- Status
Mathos
Distinguished
- Jun 17, 2007
- 45
- 0
- 18,580
Actually, pads existed long before the iPad came out. But they were restrictively expensive due to touch technology being in its early stages, or being based off of ips screen technology. Plus they were trying to use specialized versions of windows XP, which wasn't designed for touch screens. None of them did well because they weren't easy to use, and most programs made more sense to run on a laptop at the time.
Cell phones on the other hand, touch screens were around before the iphone, some worked ok, some were total crap, especially the rocker plate based ones.
Cell phones on the other hand, touch screens were around before the iphone, some worked ok, some were total crap, especially the rocker plate based ones.
i love apple for its ultra innovative mind. but Apple should get used to with these situations. Apple have to use Chinese outsourcing for competitive selling price, this is the action. Again every action has a opposite reaction, and for Apple it is Chinese's technology adaptation. Anyway my respect for HTC brand has increased reading the article. Its good for market, more competition more innovation. Good for us, good for them (not in their quarterly revenue sheet but in long run).
SirGCal
Distinguished
- Apr 2, 2010
- 89
- 0
- 18,580
Even Apple themselves had the same tech available before they claim their new iWhatever was the first. For example, they had a 'tablet' (touch-screen capable electronic) as early as 93. I had a full laptop touch-screen "tablet" in the very early new decade. iPad came out very early 2010... Yet somehow it was the first (According to Apple)... This is the crap I can't stand from Apple. I even had an iPod for a while. I returned it because I couldn't stand the proprietary connection it had requiring me to carry around even more cables... Sorry but no glorified MP3 player is so special that it can make me carry around even more crap in my travel bag just to make it work. That's really the big reason I can't stand Apple products. Well that and their insanely high prices back then (and now I hear). If they weren't so stupid expensive, Apple might have had a better shot at Microshaft in the PC market...
Azn Cracker
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2009
- 158
- 0
- 18,660
Yep, thats why i dont buy Apple products. They expect you to use their products a certain way and try to block any customizing. There is no freedom with their products, they should relocate to Russia or China.
scrumworks
Distinguished
- May 22, 2009
- 101
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]p3t3or[/nom]lol I love HTC products (especially over Apple's) and now I love their attitude.[/citation]
HTC makes the ugliest and cheapest looking phones on the planet. Other than that, Apple should stop making patent disputes because its actually them, who steal much more so HTC has a point.
HTC makes the ugliest and cheapest looking phones on the planet. Other than that, Apple should stop making patent disputes because its actually them, who steal much more so HTC has a point.
Apple to me is a mixed bag of apples. On the one hand, I can't find any use for the iPad 2, I would never buy an iMac desktop (rather build my own), I prefer Windows 7 over Mac OS, etc. But on the other hand, to me the Macbook Pro is the only good looking notebook out there. Even if I can get the same hardware $500-$1000 cheaper, it usually comes in an ugly and bulky package with low quality enclosure (almost never solid aluminum, mostly flimsy plastic).
[citation][nom]neverdyne[/nom]I prefer Windows 7 over Mac OS,[/citation]
if there were no MacOS then windows will never born. Mac OS guides the way and Windows follows it. From XP to Win7, Microsoft tried to copy Mac OS, but a goat can't pull carts like a horse.
if there were no MacOS then windows will never born. Mac OS guides the way and Windows follows it. From XP to Win7, Microsoft tried to copy Mac OS, but a goat can't pull carts like a horse.
everygamer
Distinguished
- Aug 1, 2006
- 144
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]pcwlai[/nom]That's way too true.For haters, they don't want to spend money to support the research and development of innovative ideas or breaking the old rules. So, many of them pretend to support the others to copy from the inventors.Apple products many be expensive, but supporting others to invent new ideas that do not give out good products are not their options either. So, better to group together and bash Apple for their innovations and praise those copies for them without making their hands dirty.[/citation]
The first tablet was designed and built in 1986 and it was called the Dynabook, there have been laptops that can flip the screen around and be used as tablets running windows since 1999. The concept of a tablet was not new nor invented by apple, they just took an existing idea and re-packaged it.
The idea of a smartphone is not new either, Palm basically created the precursor to the current smartphones of today. You had a phone that could run applications, had a form of touch interface and people could write software and run it on the phone. This was being done back in the 90's. Apple again just took an existing idea and re-packaged it. Windows was running on phones (windows mobile or pocket pc) several years before the iphone was released. None of the technology in the iphone is really ground breaking, the only thing that is really unique is a combination of technologies touch screen + app store and there were other devices doing this before apple just not as good.
As to research and development costs, Google spends easily more on R&D in a year than Apple yet they do not charge for the results of that R&D. It all comes out of their other revenue.
Apple overprices their products, not because it has to, but because that is the market it wants to play in. Its like beer, Bud owns 60% of the beer market. If you want to create a beer and sell it you decide if you are going to sell lower or higher than the bud segment of the market via price because if you try to compete within the bud price point you will quickly find your self out of business.
Android is a perfect example of this, when Android first entered the market the phone companies were selling android phones for under the $200 price point. For the most part they still are and Android quickly took that entire market segment from other phones (symbian, windows mobile, RIM, etc). Now that Android is hitting a critical mass and catching up with Apple they are starting to release phones in the apple price point. Apple seeing the android threat has started selling phones in the Android price point ($99 iphones .. old 3GS models, etc). This is normal market action and is interesting to watch. Android will surpass iOS in devices by the end of 2012 even with the release of new apple products because it is becoming harder and harder for Apple to add value to a product when other companies can release devices with better specs and the same features for less money.
If apple was smart they would let other manufacturers release iOS devices, let them push the hardware and bank on the app / music / movie / tv downloads. This is where the real money is for apple, they make the vast majority of their profit in the downloads not the hardware.
The first tablet was designed and built in 1986 and it was called the Dynabook, there have been laptops that can flip the screen around and be used as tablets running windows since 1999. The concept of a tablet was not new nor invented by apple, they just took an existing idea and re-packaged it.
The idea of a smartphone is not new either, Palm basically created the precursor to the current smartphones of today. You had a phone that could run applications, had a form of touch interface and people could write software and run it on the phone. This was being done back in the 90's. Apple again just took an existing idea and re-packaged it. Windows was running on phones (windows mobile or pocket pc) several years before the iphone was released. None of the technology in the iphone is really ground breaking, the only thing that is really unique is a combination of technologies touch screen + app store and there were other devices doing this before apple just not as good.
As to research and development costs, Google spends easily more on R&D in a year than Apple yet they do not charge for the results of that R&D. It all comes out of their other revenue.
Apple overprices their products, not because it has to, but because that is the market it wants to play in. Its like beer, Bud owns 60% of the beer market. If you want to create a beer and sell it you decide if you are going to sell lower or higher than the bud segment of the market via price because if you try to compete within the bud price point you will quickly find your self out of business.
Android is a perfect example of this, when Android first entered the market the phone companies were selling android phones for under the $200 price point. For the most part they still are and Android quickly took that entire market segment from other phones (symbian, windows mobile, RIM, etc). Now that Android is hitting a critical mass and catching up with Apple they are starting to release phones in the apple price point. Apple seeing the android threat has started selling phones in the Android price point ($99 iphones .. old 3GS models, etc). This is normal market action and is interesting to watch. Android will surpass iOS in devices by the end of 2012 even with the release of new apple products because it is becoming harder and harder for Apple to add value to a product when other companies can release devices with better specs and the same features for less money.
If apple was smart they would let other manufacturers release iOS devices, let them push the hardware and bank on the app / music / movie / tv downloads. This is where the real money is for apple, they make the vast majority of their profit in the downloads not the hardware.
everygamer
Distinguished
- Aug 1, 2006
- 144
- 0
- 18,630
Oh, and by the way, what you are seeing between Apple (iOS) and Google (Android) has happened before. Apple (Mac) and IBM (PC) back in the 80's apple held 15% of the personal computer market, it was a new market and Apple was a pioneer (just like today). What ended up happening is that PC's could be built cheaper, there was greater competiton in the PC market which pushed PC manufacturers to push features and technology faster for their platform. Eventually dozzens of companies investing in R&D made more functional and cheeper products and apple started to disapear. By the late 90's apple had less than 4% of the market and at one point was on the verge of bankruptcy until Microsoft injected more than 150 million to keep them in business (was in Microsofts best interest because of the anti-trust cases back then to have a competitor). Apple dug them selves out of that hole with the ipod and itunes. No other company ever offered something equal to the ipod + itunes, they kept trying to compete with just hardware and we can all see how that faired, without the market to support the device no one could create something to compete vs the ipod. Today Android does not have that issue, it has the benefits of multiple manufacturers competing to create great hardware and a common application platform (like windows back in the day) plus it has the market place (like itunes) so it not missing a part of the equation. So what we are seeing is the repeating of history, apples market share has slowed in growth with the rise of android and androids growth rate has only increased (550K activated devices a month). Apple has had a good head start, has more apps because of it and still has a more content rich market music/video/apps but those features and services are starting to shrink. You can only come up with the next best thing so many times before the idea mill runs dry and you start to look like everyone else.
Khimera2000
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 191
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]scrumworks[/nom]HTC makes the ugliest and cheapest looking phones on the planet. Other than that, Apple should stop making patent disputes because its actually them, who steal much more so HTC has a point.[/citation]
actually I like the look of some of the HTC phones, the only problem is the ones I liked where never really brought over to the US, at lest not before being mutilated for the big 4.
but ya i agree apple needs to get back on track. There quality is really starting to dip, perhaps they should consider spending those legal fees on quality control.
I have never seen a Mac product that didn't come out with some defect that I could live with. In the navy it was the ITunes, and internet requirement to reset the IPod, for the MBP uni-body desing it was the warping optical drive, for the Cube, it was the fact that you can fry your computer by putting a peace of paper on top. for the IPhone... well look at IPod, then look at the IPhone 4 and its antennae issues.
As a company that takes pride in the build of there products, its strange to find that they cant get a first release right, ever. Its always the second or third generation that looks like final hardware. And I have to ask why they haven't changed this practice since 2000.
actually I like the look of some of the HTC phones, the only problem is the ones I liked where never really brought over to the US, at lest not before being mutilated for the big 4.
but ya i agree apple needs to get back on track. There quality is really starting to dip, perhaps they should consider spending those legal fees on quality control.
I have never seen a Mac product that didn't come out with some defect that I could live with. In the navy it was the ITunes, and internet requirement to reset the IPod, for the MBP uni-body desing it was the warping optical drive, for the Cube, it was the fact that you can fry your computer by putting a peace of paper on top. for the IPhone... well look at IPod, then look at the IPhone 4 and its antennae issues.
As a company that takes pride in the build of there products, its strange to find that they cant get a first release right, ever. Its always the second or third generation that looks like final hardware. And I have to ask why they haven't changed this practice since 2000.
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Hell yes! HTC doesn't just have a point, they're treating Apple as close as they deserve to be treated without resorting to being plain rude! Samsung/HTC strategy: let's take the same phone we had selling so well last year, stuff EVEN more powerful hardware, newer Android and more features into it, make sure the phone has all connectivity interfaces possible (BT, 3G, Wi-Fi, whatever, except for IrDA, that stuff is obsolete!), maybe introduce a few new things, like USB-on-the-Go and HDMI, pre-install a ton of apps and sell it at an outrageous yet somewhat understandable price.Apple's strategy: take a common, long-existing device, such as mp3 player or a phone, add a USELESS feature to it, advertise as a MAGICAL feature and mock everyone who doesn't use it. When clueless competitors start producing the same stuff (poor bastards don't understand that people aren't after the coolest phone/player/tablet, but are after Apple stuff exclusively, due to massive brainwashing!), accuse them of breaking the patents, since the US patent system allows to even patent shapes of buttons and icons, and sue them. Alternative strategy: instead of re-thinking the long-existing device as described above, invent a completely new one, useless from the beginning, such as the iPad, then proceed along the same steps: advertise as magical, wait for competitors, accuse, sue.I'm glad the Eastern electronics companies are playing by other rules and don't resort to accusing each other of "copyright infringment" on things that are common by now (touch screen, GUI layout, etc). With these companies, a customer has a choice of wide range of products that are not restricted by stupid patents and "copyrights" and can go and buy the device he likes the most. Seriously, just because someone claims to come up with an idea first does NOT mean he is the only one who has the right to use it. Imagine what would happen if in distant past our ancestors would patent simple technologies such as wheel, levers or blacksmithing techniques? We'd be still in the Stone Age! That's why many countries and businesses today are suffering while others are thriving for no reason: since you can copyright anything, there's no way for them to use the technology they need to survive.Well done, HTC. I bet that if they wouldn't be restricted by "business code", that Grace Lei would just moon Apple and tell them to go to hell instead of being so polite. Still, the message is clear: serious companies are sick and tired of Apple patent trolling and getting customers by means of brainwashing and marketing, instead of competition. Some might argue that "this is business" and any methods will do as long as you have profit, but then you might as well start selling cow dung at a price of gold by convincing your customers that this is best for them, and call it a successful business. While it might be successful, it isn't business, it's just a lot of BS.So, well done, HTC. Now, if your next flagship phone will be as good as SGS II, it might make you even better... =)[/citation]
blacksmithing techniques were actually highly guarded secrets, but this was more with watter and hardening the metal, than just how to do a patch job right. people were killed over trying to figure out others secrets.
and patents, engineering ones at least, are there to protect smaller business from large copying their better ways of doing things and mass producing them.
imagine you made a car more safe, or made steering more effortless, and it was a desired feature. you patent it, that way when the bigger car companies steal the idea, you get something from your earlier efforts.
granted in tech, rounded icons is a patentable thing, the non physical side of the patent system is broken, the engineering side isn't.
blacksmithing techniques were actually highly guarded secrets, but this was more with watter and hardening the metal, than just how to do a patch job right. people were killed over trying to figure out others secrets.
and patents, engineering ones at least, are there to protect smaller business from large copying their better ways of doing things and mass producing them.
imagine you made a car more safe, or made steering more effortless, and it was a desired feature. you patent it, that way when the bigger car companies steal the idea, you get something from your earlier efforts.
granted in tech, rounded icons is a patentable thing, the non physical side of the patent system is broken, the engineering side isn't.
everygamer
Distinguished
- Aug 1, 2006
- 144
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]alter-ego[/nom]if there were no MacOS then windows will never born. Mac OS guides the way and Windows follows it. From XP to Win7, Microsoft tried to copy Mac OS, but a goat can't pull carts like a horse.[/citation]
You can go on and on with this for ever. If the Stanford Research Institute of then Xerox didn't create the first GUI then Mac OS would never had been born.
You could even say if UNIX was never created then Mac OSX wouldn't exist (since it is based on Free BSD and Free BSD is based on Unix).
Something fun to know, the first mouse was invented at AT&T Bell Labs, the first GUI was invented with Stanford Research Institute and later pushed closer to what it is today by Xerox, and the UNIX operating system was also created at AT&T Bell Labs. So pretty much everything that makes Apple Mac OSX work today was invented by someone else and as usual Apple took those concepts and repackaged them, which is what Microsoft did, they took the concepts that Apple had and repackaged them. Apple has done the same thing that everyone else does, they see a good idea and come up with a new way to do it.
And if Xerox did not create the PUI Mac OS would never had existed. Additionally you could say that if FreeBSD did not exist Mac OSX would never had existed.
The truth of the matter is that Apple tends to be attributed for being the first with a GUI but the reality is that they were not, Xerox created the first GUI. Also many people believe that Apple created the first mouse but it was developed by Bell Labs.
You can go on and on with this for ever. If the Stanford Research Institute of then Xerox didn't create the first GUI then Mac OS would never had been born.
You could even say if UNIX was never created then Mac OSX wouldn't exist (since it is based on Free BSD and Free BSD is based on Unix).
Something fun to know, the first mouse was invented at AT&T Bell Labs, the first GUI was invented with Stanford Research Institute and later pushed closer to what it is today by Xerox, and the UNIX operating system was also created at AT&T Bell Labs. So pretty much everything that makes Apple Mac OSX work today was invented by someone else and as usual Apple took those concepts and repackaged them, which is what Microsoft did, they took the concepts that Apple had and repackaged them. Apple has done the same thing that everyone else does, they see a good idea and come up with a new way to do it.
And if Xerox did not create the PUI Mac OS would never had existed. Additionally you could say that if FreeBSD did not exist Mac OSX would never had existed.
The truth of the matter is that Apple tends to be attributed for being the first with a GUI but the reality is that they were not, Xerox created the first GUI. Also many people believe that Apple created the first mouse but it was developed by Bell Labs.
everygamer
Distinguished
- Aug 1, 2006
- 144
- 0
- 18,630
Sorry, forgot to edit out the last 2 paragraphs, had re-wrote them. Wish Toms would turn on editing 
[citation][nom]maddad[/nom]Always a bunch of Apple haters commenting on these stories. I don't own any Apple products, but I notice there were not any Iphone type cell phones until after it was released. Then everyone else started releasing there copies (i mean their Iphone killers). There were not any Ipad type devices until after the Ipad was released and then everybody started releasing there copies ( I mean their Ipad killers). Maybe HTC should be first to the market on something instead of making products that seem an awful lot to mimic or copy existing products on the market. How about someone come out with something first so that Apple has to come late to the market and try to make a Samsung killer or an HTC killer. Just maybe Apple has a case if you look at the whole story and not just your Apple hater hang up.[/citation]
no one built an iphone like device? yea... it was called a pda back than.
no one build an ipad? it wasn't as big but i believe that archose media player was like a precursor to the ipad. we also had real laptops that were effectively tablets for an even longer time, but most programs build only for them were business and not consumer grade.
you know what my dream device would be.
a windows tablet that is running real windows and real programs, with a wacom touch interface.
no one built an iphone like device? yea... it was called a pda back than.
no one build an ipad? it wasn't as big but i believe that archose media player was like a precursor to the ipad. we also had real laptops that were effectively tablets for an even longer time, but most programs build only for them were business and not consumer grade.
you know what my dream device would be.
a windows tablet that is running real windows and real programs, with a wacom touch interface.
What apple REALLY excels at is marketing. They take an existing product, put it in a shiny plastic case and somehow get millions to buy it at grossly inflated prices. You have to hand it to apple for that. They really excel at convincing people to hand them gobs of money.
As far as being innovative. They aren't really. Again they are really good at convincing people their products are new. But tablets were around long long before the ipad. Smart phones with touch screens were around before the iphone.
I wont buy apple mainly because of their closed system approach. I want to do whatever i want with my hardware. Apple stands for the opposite of that, so i wont support them. You know i like to think differently, too bad apple doesn't like to follow their own slogan.
As far as being innovative. They aren't really. Again they are really good at convincing people their products are new. But tablets were around long long before the ipad. Smart phones with touch screens were around before the iphone.
I wont buy apple mainly because of their closed system approach. I want to do whatever i want with my hardware. Apple stands for the opposite of that, so i wont support them. You know i like to think differently, too bad apple doesn't like to follow their own slogan.
I have just got the HTC Sensation, and every single one of my Maes with iPhones have played with it, and they have all said honestly it blows the iPhone away, simples!
Go GO GO HTC, FTW!
Go GO GO HTC, FTW!
HTC should innovate, Apple owns those patents. Apple's "closed" ecosystem is alot better than that open android shit, 50% of all theyre apps are buggy as shit. And you can only stand so many fart and / or burp apps.
Apple did make the first tablet of its kind. Apple dosent do this for money, they have enough of that. They dont want HTC or samsung to steal theyre shit. They own those patents in question.
Yes Apple did violate alot of HTC and Nokia patents and they are paying for that. They are playing the same game as the competition.
Apple did make the first tablet of its kind. Apple dosent do this for money, they have enough of that. They dont want HTC or samsung to steal theyre shit. They own those patents in question.
Yes Apple did violate alot of HTC and Nokia patents and they are paying for that. They are playing the same game as the competition.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Can Minecraft 1.20.51 Apk be installed with high graphics on Realme 5?
- Started by BertramBlythe
- Replies: 0
-
-
Question low-cost laptop recommendations for gaming?
- Started by gutta
- Replies: 1
-
Blacklisting phone with various variables- Started by Blindcracker
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter