was covered in Isaacson's book.

Xerox PARC was working on a GUI, but they were severely underfunded. There was one VP that was gungho about what they were working on and tried to prevent Apple from coming in multiple times. After negotiating with Xerox at a higher level (and some drama from that VP), a small team at Apple got access to Xerox in exchange for stock. Xerox saw this as a big win for them (and they probably made a nice profit from the equity stake come IPO) because PARC wasn't really a factor in their business.

Xerox had no intention of commercializing what the PARC team was working on. Their project had no menu metaphor at all (which makes you wonder, what in the hell it actually did) and the windows existed in a finite space (meaning no layering).

In fact, I recall Apple hired at least one person from that team to come over and actually build something usable.

None of that disagrees with what I said, as far as I can see. There was no license agreement, only access granted. I'm not even sure if PARC actually patented any of the stuff involved. I think the mouse was patented, and Apple probably paid licensing for that, but it wasn't a PARC invention.

 

[Talon]

None of that disagrees with what I said, as far as I can see. There was no license agreement, only access granted. I'm not even sure if PARC actually patented any of the stuff involved. I think the mouse was patented, and Apple probably paid licensing for that, but it wasn't a PARC invention.

The mouse was invented back in the 60s.

The Xerox access was with the knowledge that Apple could use what they saw without interference from Xerox. It's not a license in the legal sense, but it was carte blanche usage. Again, the point is that this doesn't even relate at all to the Apple/Samsung case. Apple didn't invite Samsung to come over and take a look at what they're developing and sign an agreement to let them build devices based on what they learned.

 

[CharminUltra]

A phone one generation behind sells for less than a current generation phone? SHOCK AND AWE.

16GB iPhone 4 in good condition goes for $150. Still a lot higher than $90.

(also is that implying that people are selling their phones en masse because of a court ruling? Because lawl)

I'm sure the drop in price/increase in the number of people dumping their Samsung phones right after the verdict is just a coincidence. In the same way Samsung gadgets, accessories, stores, packaging, and ads suspiciously resembling Apple gadgets, accessories, stores, packaging, and ads is just a coincidence

 

[numble]

None of that disagrees with what I said, as far as I can see. There was no license agreement, only access granted. I'm not even sure if PARC actually patented any of the stuff involved. I think the mouse was patented, and Apple probably paid licensing for that, but it wasn't a PARC invention.

There was a license agreement:

From the Xerox v. Apple case:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3538913398421433687

Xerox' Smalltalk, which was developed in the mid-1970s at its Palo Alto Research Center ("PARC"), was the first computer language that allowed a user to interact with a computer through the use of a mouse (hand-held device). Smalltalk did not utilize on-screen icons (graphical representations of objects). In November of 1979, Steven Jobs, then-president of Apple, visited PARC with other Apple employees for a demonstration of Smalltalk. On June 9, 1981, Xerox granted Apple a license pursuant to which Apple agreed to "participate in a project with the Learning Research Group at PARC/Xerox for the purpose of implementing the Smalltalk-80 language and system on a hardware system to be developed by [Apple]."

And Apple developed based off of looking at Smalltalk:
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.p...Order=Sort by Date&detail=high&showcomments=1

Steve did see Smalltalk when he visited PARC. He saw the Smalltalk integrated programming environment, with the mouse selecting text, pop-up menus, windows, and so on. The Lisa group at Apple built a system based on their own ideas combined with what they could remember from the Smalltalk demo, and the Mac folks built yet another system. There is a significant difference between using the Mac and Smalltalk.

Smalltalk has no Finder, and no need for one, really. Drag-and- drop file manipulation came from the Mac group, along with many other unique concepts: resources and dual-fork files for storing layout and international information apart from code; definition procedures; drag-and-drop system extension and configuration; types and creators for files; direct manipulation editing of document, disk, and application names; redundant typed data for the clipboard; multiple views of the file system; desk accessories; and control panels, among others. The Lisa group invented some fundamental concepts as well: pull down menus, the imaging and windowing models based on QuickDraw, the clipboard, and cleanly internationalizable software.

Smalltalk had a three-button mouse and pop-up menus, in contrast to the Mac's menu bar and one-button mouse. Smalltalk didn't even have self-repairing windows - you had to click in them to get them to repaint, and programs couldn't draw into partially obscured windows. Bill Atkinson did not know this, so he invented regions as the basis of QuickDraw and the Window Manager so that he could quickly draw in covered windows and repaint portions of windows brought to the front. One Macintosh feature identical to a Smalltalk feature is selection-based modeless text editing with cut and paste, which was created by Larry Tesler for his Gypsy editor at PARC.

As you may be gathering, the difference between the Xerox system architectures and Macintosh architecture is huge; much bigger than the difference between the Mac and Windows. It's not surprising, since Microsoft saw quite a bit of the Macintosh design (API's,sample code, etc.) during the Mac's development from 1981 to 1984; the intention was to help them write applications for the Mac, and it also gave their system designers a template from which to design Windows. In contrast, the Mac and Lisa designers had to invent their own architectures. Of course, there were some ex- Xerox people in the Lisa and Mac groups, but the design point for these machines was so different that we didn't leverage our knowledge of the Xerox systems as much as some people think.

The hardware itself was an amazing step forward as well. It offered an all-in-one design, four-voice sound, small footprint, clock, auto-eject floppies, serial ports, and so on. The small, portable, appealing case was a serious departure from the ugly- box-on-an-ugly-box PC world, thanks to Jerry Manock and his crew. Even the packaging showed amazing creativity and passion - do any of you remember unpacking an original 128K Mac? The Mac, the unpacking instructions, the profusely-illustrated and beautifully- written manuals, and the animated practice program with audio cassette were tastefully packaged in a cardboard box with Picasso- style graphics on the side.

 

[virtuoso88]

16GB iPhone 4 in good condition goes for $150. Still a lot higher than $90.

I'm sure the drop in price/increase in the number of people dumping their Samsung phones right after the verdict is just a coincidence. In the same way Samsung gadgets, accessories, stores, packaging, and ads suspiciously resembling Apple gadgets, accessories, stores, packaging, and ads is just a coincidence

The iphone 4 also cost at least 60 dollars more initially too.

 

[maharg]

On June 9, 1981, Xerox granted Apple a license pursuant to which Apple agreed to "participate in a project with the Learning Research Group at PARC/Xerox for the purpose of implementing the Smalltalk-80 language and system on a hardware system to be developed by [Apple]."

Huh. I've never come across that. I'm not sure it'd count, though, since Apple certainly did nothing of the sort. I think you'd be hard pressed to make a claim that MacOS in the 80s even remotely resembled anything to do with Smalltalk-80. NeXT/OSX are actually much closer in a lot of ways, but still not really all that similar.

 

[Technosteve]

Apparently we've gone from consumers being so idiotic they can't read SAMSUNG plastered all over everything to consumers being so clever they're all up to date on a court case with tangential effects on the devices they already own.

You seem really invested in something you have no control over.