If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BGR)   Samsung: Apple wouldn't have sold a single iPhone without stealing our tech   (bgr.com) divider line 146
    More: Interesting, Apple Inc., Samsung, iPhone, Jonathan Ive  
•       •       •

3819 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Jul 2012 at 1:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-25 02:49:57 PM

zedster: Vaneshi: CUPS, Common Unix Print System. aka OS X's print spool.
WebKit (formerly KHTML) aka Safari's rendering engine.
XQuartz, forms X11.app and is based off of the xorg code tree with commits heading upstream.

Apple bought CUPS

Webkit is from KDE

XQuartz no longer supports X11 apps


CUPS is part of every Linux distro, it's FOSS with Apple providing large commits.

WebKit actually works and works well, unlike KHTML which as anyone (including me) who used those versions of Konqurer will tell you was a bit of a dogs dinner.

The X11 layer no longer runs X11 applications... I don't believe you and will thus go and fact check. Hmm...

"The XQuartz project is an open-source effort to develop a version of the X.Org X Window System that runs on OS X. Together with supporting libraries and applications, it forms the X11.app that Apple has shipped with OS X since version 10.5." Current version support 10.8 (i.e. the one released today).

Nope still runs X11 applications. You're thinking of QuartzExtreme which is something quite different.
 
2012-07-25 02:50:50 PM

BullBearMS: NutznGum: BullBearMS: NutznGum: So, what you're saying is Apple got the whole idea from Xerox. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's pretty obvious you have no idea how the Xerox Alto worked. File management, starting programs, and printing documents for instance, were all handled from a command prompt.

Why don't you take a look at the Alto User's Handbook? (Warning - PDF file)

I don't know or care how Xerox Alto worked.

Well, I'm sure everyone is just thrilled that you're so opinionated about something you have no knowledge of.

Perhaps you should run for political office. You'll fit right in.


You edited out the rest of my post and cherry picked the sentence that fits with your assertion. If I do run for office, you can be my campaign manager, you'll fit right in.
 
2012-07-25 02:52:09 PM
So... just to make sure I'm understanding you guys:

Apple sues Samsung for theft of tech: Apple is a patent troll
Samsung sues Apple for theft of tech: Apple is a tech thief.
 
2012-07-25 02:56:30 PM

theurge14: Marine1: theurge14: Marine1: zedster: how can you have a whole thread about Apple stealing and no mention of taking from the BSD community and not giving a damn thing back?

At least Windows is it's own OS, OS X is just a bunch of proprietary packages over BSD

This.

It's a large part of why I respect the FOSS community and Microsoft a lot more than Apple. If Apple had to actually develop and maintain an OS from scratch (like NT), believe you me, OS X upgrades would not be $20.

Are you joking? I'm serious, are you?

I'm not joking.

So you believe Microsoft built NT from scratch? So IBM and OS/2 mean nothing to you?

Let's look at what all gets upgraded when Microsoft releases a new desktop client version of Windows (forget Server):

I'm not referring to this, Windows and Mac OS X are released on completely different upgrade paths.

Apple doesn't have to invest nearly as much into their platform as most of it was developed out of house. Linux is supported by donations of time and money.

It appears you don't know about OS X as much as you think you do.


Oh, I know about OS/2. My dad's friend works at IBM and is still pretty bitter about the whole thing... almost 20 years later. However, Microsoft still did the lion's share of development on the kernel that became Windows NT instead of OS/2's upgrade. If they hadn't, it's probable that they wouldn't have been able to switch the APIs from OS/2 to Windows.

If they're on separate upgrade paths, then the whining about Windows' price and comparisons to the price of OS X upgrades need to stop as well. Maybe we're arguing the same point from different sides here.

I know plenty about OS X's development and how Apple came across it... it's a working operating system that was a revelation compared to the stream of MacOS products that came before it. But let's please stop pretending that Apple's engineering efforts in regards to OS X are the same that Microsoft's are in regards to Windows. They're not.
 
2012-07-25 03:01:27 PM

BullBearMS: Marine1: OS X upgrades would not be $20

OSX upgrades are not 20 dollars.

For 20 dollars, you are allowed to upgrade every Mac you personally own, plus use two instances of the OS in a virtual machine on each machine for that flat 20 dollar fee.

This isn't a limited time offer. This is how much OSX costs every day.

If your household has several PC's and you attempted to pay Microsoft for the equivalent rights, you would be able to buy a nice laptop like a Macbook Air with the price difference.




B-bu-but Apple Tax!

/Apple Jacks
 
2012-07-25 03:03:06 PM

Theaetetus: zedster: Theaetetus: But here's the problem... Samsung is treading on very dangerous ground here, since they're obligated under FRAND to allow Apple to purchase a license at a reasonable rate, which Apple claims* they tried to do. If* that's true and Samsung was trying to charge Apple more because of Apple's other lawsuits against Samsung, then Samsung may have been misusing the patent...
... which not only gets the DoJ's antitrust hackles up, it also makes their patent legally unenforceable.
In other words, if this doesn't turn out well, it's not just that Samsung loses this case, but that they lose every case related to the patent.

You skipped the part were most other companies in the cellular arena cross license patents instead of paying a cash value, making their FRAND patents worth what ever they think they are. Apple, only having a few WIFI patents, had nothing to leverage and thus has to pay "market price" for the FRAND patents. Nokia, Samsung, etc.... can argue the value of their patents is worth what ever their co-licenses value their own patents at. So if Nokia says their FRAND patents are worth 2 billion a year and than cross-license to Samsung for say 100 million a year, than Samsung could argue their patents are worth 1.9 billion a year. (numbers inflated to simplify things)

DoJ already thought of that loophole. If you only cross-license among your patent pool, then fair and reasonable license fees to third parties not in the pool may be determined by independent market experts... not the pool members' questionable internal accounting. It's one of the examples in the 1995 Antitrust Guidelines, even.


""Samsung's royalty demands are multiple times more than Apple has paid any other patentees for licenses to their declared-essential patent portfolios," Apple said in the documents.

However, Samsung said in a separate filing on Wednesday that its offer "is consistent with the royalty rates other companies charge" and that Apple never made a counter offer.

"Instead, it simply rejected Samsung's opening offer, refused to negotiate further and to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple's use of Samsung's standards-essential technology," Samsung said."

Sounds like they just didn't like the price and decided they didn't have to pay.

Do we know what patents were violated to cause HTC to have to pay Microsoft a few dollars every phone?
 
2012-07-25 03:04:32 PM

schattenteufel: So... just to make sure I'm understanding you guys:

Apple sues Samsung for theft of tech: Apple is a patent troll
Samsung sues Apple for theft of tech: Apple is a tech thief.


No, they're hypocrites and shouldn't have started any of this shiat.
 
2012-07-25 03:07:30 PM

schattenteufel: So... just to make sure I'm understanding you guys:

Apple sues Samsung for theft of tech: Apple is a patent troll
Samsung sues Apple for theft of tech: Apple is a tech thief.


The facts are actually more interesting.

Apple doesn't make the chip that handles the phone functions of it's phone. Qualcomm (now owned by Intel) makes those.

Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the use of Samsung's patents already, and this license covers Qualcomm's customers.

So basically, Samsung is trying to use patents they have already been paid for as a weapon after they got caught violating Apple's patents.

There is a legal concept called patent exhaustion which does not allow a company that has already been paid a patent fee once for a product that is made to try to get paid again, but this is still working it's way through the various nation's court systems.
 
2012-07-25 03:13:31 PM

BullBearMS: Marine1: OS X upgrades would not be $20

OSX upgrades are not 20 dollars.

For 20 dollars, you are allowed to upgrade every Mac you personally own, plus use two instances of the OS in a virtual machine on each machine for that flat 20 dollar fee.

This isn't a limited time offer. This is how much OSX costs every day.

If your household has several PC's and you attempted to pay Microsoft for the equivalent rights, you would be able to buy a nice laptop like a Macbook Air with the price difference.


They're making it an Mac App Store-only deal with... what's the one they're releasing today?... Mountain Lion. Looking at Apple's website, I don't see a boxed release, either. Does this mean you have to do it per computer or do you only download it once and then stick it on every machine?

And in order to reach the price of a MacBook Air with Windows 7 Home Premium upgrades, you'd have to upgrade somewhere around 20 computers.
 
2012-07-25 03:13:33 PM

BullBearMS: schattenteufel: So... just to make sure I'm understanding you guys:

Apple sues Samsung for theft of tech: Apple is a patent troll
Samsung sues Apple for theft of tech: Apple is a tech thief.

The facts are actually more interesting.

Apple doesn't make the chip that handles the phone functions of it's phone. Qualcomm (now owned by Intel) makes those.

Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the use of Samsung's patents already, and this license covers Qualcomm's customers.

So basically, Samsung is trying to use patents they have already been paid for as a weapon after they got caught violating Apple's patents.

There is a legal concept called patent exhaustion which does not allow a company that has already been paid a patent fee once for a product that is made to try to get paid again, but this is still working it's way through the various nation's court systems.


As I understand it, once Apple violated the no-sue terms of the old arrangement, the old arrangement went out the window.
 
2012-07-25 03:14:34 PM

Marine1: theurge14: Marine1: theurge14: Marine1: zedster: how can you have a whole thread about Apple stealing and no mention of taking from the BSD community and not giving a damn thing back?

At least Windows is it's own OS, OS X is just a bunch of proprietary packages over BSD

This.

It's a large part of why I respect the FOSS community and Microsoft a lot more than Apple. If Apple had to actually develop and maintain an OS from scratch (like NT), believe you me, OS X upgrades would not be $20.

Are you joking? I'm serious, are you?

I'm not joking.

So you believe Microsoft built NT from scratch? So IBM and OS/2 mean nothing to you?

Let's look at what all gets upgraded when Microsoft releases a new desktop client version of Windows (forget Server):

I'm not referring to this, Windows and Mac OS X are released on completely different upgrade paths.

Apple doesn't have to invest nearly as much into their platform as most of it was developed out of house. Linux is supported by donations of time and money.

It appears you don't know about OS X as much as you think you do.

Oh, I know about OS/2. My dad's friend works at IBM and is still pretty bitter about the whole thing... almost 20 years later. However, Microsoft still did the lion's share of development on the kernel that became Windows NT instead of OS/2's upgrade. If they hadn't, it's probable that they wouldn't have been able to switch the APIs from OS/2 to Windows.


If by lion's share of development you mean they secretly worked on something they called "NT OS/2" in parallel as they developed for OS/2, then sure.

Yes they put in work after they hired many from Digital's VMS team over to work on the new Mach-like kernel and the HAL, but this is hardly "from scratch". This is similar to what Apple did with the NeXT team with XNU and Darwin.

If they're on separate upgrade paths, then the whining about Windows' price and comparisons to the price of OS X upgrades need to stop as well. Maybe we're arguing the same point from different sides here.

I'm fine with that.

I know plenty about OS X's development and how Apple came across it... it's a working operating system that was a revelation compared to the stream of MacOS products that came before it. But let's please stop pretending that Apple's engineering efforts in regards to OS X are the same that Microsoft's are in regards to Windows. They're not.

Completely disagree. An incredible amount of work has been put into the OS since 2001. Despite what some believe, OS X did not come about by someone downloading FreeBSD and sticking an Aqua theme on KDE and shipping it. WebKit is not simple a rebranded KHTML and the GUI that the original Mac had did not get built by someone from Apple going over to PARC and copying a bunch of files to a floppy and walking back to Cupertino.
 
2012-07-25 03:19:07 PM

theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]
[i.imgur.com image 155x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x350]
[i.imgur.com image 163x300]
[i.imgur.com image 327x383]
[i.imgur.com image 257x300]
[i.imgur.com image 179x300]
[i.imgur.com image 193x299]
[i.imgur.com image 235x299]
[i.imgur.com image 193x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x299]
[i.imgur.com image 183x298]

Samsung phones since the iPhone:

[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]


You conveniently left this one off your "before" list:

www.yourmobilephone.co.uk
 
2012-07-25 03:22:42 PM

The Singing Bush: theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]
[i.imgur.com image 155x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x350]
[i.imgur.com image 163x300]
[i.imgur.com image 327x383]
[i.imgur.com image 257x300]
[i.imgur.com image 179x300]
[i.imgur.com image 193x299]
[i.imgur.com image 235x299]
[i.imgur.com image 193x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x299]
[i.imgur.com image 183x298]

Samsung phones since the iPhone:

[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]

You conveniently left this one off your "before" list:

[www.yourmobilephone.co.uk image 352x317]


Didn't conveniently leave it out.

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007"

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
 
2012-07-25 03:27:26 PM

theurge14: The Singing Bush: theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]
[i.imgur.com image 155x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x350]
[i.imgur.com image 163x300]
[i.imgur.com image 327x383]
[i.imgur.com image 257x300]
[i.imgur.com image 179x300]
[i.imgur.com image 193x299]
[i.imgur.com image 235x299]
[i.imgur.com image 193x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x299]
[i.imgur.com image 183x298]

Samsung phones since the iPhone:

[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]

You conveniently left this one off your "before" list:

[www.yourmobilephone.co.uk image 352x317]

Didn't conveniently leave it out.

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007"

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."


So you're saying Samsung built a new product in a month?
 
2012-07-25 03:28:28 PM
theflatline:
Really? There were windows phones as early as 2003.

And those early windows phones did everything the first iPhones did plus more (Exchange & VPN are the biggies).



theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:
...
Samsung phones since the iPhone:

...


I notice a few phones missing there. The Rugby? Charge? There are plenty others from Samsung that are flip or have keyboards.

Samsung isn't the only one that is going with the large square screen. Everybody is going that way because that's what the consumer wants. We didn't have the selection of large screen phones before because of battery life. I have a phone sitting on my desk from '06 (xv6700) that is a large screen for its time. The battery was horrible in it. Since that phone came out in '06 and the iPhone came out in '07, does that mean Apple was copying the design from it? All they did was take away physical buttons and made them virtual. The physical shape was similar.

If Apple didn't come out with the iPhone, the only difference would be that Android wouldn't be as big and the smart phone market would be controlled by RIM and Microsoft. We would still have the slim, large screen phones.


My problem with all of this is the patent system and the trolls the abuse the system.
 
2012-07-25 03:31:14 PM

robhidalgo: B-bu-but Apple Tax!


Yea... Now that companies are starting to make machines with roughly equivalent specs and build quality, it turns out that their laptops are in the same price range with Apple.

For instance, Dell's shiny new XPS 15 has roughly the same specs, build quality and price as a Macbook Pro. ASUS' new Zenbook Prime is roughly equivalent to a Macbook Air in specs, build quality, and price.

The same sort of pricing holds for Apple's "Office" type apps. You pay once and get to install the apps on every computer in your household.

The price gouging here, comes from Microsoft's rape, rape, rapity, rape fees for Office and the OS. It's not only more expensive to start with, but you have to pay for every computer in your household.

If you and your family members each have your own PC's, your family doesn't have to be very big before you can get a new computer with the price difference between Apple and Microsoft's upgrade fees alone.
 
2012-07-25 03:35:20 PM

Dear Jerk: Marcus Aurelius
Apple wouldn't even exist any more if they didn't steal other people's tech. Starting with Xerox.

Ah,the Xerox myth. Xerox, at the time, was contractually obligated to show Apple all its projects. They tried to hide the mouse from Apple, but Apple sniffed it out and demanded to see it. After that, Apple developed a mouse that was far cheaper and more functional the the Xerox, which couldn't even drag diagonally.


I'mma gona neet a big, fat steaming cite for that because that's not at all the story I heard from folks who were at PARC at the time
 
2012-07-25 03:35:27 PM

Marine1: They're making it an Mac App Store-only deal with... what's the one they're releasing today?... Mountain Lion. Looking at Apple's website, I don't see a boxed release, either. Does this mean you have to do it per computer or do you only download it once and then stick it on every machine?

And in order to reach the price of a MacBook Air with Windows 7 Home Premium upgrades, you'd have to upgrade somewhere around 20 computers.


Are you pretending Microsoft's limited time offer price is the real price? Why yes you are.

Sorry, having a product that is sold over the course of years have a sale price for a couple of weeks, does not the real price make.

And yes, you pay for OSX once stick it on every machine. You can make a USB key installer just as you can with Windows.

The same holds true with Apple's "Office" type apps. Pay once. Install on every machine in your household.
 
2012-07-25 03:38:16 PM

change1211: theurge14: The Singing Bush: theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]
[i.imgur.com image 155x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x350]
[i.imgur.com image 163x300]
[i.imgur.com image 327x383]
[i.imgur.com image 257x300]
[i.imgur.com image 179x300]
[i.imgur.com image 193x299]
[i.imgur.com image 235x299]
[i.imgur.com image 193x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x299]
[i.imgur.com image 183x298]

Samsung phones since the iPhone:

[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]

You conveniently left this one off your "before" list:

[www.yourmobilephone.co.uk image 352x317]

Didn't conveniently leave it out.

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007"

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."

So you're saying Samsung built a new product in a month?


And the F700 had leaked the previous year, before Apple announced the iPhone. The design was public knowledge.
 
2012-07-25 03:38:24 PM

change1211: theurge14: The Singing Bush: theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]
[i.imgur.com image 155x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x350]
[i.imgur.com image 163x300]
[i.imgur.com image 327x383]
[i.imgur.com image 257x300]
[i.imgur.com image 179x300]
[i.imgur.com image 193x299]
[i.imgur.com image 235x299]
[i.imgur.com image 193x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x299]
[i.imgur.com image 183x298]

Samsung phones since the iPhone:

[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]

You conveniently left this one off your "before" list:

[www.yourmobilephone.co.uk image 352x317]

Didn't conveniently leave it out.

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007"

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."

So you're saying Samsung built a new product in a month?


Maybe they just rounded the edges and added icons after seeing the iPhone
 
2012-07-25 03:38:25 PM

emocomputerjock: BullBearMS: schattenteufel: So... just to make sure I'm understanding you guys:

Apple sues Samsung for theft of tech: Apple is a patent troll
Samsung sues Apple for theft of tech: Apple is a tech thief.

The facts are actually more interesting.

Apple doesn't make the chip that handles the phone functions of it's phone. Qualcomm (now owned by Intel) makes those.

Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the use of Samsung's patents already, and this license covers Qualcomm's customers.

So basically, Samsung is trying to use patents they have already been paid for as a weapon after they got caught violating Apple's patents.

There is a legal concept called patent exhaustion which does not allow a company that has already been paid a patent fee once for a product that is made to try to get paid again, but this is still working it's way through the various nation's court systems.

As I understand it, once Apple violated the no-sue terms of the old arrangement, the old arrangement went out the window.


Not entirely sure about the other details mentioned, but exhaustion is a legal doctrine, not an agreement. If Samsung's patent rights were exhausted, they can't sue over them regardless of any breach of other contracts.
 
2012-07-25 03:38:54 PM

theflatline: sure haven't: unlikely: Samsung was making the best phones they knew how to make, Apple was just better at figuring out what would sell.

My opinion as well. You can fault Apple for a lot, but you can't deny the fact that they made a product for the consumer. One that "just works". I mean that's where the freakin cliche came from. They changed the game. I say this as someone who owns not a single Apple product. In fact I'm fully Microsoft. PC, Xbox, Windows Phone. But you better believe there would NOT be a windows phone if there was no iPhone. It's quality, pure and simple.

Really? There were windows phones as early as 2003.


Actually no, that was windows "mobile". Well I mean yes technically it was a "Windows" phone device. But it wasn't anything like the Windows Phone platform. This OS is a pure and clean mimic of iOS. Windows mobile was a mobile version of a desktop operating system with a start menu and everything. The two are about as vastly different as you can get.
Without the iPhone, there would be no Windows Phone platform today. They'd still be muddling around with Windows Mobile.
 
2012-07-25 03:41:36 PM

sure haven't: theflatline: sure haven't: unlikely: Samsung was making the best phones they knew how to make, Apple was just better at figuring out what would sell.

My opinion as well. You can fault Apple for a lot, but you can't deny the fact that they made a product for the consumer. One that "just works". I mean that's where the freakin cliche came from. They changed the game. I say this as someone who owns not a single Apple product. In fact I'm fully Microsoft. PC, Xbox, Windows Phone. But you better believe there would NOT be a windows phone if there was no iPhone. It's quality, pure and simple.

Really? There were windows phones as early as 2003.

Actually no, that was windows "mobile". Well I mean yes technically it was a "Windows" phone device. But it wasn't anything like the Windows Phone platform. This OS is a pure and clean mimic of iOS. Windows mobile was a mobile version of a desktop operating system with a start menu and everything. The two are about as vastly different as you can get.
Without the iPhone, there would be no Windows Phone platform today. They'd still be muddling around with Windows Mobile.


Muddling being too kind a word. I certainly miss doing the 4 month refresh on our company Blackjack II's...
 
2012-07-25 03:42:00 PM

emocomputerjock: As I understand it, once Apple violated the no-sue terms of the old arrangement, the old arrangement went out the window.


Patent exhaustion does not go out the window. It's an old legal concept. If you have been paid once for the patent on a manufactured item, once that item is sold, you can't go after the person who purchased if.

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder's exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law.

Samsung did break an agreement with Qualcomm that explicitly said they would never go after Qualcomm's customers for using the licensed patents, but that doesn't make the legal concept of patent exhaustion go away.

Qualcomm has already paid Samsung once.

We'll have to see how the courts in the various nations react, of course.
 
2012-07-25 03:48:29 PM

Marine1: However, Microsoft still did the lion's share of development on the kernel that became Windows NT instead of OS/2's upgrade.


Not so fast there. The original NT OS/2 project was headed by David Cutler, formally of Digital Equipment Corp (DEC). He was a core developer of DEC VMS and project manager of the [canceled] DEC Mica OS. After he was laid off by DEC, Microsoft hired him, a couple dozen fellow developers and a few processor architects from DEC.

The NT kernel is heavily influenced by VMS. So while Microsoft may have paid the lion's share towards payroll to write those lines of code, it was DEC that paid for the original research that these guys took with them to Microsoft.


zedster: OS X is just a bunch of proprietary packages over BSD


It is a little more complicated than that, but yeah, they rely heavily upon code with BSD or MIT licenses. But that is the benefit (or downfall) of a BSD or MIT license.


dalmo: Jake Havechek: Microsoft would not exist if Bill Gates hadn't stolen his OS from Xerox purchased his operating system from Seattle Computer Products.


Which in turn was heavily influenced by Digital Research CP/M. Gates essentially bought an 808x clone of another OS.
 
2012-07-25 03:50:34 PM

BullBearMS: Marine1: They're making it an Mac App Store-only deal with... what's the one they're releasing today?... Mountain Lion. Looking at Apple's website, I don't see a boxed release, either. Does this mean you have to do it per computer or do you only download it once and then stick it on every machine?

And in order to reach the price of a MacBook Air with Windows 7 Home Premium upgrades, you'd have to upgrade somewhere around 20 computers.

Are you pretending Microsoft's limited time offer price is the real price? Why yes you are.

Sorry, having a product that is sold over the course of years have a sale price for a couple of weeks, does not the real price make.

And yes, you pay for OSX once stick it on every machine. You can make a USB key installer just as you can with Windows.

The same holds true with Apple's "Office" type apps. Pay once. Install on every machine in your household.


The Windows 7 Home Premium 3-pack has been available for quite a while now. It's not a limited-time offer.

Can someone try the new Mountain Lion upgrade and tell us how it works? I'm genuinely curious to see if you can still upgrade multiple machines with the Mac Store upgrade path they offer. Given the nature of most application stores and their wares, I'd be surprised.
 
2012-07-25 04:00:38 PM

Magorn: Dear Jerk: Marcus Aurelius
Apple wouldn't even exist any more if they didn't steal other people's tech. Starting with Xerox.

Ah,the Xerox myth. Xerox, at the time, was contractually obligated to show Apple all its projects. They tried to hide the mouse from Apple, but Apple sniffed it out and demanded to see it. After that, Apple developed a mouse that was far cheaper and more functional the the Xerox, which couldn't even drag diagonally.

I'mma gona neet a big, fat steaming cite for that because that's not at all the story I heard from folks who were at PARC at the time


The story as I have always heard it, was that there were certain people at PARC who realized that Xerox was crazy to show Apple everything at PARC for just the right to purchase a million dollars worth of Apple stock at pre-IPO prices. They did try to hide some things from Apple, but the mouse wasn't one of those things.

Heck, the mouse was invented at the Stanford Research Institute for NLS which was the computer that served as the inspiration for the Alto in the first place.
 
2012-07-25 04:03:30 PM

Marine1: BullBearMS: Marine1: They're making it an Mac App Store-only deal with... what's the one they're releasing today?... Mountain Lion. Looking at Apple's website, I don't see a boxed release, either. Does this mean you have to do it per computer or do you only download it once and then stick it on every machine?

And in order to reach the price of a MacBook Air with Windows 7 Home Premium upgrades, you'd have to upgrade somewhere around 20 computers.

Are you pretending Microsoft's limited time offer price is the real price? Why yes you are.

Sorry, having a product that is sold over the course of years have a sale price for a couple of weeks, does not the real price make.

And yes, you pay for OSX once stick it on every machine. You can make a USB key installer just as you can with Windows.

The same holds true with Apple's "Office" type apps. Pay once. Install on every machine in your household.

The Windows 7 Home Premium 3-pack has been available for quite a while now. It's not a limited-time offer.

Can someone try the new Mountain Lion upgrade and tell us how it works? I'm genuinely curious to see if you can still upgrade multiple machines with the Mac Store upgrade path they offer. Given the nature of most application stores and their wares, I'd be surprised.


Not sure about anyone else's account, but I've upgraded my three computers with nary a worry or mention that "You're limited on the number of computers you can upgrade." Then again, I do have a dev account.
 
2012-07-25 04:07:08 PM

Marine1: The Windows 7 Home Premium 3-pack has been available for quite a while now. It's not a limited-time offer.


It's also 300 bucks for only 3 computers. Also, Home Premium is a feature limited version of the OS.

Apple's OS is the full version for 19.99 which covers every computer you own.

Marine1: I'm genuinely curious to see if you can still upgrade multiple machines with the Mac Store upgrade path they offer.


Ars Technica:

As has been the case for all non-server versions of the Mac operating system, Mountain Lion has no serial number, no product activation, and no DRM of any kind. The standard Mac App Store license terms allow customers to install a copy of the software on "each Apple-branded computer [...] that you own or control," including two additional copies on each Mac inside virtual machines.
 
2012-07-25 04:09:26 PM
Magorn

Dear Jerk: Marcus Aurelius
Apple ...Xerox...mouse

I'mma gona neet a big, fat steaming cite for that because that's not at all the story I heard from folks who were at PARC at the time

It's covered pretty well in Isaacson's bio of Jobs.
 
2012-07-25 04:13:34 PM

BullBearMS: Marine1: The Windows 7 Home Premium 3-pack has been available for quite a while now. It's not a limited-time offer.

It's also 300 bucks for only 3 computers. Also, Home Premium is a feature limited version of the OS.

Apple's OS is the full version for 19.99 which covers every computer you own.

Marine1: I'm genuinely curious to see if you can still upgrade multiple machines with the Mac Store upgrade path they offer.

Ars Technica:

As has been the case for all non-server versions of the Mac operating system, Mountain Lion has no serial number, no product activation, and no DRM of any kind. The standard Mac App Store license terms allow customers to install a copy of the software on "each Apple-branded computer [...] that you own or control," including two additional copies on each Mac inside virtual machines.


Mac users pay more initially and less as time goes on if they choose to upgrade
Windows users pay less initially and more as time goes on if they choose to upgrade.

Sounds like it balances out.
 
2012-07-25 04:19:19 PM

change1211: BullBearMS: Marine1: The Windows 7 Home Premium 3-pack has been available for quite a while now. It's not a limited-time offer.

It's also 300 bucks for only 3 computers. Also, Home Premium is a feature limited version of the OS.

Apple's OS is the full version for 19.99 which covers every computer you own.

Marine1: I'm genuinely curious to see if you can still upgrade multiple machines with the Mac Store upgrade path they offer.

Ars Technica:

As has been the case for all non-server versions of the Mac operating system, Mountain Lion has no serial number, no product activation, and no DRM of any kind. The standard Mac App Store license terms allow customers to install a copy of the software on "each Apple-branded computer [...] that you own or control," including two additional copies on each Mac inside virtual machines.

Mac users pay more initially and less as time goes on if they choose to upgrade
Windows users pay less initially and more as time goes on if they choose to upgrade.

Sounds like it balances out.


I'd argue if you want to have a balanced outlook you have to think of each service pack as equivalent to an OS X upgrade, in which case each release of Windows is at least 3 upgrades
 
2012-07-25 04:22:52 PM

change1211: Mac users pay more initially and less as time goes on if they choose to upgrade
Windows users pay less initially and more as time goes on if they choose to upgrade.


Windows users do have the option of buying cheap plastic crap computers, but when you buy a Windows laptop with the same specs and of the same build quality, they cost about the same amount.

For instance, ASUS' Zenbook Prime is an awesome little ultrabook. It uses a display panel that has a higher resolution and better color accuracy than the Macbook Air. However, it's more expensive than the Air too. Quality costs money.

Cheap plastic crap laptops are cheap for a reason. shiatty keyboards, trackpads that don't work worth a damn, and poor quality displays do not a good user experience make.
 
2012-07-25 04:24:12 PM

theurge14: The Singing Bush: theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]
[i.imgur.com image 155x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x350]
[i.imgur.com image 163x300]
[i.imgur.com image 327x383]
[i.imgur.com image 257x300]
[i.imgur.com image 179x300]
[i.imgur.com image 193x299]
[i.imgur.com image 235x299]
[i.imgur.com image 193x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x299]
[i.imgur.com image 183x298]

Samsung phones since the iPhone:

[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]

You conveniently left this one off your "before" list:

[www.yourmobilephone.co.uk image 352x317]

Didn't conveniently leave it out.

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007"

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."


Photos of the F700 leaked to the public back in August 2006

Look at how those icons in the bottom right photo are arranged. Even had a second camera on the front for video calls.
 
2012-07-25 04:31:58 PM

Marine1: Can someone try the new Mountain Lion upgrade and tell us how it works? I'm genuinely curious to see if you can still upgrade multiple machines with the Mac Store upgrade path they offer. Given the nature of most application stores and their wares, I'd be surprised.


It works just like is was described. I just upgraded my iMac and my wife's Macbook this morning without incident, just like when Lion came out last July. If you don't want to have to download a 4 GB installed twice, you can also open the installation package and copy the install files to a flash drive or DVD.
 
2012-07-25 04:35:07 PM

BullBearMS: Marine1: The Windows 7 Home Premium 3-pack has been available for quite a while now. It's not a limited-time offer.

It's also 300 bucks for only 3 computers. Also, Home Premium is a feature limited version of the OS.

Apple's OS is the full version for 19.99 which covers every computer you own.

Marine1: I'm genuinely curious to see if you can still upgrade multiple machines with the Mac Store upgrade path they offer.

Ars Technica:

As has been the case for all non-server versions of the Mac operating system, Mountain Lion has no serial number, no product activation, and no DRM of any kind. The standard Mac App Store license terms allow customers to install a copy of the software on "each Apple-branded computer [...] that you own or control," including two additional copies on each Mac inside virtual machines.


That's actually a very good deal.
 
2012-07-25 04:37:37 PM

zedster: I'd argue if you want to have a balanced outlook you have to think of each service pack as equivalent to an OS X upgrade, in which case each release of Windows is at least 3 upgrades


Is this a joke or are you another one of those "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I have a strong opinion" people?

Apple numbers it's major releases and "service packs" differently than Microsoft. They use a three number format.

OSX version numbers always start with the 10.

The major "big cat" release numbers are the number behind the ten. 10.4 Tiger, 10.5 Leopard, 10.6 Snow Leopard, 10.7 Lion, 10.8 Mountain Lion.

The "service pack" numbers string along past another decimal place. 10.7.1, 10.7.2, 10.7.3

You get bonus computer geek points for knowing the "real" version numbers for NT are.

Windows NT 3.1 (DOS based Windows was at this version number when NT was released)
Windows NT 4
Windows NT 5 (Windows 2000)
Windows NT 5.1 (Windows XP)
Windows NT 6 (Windows Vista)
Windows NT 6.1 (Windows 7)
Windows NT 6.2 (Windows 8)
 
2012-07-25 04:43:35 PM

zedster: I'd argue if you want to have a balanced outlook you have to think of each service pack as equivalent to an OS X upgrade, in which case each release of Windows is at least 3 upgrades


Windows service packs typically don't add much in the way of new features, aside from a few relatively minor updates that happened in some of the XP service packs. Normally, they just tweak some things under the hood but the user never sees the changes, outside of some performance increases. With OS X, on the other hand, aside from the Leopard to Snow Leopard update, every update has added some new features that are very visible to the user. No, it's not quite the overhaul that Win 7 to Win 8 is, but Snow Leopard to Lion was at least as substantial an update as Vista to Win 7 (which aside from some taskbar changes and the addition of Home Groups and Libraries, really wasn't that different from Vista visually).

Plus, if you look at the actual version numbers, and not the numbers that come from the advertising department, Windows has actually looked this this for the past few years:

Vista = NT 6.0
Win 7 = NT 6.1
Win 8 = NT 6.2

So on the Microsoft side of things, you wound up paying $129 for a point upgrade from NT 6.0 to 6.1 and another $40 to go from NT 6.1 to 6.2.
 
2012-07-25 04:44:18 PM

zedster:
I'd argue if you want to have a balanced outlook you have to think of each service pack as equivalent to an OS X upgrade, in which case each release of Windows is at least 3 upgrades


I'd argue, based on your bullshiat about XQuartz not running X11 applications that you've no freaking idea what you're talking about but I think all the people in this thread will agree that it's quite amusing so please continue.

If you want to play point revision bingo I'm going to pull XP out and beat you with it.
 
2012-07-25 04:44:59 PM

Lando Lincoln: I really don't like Apple products, and I don't rightly give a crap who stole what from who.


WHOM!

/cringe
 
2012-07-25 05:10:39 PM

Theaetetus: DoJ already thought of that loophole. If you only cross-license among your patent pool, then fair and reasonable license fees to third parties not in the pool may be determined by independent market experts... not the pool members' questionable internal accounting. It's one of the examples in the 1995 Antitrust Guidelines, even.


The question is - what is a fair and reasonable license fee? Apple claims that the reasonable license fee to Samsung is $0.0049 per phone.
 
2012-07-25 05:16:31 PM

theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]
[i.imgur.com image 155x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x350]
[i.imgur.com image 163x300]
[i.imgur.com image 327x383]
[i.imgur.com image 257x300]
[i.imgur.com image 179x300]
[i.imgur.com image 193x299]
[i.imgur.com image 235x299]
[i.imgur.com image 193x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x299]
[i.imgur.com image 183x298]

Samsung phones since the iPhone:

[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]


Unless you think Samsung has a time machine it's not telling you about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
Front: http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/phones/7832-specs/Samsung-SGH-F700. jpg
Back: http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/wp-content/phoneimages/2008/03/samf700cr oix2.jpg
(ignore the ugly ass strap thing the reviewer attached to the back.)

It's even got the camera in the upperleft hand corner. =)


Don't forget the LG Prada, as well.


Fixed that for you.
 
2012-07-25 05:23:42 PM

The Singing Bush: change1211: theurge14: The Singing Bush: theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]
[i.imgur.com image 155x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x350]
[i.imgur.com image 163x300]
[i.imgur.com image 327x383]
[i.imgur.com image 257x300]
[i.imgur.com image 179x300]
[i.imgur.com image 193x299]
[i.imgur.com image 235x299]
[i.imgur.com image 193x300]
[i.imgur.com image 187x299]
[i.imgur.com image 183x298]

Samsung phones since the iPhone:

[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]
[i.imgur.com image 170x170]

You conveniently left this one off your "before" list:

[www.yourmobilephone.co.uk image 352x317]

Didn't conveniently leave it out.

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007"

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."

So you're saying Samsung built a new product in a month?

Maybe they just rounded the edges and added icons after seeing the iPhone


The actually patented the design in 2006, kinda hard to do that before seeing the iphone in 2007, unless samsung also has time machines.
 
2012-07-25 05:24:13 PM

RexTalionis: The question is - what is a fair and reasonable license fee? Apple claims that the reasonable license fee to Samsung is $0.0049 per phone.


Another question that springs to mind is are we really expecting the courts to decide what a "fair price" is?
 
2012-07-25 05:27:22 PM

justink: theflatline:
Really? There were windows phones as early as 2003.

And those early windows phones did everything the first iPhones did plus more (Exchange & VPN are the biggies).



theurge14: Samsung phones immediately before the original iPhone launch:
...
Samsung phones since the iPhone:

...

I notice a few phones missing there. The Rugby? Charge? There are plenty others from Samsung that are flip or have keyboards.

Samsung isn't the only one that is going with the large square screen. Everybody is going that way because that's what the consumer wants. We didn't have the selection of large screen phones before because of battery life. I have a phone sitting on my desk from '06 (xv6700) that is a large screen for its time. The battery was horrible in it. Since that phone came out in '06 and the iPhone came out in '07, does that mean Apple was copying the design from it? All they did was take away physical buttons and made them virtual. The physical shape was similar.

If Apple didn't come out with the iPhone, the only difference would be that Android wouldn't be as big and the smart phone market would be controlled by RIM and Microsoft. We would still have the slim, large screen phones.


My problem with all of this is the patent system and the trolls the abuse the system.


They did not do everything. But they did play music, videos, games, run apps, had exchange connectivity and vpn connectivity....
 
2012-07-25 05:30:22 PM
I believe I've already posted the dates when both phones were publicly announced and released.

As for the LG Prada, it's a similar story, they officially announced it a week after the iPhone.

Yes, we all realize these products were all under development for a long time before they were announced. But the point is Samsung was nowhere to be found at this time.
 
2012-07-25 05:36:47 PM

theflatline:
They did not do everything. But they did play music, videos, games, run apps, had exchange connectivity and vpn connectivity....


I always find it funny that CE6.5 (which was a whore and gave you crabs) would do things CE... erm... WP7 couldn't at the time of it's release; like talk to Exchange. I wonder who at Microsoft thought it was awesome to not bundle in the ability for their phone OS to talk to their mail server software.
 
2012-07-25 05:56:39 PM

Vaneshi: theflatline:
They did not do everything. But they did play music, videos, games, run apps, had exchange connectivity and vpn connectivity....

I always find it funny that CE6.5 (which was a whore and gave you crabs) would do things CE... erm... WP7 couldn't at the time of it's release; like talk to Exchange. I wonder who at Microsoft thought it was awesome to not bundle in the ability for their phone OS to talk to their mail server software.


It was probably less of that and more of "HOLY shiat BALLMER WILL RIP OUR ARMS OUT OF OUR SOCKETS IF WE DON'T GET THIS RELEASED".

The Windows Phone 7 that we have today is the second iteration of Windows Phone 7. The first one was to be based on WinCE 7, which never made its way to the market. There was a meeting where doors were locked and no one was allowed to leave until they decided whether not to scrap the original WP7. They killed it, and threw several months of progress away as a result.
 
2012-07-25 05:59:55 PM

NutznGum: BullBearMS: Marine1: The Windows 7 Home Premium 3-pack has been available for quite a while now. It's not a limited-time offer.

It's also 300 bucks for only 3 computers. Also, Home Premium is a feature limited version of the OS.

Apple's OS is the full version for 19.99 which covers every computer you own.

Marine1: I'm genuinely curious to see if you can still upgrade multiple machines with the Mac Store upgrade path they offer.

Ars Technica:

As has been the case for all non-server versions of the Mac operating system, Mountain Lion has no serial number, no product activation, and no DRM of any kind. The standard Mac App Store license terms allow customers to install a copy of the software on "each Apple-branded computer [...] that you own or control," including two additional copies on each Mac inside virtual machines.

That's actually a very good deal.


Especially if you need to take advantage of features that are only available in the full version of Windows, like Bitlocker whole disk encryption.

A single license to the full version of Windows 7 Ultimate costs $289.99 at Newegg. That's the version that keeps on working even if you get a new motherboard or new computer.

The upgrade only version of Windows 7 Ultimate costs $199.99 at Newegg.

The Windows 7 Ultimate 3 pack is only sold to people who build computers for a living (OEM's) and retails at $539.99 on Newegg. There isn't a home version of that one.

Since Apple only charges 20 bucks to install the full version of the OS on every computer you own, you can see why I say you don't have to pay Microsoft's price gouging fees for very many PC's before you could get a free Macbook Air with the price difference.
 
2012-07-25 06:00:17 PM

Marine1:
It was probably less of that and more of "HOLY shiat BALLMER WILL RIP OUR ARMS OUT OF OUR SOCKETS IF WE DON'T GET THIS RELEASED".


I suspect there is a lot of that in the mix, which leads us right back to Ballmer being bad for Microsoft.
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report