What did Apple actually invent?

**Malbec** · 16th Aug 12, 18:51

Originally Posted by BleAivano

Do car manufacturers sue each other when they loan some design futures from each other?

The answer is no they don't.

Errr car manufacturers aggressively threaten each other with legal action if they believe certain features are copied. The difference between car manufacturers and electronics manufacturers is that the former are very keen to differentiate their products from other makers whereas imitation is far more common in electronics.

Where car makers feel that a rival is bringing something to market that may confuse the customer as to its origin they sue. Hence why the 911 is not called the 901 as Porsche originally intended as Peugeot successfully brought a court case against them claiming they had the right to the x-0-x numbering system as a brand. Ditto Ford vs Ferrari over the F150 name. There have been numerous court cases in China against local makers that have blatantly copied Western manufacturers.

Another difference is that car manufacturers are less secretive and are far more likely to hire expertise and share information from rival companies although they do not want the public to know about this. Hence they trade patents or simply buy the completed product fully above board from rivals negating the need for companies to sue. Again where information is thought to have been stolen from a rival they will not hesitate to sue. Check out GM suing VW for Lopez taking his corporate secrets with him ending in a $100 million cash settlement and a further agreement that VW buy $1 billion worth of spares from GM. Puts this whole Apple vs Samsung tiff into perspective.

Originally Posted by BleAivano

I also have no faith in the USA courts that will decide in the matter.

In this case I believe the judge has been reasonable pressing both sides to settle this at the top level outside the legal system to come to a sensible agreement. Neither side have been interested in doing so. I suspect that whatever the conclusion reached, it will not be what either Apple or Samsung hoped for but something intended to deter both and other parties from bringing similar cases in the future.

**Jag_Warrior** · 18th Aug 12, 04:27

Once certain patents are recognized as industry standards, the license holders are compelled to offer them for a reasonable price under license agreements to competitors. The European version of this requirement is called FRAND: Fair and Reasonable Use Standards. In the U.S., it is RAND: Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms. These measures are meant to ensure a certain level of device and component compatibility. But it does not give OEM's free reign to copy or use a patented products or innovations at will, even when some attempt has been made to secure a license. When that happens, or one party feels that it has happened, there will be a legal dispute, as we're seeing throughout the high tech sector now. So they go to court. And a judge and/or jury decides who is in the right. That's just what (hopefully) happens in a civil society.

And speaking of the automotive industry, Caroll Shelby most certainly did go to court to protect the "look and feel" of the Cobra design, when various companies began making Cobra replicas years ago without his permission. And rather than steal the patented technology, Ferrari pays General Motors a licensing fee for the adaptive magnetic suspension technology that it uses. A little known fact (that just came out during the Apple vs. Samsung trial) is that Apple licenses certain mobile technologies to (wait for it)... Microsoft!

But MSFT is prohibited from making iPhone or iPad clones. The same thing happens in the TV industry. If Sony owns a patent, and Samsung wants to use this innovation in its TV's, it can. But it has to secure a license to (legally) do it. I have a DirecTV TiVo box in my house. It just went through a major software upgrade a few weeks ago. Lots of cool new features. And as I was digging around in the support documentation deep in the software, I noticed that TiVo has licensed certain technologies from Apple, related to the Bonjour service. That's perfectly legal. But when EchoStar attempted to lift certain TiVo features, mostly related to the TiVo Time Warp feature, and use them without paying a fee, TiVo sued them and it cost EchoStar/Dish Network a cool $500 million.

If I had just bought a high tech company for a couple of billion dollars (still hoping that my bank loan will go through for my hostile takeover of Commodore Computer

), I would hope that I would call an attorney if I had a dispute with another company. Otherwise, I could do it the Mexican Zeta Way: have my henchman go over to the rival CEO's house and shoot his dog, his cat and his kid's pet hamster (I'm gangsta like that!).

Apple feels that it has been wronged, so they lawyered up. It was either that or call Luca Brasi...

**airshifter** · 18th Aug 12, 06:16

What did Apple actually invent? Internet haters, trolling various forums to spew their dislike of a very popular brand/OS combination that most actual users find rock solid and a great interface. This also created a growth in the internet fanboi revolution, though initial credit for that is mostly owned by Microsoft.

**pino** · 18th Aug 12, 06:41

Lol airshifter

**CaptainRaiden** · 19th Aug 12, 01:20

**airshifter** · 19th Aug 12, 19:54

Originally Posted by henners88

I think thats the thing about this discussion. Apple appears to attract more criticism than any other provider and I can't understand why that is. If it was down solely to the cost, or the fact people thought the OS was rubbish for the money, then they simply wouldn't buy it and not be at all bothered by it. But there is alot of passion in these arguments and a need to put Apple down by some which is confusing. Android offers a great alternative to Apple and I've been thoroughly happy with my Android phones, but I've never allowed myself to become single minded about one service to the point I would never consider anything else.

I think the real issue is that people know Apple are very good at what they do, if not a little on the pricey side, but feel because they maybe out of reach of can't justify the expense themselves, they feel the need to criticize in order to make them feel better about what they have. Thats all fine, but I'm a firm believer in buying what you like (can afford) and for what best suits your needs. I recently had the opportunity (saved a bit of money) to choose between signing up to Sky for the F1, or buying a device that I will use everyday and get far more use out of. Sod the F1, I can watch that on the beeb and can get a nice shiney phone instead. Still haven't decided whether it will be the iPhone or the new Samsung S3 in Black..

This is almost a mirror image of my view. I don't currently own any Apple products, but our daughter has an older iPod touch. But it's a give and take thing... I got a deal on my Android phone but I'll be the first to admit the interface isn't as user friendly as the Apple product is. Cheaper is better in some cases to some people, but in other cases or people cheaper is often just cheaper.

I made the mistake of upgrading my phone to Ice Cream Sandwich at the end of the work week. While some love it, it just slowed down my productivity the end of that week. The interface changed just enough to slow things down and make me look for things I was previously familiar with. Thus is slowed down the human part of the interface.

I don't understand the haters on either side myself. I could buy all of us in my family new iPhones and iPads, as well as computers. But I don't hate anyone because I've made a choice not to do it. Nor will I hate any non Apple users if I finally get an iPad. It just makes no sense to me, and is juvenile. There are a lot of phone features that can still be done with pencil and paper. I wonder if those choosing to use a calculator or paper calendar hate all of us technology users?

**airshifter** · 19th Aug 12, 19:55

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

I can just see it now... many men reminding woman that mass storage space is very important these days, while some others say less is just fine!

**Dave B** · 19th Aug 12, 20:01

Originally Posted by Mark

The current patent tit for tit isn't helping anyone and is stifling innovation.

Agreed. Genuine new innovations deserve to be protected, but natural evolutions of product design do not. Apple seem to be the main culprits of this, although as stated others are becoming as bad. You can't copyright the basic shape of an iPhone or iPad when those products themselves owe so much to their predecessors.

**Jag_Warrior** · 19th Aug 12, 21:00

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

Will we hear that more than 34(C) gigs is a waste? Well, one thing is for certain, Apple sales of 34(DD) gig storage devices in Orange County and Beverly Hills, CA are going to shoot through the roof! If they can manage to develop something similar and call it iLips, I look for AAPL to top $2000/ share within six months!

**odykas** · 20th Aug 12, 08:12

Apple probably invented the iMarketing and iBS.

But as regards to everything else, not even close to invention

BTW, welcome back Denial

**CaptainRaiden** · 20th Aug 12, 10:06

Originally Posted by henners88

I think the real issue is that people know Apple are very good at what they do, if not a little on the pricey side, but feel because they maybe out of reach of can't justify the expense themselves, they feel the need to criticize in order to make them feel better about what they have. Thats all fine, but I'm a firm believer in buying what you like (can afford) and for what best suits your needs.

There is so much wrong with that post. Oh boy, if only I had more time, I'd type out a longer response, but unfortunately work calls.

So, in short, I'll just say this as a non-Apple user. If there was anything even remotely appealing to me about an iPhone 4S, I wouldn't have spent more money on a Galaxy S3.

**pino** · 20th Aug 12, 10:15

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

So, in short, I'll just say this as a non-Apple user. If there was anything even remotely appealing to me about an iPhone 4S, I wouldn't have spent more money on a Galaxy S3.

How about the amazing audio ?

**CaptainRaiden** · 20th Aug 12, 10:31

Originally Posted by pino

How about the amazing audio ?

Galaxy S3 + Poweramp Full Version + Sony MDR earbuds > Anything else on the market.

P.S. - Even dedicated MP3 players.

**CaptainRaiden** · 20th Aug 12, 10:35

What's funny is that with all of these lawsuits going on, Apple remains Samsung's biggest customer:

As court drama heats up, Apple remains Samsung's biggest client; companies closely tied on components

So, the bottom line is Samsung supplies Apple with LCDs, mobile application processors and NAND flash memory chips, and I'm sure at quite a premium.

So, whenever you're buying an Apple product, what you're essentially buying is Samsung hardware with a fancy OS at a higher price.

**pino** · 20th Aug 12, 11:13

Sony MDR are crap compared to Shure or even Klipsch image 4i and no mobile or Mp3 can match iPhone audio.

**CaptainRaiden** · 20th Aug 12, 11:28

Originally Posted by pino

Sony MDR are crap compared to Shure or even Klipsch image 4i and no mobile or Mp3 can match iPhone audio.

Is that an opinion or a fact? I have heard both, and Galaxy S3 clearly is the better IMO. In fact, if you read any Audiophile blog, they swear by the DAC in the older Galaxy S. If you dig deeper for expert comments, iPhone doesn't even rank in the top 5 music smartphones. Don't know what you're smoking.

Top 10 Smartphones for Music Lovers

Besides, when I buy a $600 smartphone, "sound quality" is not really at the top of my features list. Call sound quality, yes, but I could really be bothered less about how it plays my songs.

**CaptainRaiden** · 20th Aug 12, 11:56

Originally Posted by henners88

So Apple sell Samsung hardware at a higher price but you paid more for your S3? Sounds like you were ripped off dude..

Since the Galaxy S3 is 4 times the phone iPhone is in every department possible, I think it's a good deal.

Can't even imagine what a quad core iPhone with expandable memory would cost like!

Originally Posted by henners88

PS: Sharp are supplying the LCD screens for the new iPhone not Samsung.

Source to prove this fact? As far as I know, Sharp is only providing LCDs for Apple's upcoming Smart-TV thingy.

As far as portable products like phones, tablets like your iPhone, iPad etc., you can thank Samsung.

In fact, Pino should thank Samsung for the "amazing" sound quality of his iPhone as well, as Apple used Samsung made microprocessors.

**CaptainRaiden** · 20th Aug 12, 12:07

My bad.

I actually did pay less for the Galaxy S3 32GB compared to the iPhone 4S 32 GB.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-Gala...5460480&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apple-iPhone...5460463&sr=8-1

So yeah, I stand by my previous statement.

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

What's funny is that with all of these lawsuits going on, Apple remains Samsung's biggest customer:

As court drama heats up, Apple remains Samsung's biggest client; companies closely tied on components

So, the bottom line is Samsung supplies Apple with LCDs, mobile application processors and NAND flash memory chips, and I'm sure at quite a premium.

So, whenever you're buying an Apple product, what you're essentially buying is Samsung hardware with a fancy OS at a higher price.

**CaptainRaiden** · 20th Aug 12, 12:09

Originally Posted by henners88

Sharp begins production of world's first IGZO LCD panels | iPhone Atlas - CNET Reviews

Well, then, you and Pino can thank Samsung for the hardware in your current Apple products.

**CaptainRaiden** · 20th Aug 12, 12:16

Originally Posted by henners88

Its always nice to be happy to pay more for a phone if you personally feel it is justified. Its just a shame the same stance is not tolerated when the product is made by Apple.

Since I can't do half the things with an iPhone 4S, that I can do with a Galaxy S3, I believe I am justified in not tolerating Apple's higher markup.

Originally Posted by henners88

I would imagine Apple will use the same pricing system they have used on every iPhone ever released. The price regardless of the spec will be in line with the previous iPhone. Mark and myself have repeated that several times on the other thread.

That remains to be seen. Apple will not match Samsung's hardware, connectivity and memory management, it never has. So, I expect another 4S with slightly improved hardware and the iOS 6 at the same price.

Originally Posted by henners88

PS: Everybody is well aware Apple paid Samsung to develop the iPhone and this is hardly a revelation.

And your point is? I am well aware Samsung helped Apple develop the iPhone and even the iOS, also Siri. What I'm talking about is Apple using pretty much 90% Samsung hardware for its current lineup of products. Every Apple phone or tablet anybody owns currently has Samsung hardware in it, and that's a fact.

Sharp will provide the LCD for the iPhone 5, but I believe the A5 processors and NAND flash memory will still be manufactured by Samsung.