You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Nice little rant, but what does Apple having a patent on a couple of features have to do with carriers and their asinine policies? Or to put it another way, if Samsung had won are you going to claim that the carriers would suddenly change their business practices?
I think this case is irrelevant to how the carriers operate - they will continue doing what they always have regardless of whether Samsung or Apple won.
Your reply against my "rant" has nothing to do with anything I have said. If you go back and read the first part of my "rant", then you will read(again) that the future of innovation lies within the features of said devices, which ultimately has NOTHING to do with the the patent case as that is all in the past.
providers stall innovation and sometimes control the ultimate outcome of a devices.
It's a long shot to get anything anti apple from you, but it's worth a shot.
I don't see why this is bad for innovation. With this as precedent, companies need to actually make NEW things rather than "improving" on them.
Sure, Apple can't patent rounded rectangles but by making icons that look pretty much exactly like Apple's, how is that good for innovation? Apple doesn't have a patent on blue shirts, glass walls and wood tables with an open product format but that doesn't stop the "Samsung Store" from looking pretty much exactly like Apples.
The way I see it is that by "improving" on stuff that Apple made, Samsung was never going to gain any ground in the mobile phone market because Apple just make a better iPhone than they do. Why not make something that's entirely different...or at least LOOKS entirely different?
This isn't even what people are arguing about. The trade dress claim is pretty clear. Samsung copied them and it was dumb as shit.
It's the software patents for shit like pinch to zoom being validated and WHICH ALREADY HAD PRIOR ART that people are angry about. Stuff like bounce back scroll... how can that be patented? It's like if I were to get a patent because I was the first person to add sepia tone to moving images.
Cellular Innovation is already fucked in North America, this lawsuit just makes it even more difficult. This is why we can't have nice things. The providers rule, and companies like Samsung will cave in to carrier demands JUST to have product in store.
Apple was rejected by Verizon in the very beginning, and ATT basically gave Apple a chance to succeed.
Innovation in what sense? The from the looks of how the cellular industry is going, the END USER EXPERIENCE is starting to play a HUGE factor into the future. Past Apple keynotes have focused on how the iOS system helps the user, same goes with when Samsung announced the S3. The hardware/screen war will always be the same stale spec vs spec war, it comes down to features. THIS is where innovation falls into the hands of software devs in which this entire lawsuit can be ignored. Innovation comes from within the device and what it is capable of. It is the very reason that people talk about this and that feature when comparing devices.
The cellular providers in NORTH AMERICA is the biggest culprit on not allowing innovation. Every big giant, even outside of North America require their devices to be preloaded with bloatware. Not a big deal for some, but limits on functions such as tethering is an example.
When a company wants to release a device into the market in the US and Canada, it must go through the providers. A lot of the marketing comes from the inside in which the carrier decides what to push and ultimately, if you dont play by the rules of said carrier, your going to have a hard time getting your phone in to the hands of the consumer.
Palm is an example, Verizon backed out of the Palm Pre, so they settled with Sprint with limited distribution. It had a tough time competing with the iPhone available on ATT as Sprint just isn't a large carrier compared to Verizon, in which it does have the resources to compete with ATT. When Verizon decided to pick up the Pre Plus, phones were ordered and produced, but evidently, they shifted focus on promoting the Motorola Droid. Shipments of the Pre Plus were denied and there was no focus on Verizon's end to sell the Pre Plus. This costed Palm and was eventually bought out by HP
Rogers wanted exclusive rights to the HTC One X. A great device that could stand up on par with iPhone and the S3. The device failed to compete as Rogers did in fact shift focus away from the One X, even though it was exclusive to them.
Cell providers fight for consumers just as hardware manufactures fight for consumers, but if your method of distribution of said device must go through the provider, who have their own strategies to compete for the same consumers and they decide roughly into a quarter or right before launch that they are changing the direction of sales to a rival device, well, the device manufacturer is left with many unsold phones and loss of revenue.
Cell providers in North America have ripped consumers apart. Subsidy in pricing of the hardware in exchange for a lengthy commitment to a carrier. This has always been the way of business. This thought has been driven into the minds of the consumer and they are also unwilling to spend 500+ on the top of the line phone in one shot. Apple would have released the original iPhone on it's own if they could, but without carrier support, there is no way that it would have succeed as quick as it did. It wasn't until last year where the iPhone 4 could be purchased outright and unlocked through Apple directly placing the choice on the consumer to buy. Google's Nexus line is the same idea, cut the provider and sell directly to the consumer so they have a choice.
Fact is this, the cellular providers make it difficult for hardware manufacturers to truly innovate. If you don't play nice with carriers, than you can say goodbye to your fancy features just because said provider believes that certain features could threaten profits because it does certain things that the provider wants to provide(such as tethering)
This lawsuit/patent war is Apple's way of protecting it's brand. It doesn't exactly "win" on innovation. The big companies know features are the future on moving the industry forward.
Of course, this is the North American market and how business is conducted in which the carrier has much more to say in the outcome of the device makers flagship. The leash is much longer outside of our continent.
on the other hand, one of the reasons why the S3 is dual core here is because Qualcomm initially didn't want to see their LTE module paired with a Samsung CPU and here are the reasons
1. Carriers spent too much developing LTE
2. LTE is the newest thing going forward here
3. Qualcomm didn't want to see their LTE module with a Samsung Chip
Basically, the carriers told Samsung to do it this way, or else no S3 would have landed on our shores. Of course, this has changed with Samsung ready to roll out a Quad core LTE ready device on the Exynos chip with LTE in Germany.
Samsung was warned by Google and chose to ignore. Their own god damn fault.
Your reply against my "rant" has nothing to do with anything I have said. If you go back and read the first part of my "rant", then you will read(again) that the future of innovation lies within the features of said devices, which ultimately has NOTHING to do with the the patent case as that is all in the past.
providers stall innovation and sometimes control the ultimate outcome of a devices.
It's a long shot to get anything anti apple from you, but it's worth a shot.
I did read your entire post and you are going off-topic. This is not about the carriers - it's about OS's and the devices they run on will go from here. Samsung made the following claims about what will happen as a result of an Apple win:
Fewer choices. This is pure BS. You aren't going to see shelves emptied of Samsung products tomorrow. Samsung will make software changes to avoid infringing any of Apple's IP (just like they have done in Europe or how HTC has done in the US) and they will continue to sell their phones. The consumer will still be able to get a smartphone from Samsung, LG, Nokia, HTC, Motorola or Apple. That's hardly limiting choices.
Less Innovation. Another pile of BS. I guarantee you right now that Samsung (and Google) engineers are working overtime to make software changes to modify or replace the features they were found to infringe (pinch/zoom, overscoll bounce and so on). In other words, they're "innovating" by thinking of different ways to do things. Smartphones are made up of hundreds of features and ideas. To have to work around three of them that belong to Apple is not going to be the "end of the world" for Samsung or anyone else.
Higher prices. The last pile of BS. Why would prices go higher? These companies already spend billions in R&D, and having to work around a few Apple features isn't going to break the bank. They don't have to redesign the entire smartphone - they only have to redesign a couple features. The only way I could see increased prices would be if Apple licensed their IP to Android OEM's and they had to pay a fixed cost per device sold. Sort of like how every Android OEM is already doing to Microsoft. Even then, I don't recall seeing a huge spike in Android phone prices after each company signed on with MS.
I'll make you this bet: On the one year anniversary from this court decision I think that the smartphone market will be thriving with lots of device choices, lots of innovation and new features/capabilities and competitive prices. In other words, the exact opposite of what Samsung claims will happen. If I'm right you owe me a case of beer, if I'm wrong I owe you a case of beer.
Samsung ripping Apple off was almost worth being sued over, now they are on the map and the galaxy series is extremely popular. All they have to do is make some changes with what they are infringing on and Apple can't do shit. Well they will probably still try and sue anyways.
Also, no one that shoots something at 38MP does so in anything but a RAW format.
38MP JPEGs are worthless. The only benefit to this is skanks that don't want iPhones will use this to take nekkid duckface pictures of themselves...and we can go into detail.
I still don't know why this is even news, or why people care so much. Two multi-billion dollar companies battling it out in the court rooms basically throwing money at each other with lawyers, expert witnesses etc. and we care,... why? How does this effect any of us other than maybe not being able to buy a certain phone?
First world problems at it's best.
__________________
FOR SALE: 14'' MR2 MK1 wheels with 90% rubber $130, FD RX7 Transmission $200, Hitch Mount Snowboard/Ski rack w/ THULE clamps, locks $200. PM me for details!
I stand by what I said. It's just a fancy ass, overkill camera tacked onto a shit phone.
ITs a marketing hype. Everyone who knows anything about cameras knows its the quality of the CMOS sensor that matters, not it's "affective" MP rating...
__________________
FOR SALE: 14'' MR2 MK1 wheels with 90% rubber $130, FD RX7 Transmission $200, Hitch Mount Snowboard/Ski rack w/ THULE clamps, locks $200. PM me for details!
I still don't know why this is even news, or why people care so much. Two multi-billion dollar companies battling it out in the court rooms basically throwing money at each other with lawyers, expert witnesses etc. and we care,... why? How does this effect any of us other than maybe not being able to buy a certain phone?
First world problems at it's best.
It's not even a problem. The amount of Apple dicksucking (and Samsung) is just
This is probably one of the most significant trials ever in the tech industry. It's a precedent setting trial. It isn't just about Samsung and Apple.
It won't affect what phone you can and cannot purchase today. It affects how phones will be made in the future...the near future. It affects the way things are made, how they're conceptualized, developed and manufactured.
Those of us in the "early adopter" category are probably affected the most. If you don't care about what phone you use or you're one of those smelly hipsters on the Skytrain reading vintage novels through glasses with no lenses.
As far as I know, the court hasn't found that the prior art is valid in the case...that there is enough uniqueness to Apple's patent.
Seriously, if you don't think Samsung copied at least a little after reading everything in this case...
To clarify, I wasn't referring to this case specfically, but the software patents they hold with regards to the tech / software industry as a whole. In my opinion, they should have never been granted those patents in the first place.
As far as this case goes, I actually think Samsung did copy some of the hardware and probably deserved the kick in the teeth.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
