I don't think that you can call the iPad inferior. The RAM/CPU/etc are on par with the Galaxy Tab, and the screen is better. Also, the iPad has access to quite a bit of software that the Tab(and other Android based tablets) don't. I think that buying the iPad over other tablets is justified, though it is certainly more expensive.
A)You have to be able to root the device yourself.
B)The screen is like 40% bigger than a Kindle Fire.
And that doesn't address the fact that iOS has much better software availability for tablets than Android does(or maybe that changes when you root it? I have no idea).
I'm not trying to defend Apple here really. I have a heavy dislike toward them(and toward their rabid delusional fanbase). But they should still get credit where it is due, and IMO, the iPad is the best overall tablet on the market.
I think it is ridiculous that they won this lawsuit though. Samsung's attorneys really dropped the ball here. Fortunately, the S3 came out of the lawsuit fine, which is what Samsung wanted most. Now Apple will have to put real effort into the iPhone 5. Or give up on the cell phone market(I wouldn't be surprised if this happens).
Did you edit that post Vaclav? I don't remember it having the word multitask in it before..the whole context of everything I said here makes no sense now.
Nope said multitask from the getgo - you did a "me" there. Missing one word that destroys context.
And outside of multitasking, it is a strong device - but multitasking is such a big deal for a device like that for everyone I know - and even the "bargain bin" Android tablets are better equipped to multitask because the iOS just isn't set up to support it yet. If they don't have true multitasking in iOS6, it's gonna be bad times for them, I'd imagine. At least in the circles I frequent.
Software support for iOS is always going to be better simply due to singular design - although the Nexus 7 might help change things, since developers can target the Nexus 7 as the "our software must work on X" platform and then tweak it for the others. Unfortunately though, iOS is starting to lose market share slowly but surely - the same thing that eroded Apple in the computer market.
The device with the most units sold in the end will be the most successful in terms of how the market perceives them. I have no doubt that iPhone 8LBGT or whatever it is by then (I added random caps'ed letters - I got those 4 hitting at random, I swear... amusing) will be looked at in 10 years as Mac's are today, a tool that perhaps excels in one or two areas but that overall due to market diversity Android or Win8 based devices dominating them.
Of which, although I don't like what I see thusfar (unless the rumored Surface price of $200 is right) with Win 8 - I've gotta say, it's position especially with the ability to tie-in to PC market reasonably easy in theory, looks to be a compelling bet for the future. Even though, my heart wants Android to be king.
Not really no. A patent is to protect an inventor from having what makes his invention unique copied indiscriminately. Some industries have different requirements than another for what is considered novel and what legal benefits IP grants them.
Yes. And that is exactly what these patents are about.
Quote from Emo_Pinata »
If you take existing technology and simply repackage it into something better, you are not granted a patent. If you take and existing technology and make an improvement, you are not necessarily granted a patent. If you make an advancement in technology that improves on an existing technology you get a patent. What Apple is using to shut down competitor's smart phones are very ****ty patents (probably only granted because the technology was new to market which is harder for clerks to gauge) about animations and touch controls and incredibly generic technologies that they already lost most of the patents they tried to push on.
Well, I understand why you feel this way about these particular patents, though I disagree that they were as uninnovative as you suggest.
Quote from Emo_Pinata »
The fact that the majority of the patents came from industrial design lets you know how bad this case was. It's not about copying code or using Apple technology for non-apple products. It's about making phones that are (at a very high level) similar to Apple's iPhone - which is not what patent protection is for. That's why most patents are like "using direct application concentration substrates to present analyte to mini mass spectrometer"; very specified and very focused on a certain technology and it's novel concepts.
No, it's what trade dress patents are for, and that's exactly why they used them in that way.
Same OS with elements intentionally crippled you mean - iOS5 does not allow Siri to be used on non-4S phones. Nor will iOS6, and iOS7 is going to require dual processors already as a stated plan - so that's going to kill any current iPhone won't it?
Siri needs the voice-processing chip in the 4S's A5 to work correctly. You can enable it on earlier devices through jailbreaking, but it doesn't work as well.
Compare this to most Android phones, which receive few or no updates. I'll take a smaller update over no update anyway.
Quote from Vaclav »
An element that is 100% software based that they opted out of functioning on those previous models.
Not 100% software based. Hardware voice recognition chip.
Quote from Vaclav »
And 3GS's Android equivalent is the Nexus S technically (they did the S moniker intentionally to imply equivalence) - and it's got the most recent version of Android completed available currently [Including Siri-equivalent], barring some providers that were polishing the final details on the update before the Apple lawsuit slowed things up.
No. The Nexus S may have been developed as a response to the 3GS, but it was released a year and a half later in a different market. It's the equivalent to the 3GS only inasmuch as the iPhone 4 is, because both were developed in response to it.
And at any rate, the relevant point of comparison is to the update cycle, which is not favorable to Android.
Quote from Vaclav »
Note: Very few places I've seen actually carry the Wi-Fi only version, which does indirectly remove that option. [Although that may be a symptom of being in a high-income state and generally sticking to the high end shopping areas]
The $499 basic iPad is the best-selling model.
Quote from Vaclav »
I've taught people on the edge of senility how to use an Android in less than 5 hrs total - and I suck at teaching. There's no real damn learning curve in using an Android - developing for an Android, sure - using, not at all.
I didn't have to teach my elderly relatives to use an iPad.
Quote from Vaclav »
iPad doesn't do true multitasking - tab between multiple running things at once and you'll notice very quickly it's large weakness.
This is a trade-off for increased battery life and app performance. The iPad does "true multitasking" for a number of set tasks which are intended to cover most of the bases, and, well, do.
Quote from Vaclav »
They haven't innovated **** is the point behind the complaints - everything they patented someone else did before them, in the majority of the cases the stuff they patented was actually something that SOMEONE ELSE INVENTED and they then "stole" the patent from in whatever means they did it.
Yeah? Which are these, then?
Quote from Vaclav »
Half of the things in the iPhone are actually redundant patents for a specific that was already patented that in non-technology would've been thrown out as a bull**** patent immediately.
There are a lot of things patented in software and technology that look bad, and frankly I would say that the patent system needs reform. But that's not the issue; under the current laws these patents are genuine, and were Samsung in the opposite position I have no doubt they'd do the same thing.
Quote from Vaclav »
It would be like me saying "Hey, I'm gonna buy vats of Coke, add some raspberry syrup to it and repackage it and patent it as Vac's Raspberry Cola" even though that core design of Coke is still at the heart of my product, normally an absolute no-no in patent work.
First off, Samsung makes hardware, not software. Since their case was over software, their case against Samsung is pretty clearly not about design but market share.
Samsung also makes software, in various layers on top of Android. It markets these as "TouchWiz."
Quote from Jimbo »
Secondly, unless they're ripping off huge segments of code, there's no patent infringement. Especially since grid icons, pinch to zoom, and rounded corners existed well before the iPhone in tablets and smart phones.
Finally, this wasn't a patent issue, it's a trademark issue. It should never have come under the authority of a patent court since they didn't infringe on any patents.
They cut off updates to my iPod touch. Now I have a device that can't even run current apps. I will never, ever, buy apple again (well, the iPod was a gift). Stuff like that, forcing you to upgrade by not allowing you to update your devices just makes me so angry.
I mean, obviously they're going to cut off updates eventually. What generation iPod do you have?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Does it matter what generation of iPod he has? Apple made it, and Apple should support it for as long as they support the iPod. But Apple won't do that, because the longer people use a piece of hardware, the less money Apple gets from them. So by forcing people to upgrade their hardware by cutting off software support for their devices, Apple expects to make more money.
There's a certain point where the software just won't run on old hardware; your iPod probably doesn't have enough RAM to support the newer OS.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Aren't the android phones technically doing the same as well (HTC, Samsung etc.)? As they're always chucking out many lower end phones that, in theory, could run ICS and JB but choose not to?
Aren't the android phones technically doing the same as well (HTC, Samsung etc.)? As they're always chucking out many lower end phones that, in theory, could run ICS and JB but choose not to?
Depends on which you get, they don't promise to support those forever.
The one's they have (Nexus S/Galaxy Nexus) have yet to have broken that promise. In fact that promise was actively made and Google took greater control over their design because of the failing of the Nexus One in that regard.
Think of it like the PC market - every manufacturer of hardware says that X should be compatible with future version of Windows - since they try to stick to the OS standards, but sometimes the OS standards change and they get screwed and their hardware item no longer works after a OS update. (Sometimes even just a SP)
And sometimes with a few of the manufacturers it's not even the hardware that's the problem with updates, it's that the updates don't play nice with the bloatware they like to add into their custom version of Android for their individual phone.
Galaxy Nexus is what should be used as a direct point of comparison in the Android world to the iPhone currently. Designed by the OS manufacturer, with OS manufacturer promises to support it as long as feasible (although Apple has broken that promise before).
Although we will have more to come at DisCo on the Samsung-Apple verdict, I wanted to highlight a particular piece of curious information.
As many recent news reports have pointed out, the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, is himself a patent owner. One of Mr. Hogan’s patents, for a “method and apparatus for recording and storing video information,” filed in 2002, appears to be for a DVR/media server with removable drives. In other words, a device that can record video and copy it onto a storage medium and make it accessible for on-demand viewing at a later date. Given the fact that the first TiVo was released in 1999, it is conceivable that this particular patent would not meet the non-obvious standard necessary to qualify for patent protection (despite a few extra bells and whistles, like that ability to use a wireless keyboard, connect to the Internet, edit media and order movies on demand) as it does little more than combine known methods and current technology. (KSR v. Teleflex, the most recent Supreme Court case on the “obviousness” standard for patentability, held that the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)
It is an interesting fact that the legal interests of the foreman of the jury evaluating Apple’s allegedly obvious patents, such as the “pinch to zoom,” the “bounce back” and the “slide to unlock” functions, could be independently affected by whether the jury’s decision produced a nonobviousness standard more forgiving to the patent holder. (As one prominent software engineer noted in the NY Times, Apple’s patent of the pinch-to-zoom function is like a carmaker patenting “a circular steering wheel”.)
Of further interest is that Mr. Hogan’s own experience with the patent system (in which he himself is a stakeholder) did indeed color his views in assessing Samsung’s liability:
Hogan described the deliberations in vivid detail, saying the first task was to determine if Apple’s patents were valid because of Samsung’s arguments they were negated by “prior art” in the industry, essentially technology that existed for features such as touch screens before the introduction of the iPhone. Using his own experience getting a patent, Hogan said he had a revelation on the first night of deliberations while he watched television.
“I was thinking about the patents, and thought, ‘If this were my patent, could I defend it?’ ” Hogan recalled. “Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things.”
Furthermore, Mr. Hogan’s views of patentability were reportedly very influential in getting the jury over the original patentability questions on which the entire case turned, as CNET’s interview with another juror makes clear:
“We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself…so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier.”
It will remain an interesting historical wrinkle that the most prominent decision-maker in this case could be so directly affected by the outcome — not as a member of the public who stood to benefit from the promotion of progress in the useful arts, but as the owner of an entitlement created by a patent system that has gone off the rails.
Not the only place I found this too.
Furthermore, the comments from jury clearly indicated this was PUNITIVE, when the judge clearly directed them that they COULD NOT GIVE PUNITIVE component to judgment here. In fact they pretty much skipped over the judge's instructions, primarily due to the bastard jury foreman who should never have been allowed to sit on this jury.
Velvin Hogan, the little mother****er, ignored the judge's instructions for his own ulterior motives, and in support of his own bull**** patents like his laughable DVR patent he's protecting.
He paraded himself in the jury room as basically an expert on patent law, and used his position as foreman to basically present his own evidence.
“I was watching a movie, but I was thinking about this and all the claims, one in particular, and I thought to myself, I can defend this. Then I thought, if I can defend this patent, as though it were my own, then I need to go back and tell my fellow jurors about this,” he explained. “I knew if I could defend this like it was mine, then I needed to look at the others.”
Hogan said it was at that very moment that $1 billion “went from left to right,” so to speak.
“Yes, it did, it did,” he recounted in an interview on Sunday evening.
Hogan then went about guiding his fellow jurors – an eclectic mix that included two engineers, a young rock music enthusiast, a Navy veteran, bike shop manager and a homemaker – through the herculean task of deciding who owned what in this battle of technology titans.
Hope he dies.
Also multiple clear errors on the jury's final verdict, contradictory stuff, bad math, and a decision made impossibly quickly, in faster time than it would have taken to even review the material.
LOL - just read something great regarding this - apparently iOS getting true multitasking is lawsuit-worthy on the same grounds that this passed under.
Ooops.
As well as cells and tabs - although the former isn't hugely relevant for non-tablets, the latter is enormous.
TBH, I didn't follow this lawsuit too closely. It seems there was some basis of merit within the law. Copyright and patent laws are sometimes arcane and possibly in need of some clean-up, but we can't discuss things as if these laws didn't exist, which it seems is a tack some in this thread are veering towards.
As a former techie who renounced such interests about a decade ago, I have to agree with Senori, et al., in this thread when it comes to Apple's ease of use increasing its popularity. It's also getting a hard boost from the popularity ---> more apps ---> more popularity circle that tends to form when systems compete. The market speaks, folks; it's unfortunate when it speaks against a "better product" (cf. VHS vs. Betamax), or against your best wishes and efforts (Wal-Mart still exists for a reason despite people's opposition to it).
The school I work at received a grant to equip all faculty and students with iPads, and put Macs in all our classrooms to work with them. Where are the other tablet makers there? Don't wonder why other tablet makers lose share to Apple...
@ Solaran - App makers don't have to restrict their apps based on which OS you run, but, hey, if iMtG is using features of iOS5... That's his prerogative. Again, the market speaks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
goc: That grant wasn't made by Apple unless things have changed since I last heard data on the matter about a year ago.
And technically last time I bothered to check the "more apps" thing actually points towards Android about 2:1.
And it's really good to read the actual data on the suit itself - it's what shows the ridiculousness of it. Claims that the iPhone 4/4S and the Galaxy phones have a nearly identical form factor. Statement from the judge that it should absolutely not be punitive, with statements from the lead juror that state explicitly they wanted to make sure it was. Claims that "pinch to zoom" and the like that existed in movies when I was a kid with the theorized touchscreens then somehow was their brainchild that they had all rights to, even though it had been imagined in the public consciousness for DECADES before they made it.
We're talking about a huge can of worms if this lawsuit stands - stuff like Sony or whomever produced the first of modern flatscreen TV's suing the rest because the others are too similar. Because Christ, TV's are all damn near identical when it comes to the form factor, certainly closer than iPhones and the Galaxy models in question.
And someone in this thread (I believe it was Senori) claimed that Apple keeps all it's products up-to-date...which is clearly false for both the iPod Touch and iPhone. There are versions of those two devices that Apple refuses to update any further, forcing anyone using those devices to upgrade to newer Apple products.
No one is forcing any consumer to upgrade any of their devices. Good grief.
I'm not even sure what you're expecting here, that every device is update-able in perpetuity? As far as I can find, Apple hasn't left anyone under contract with one of their phones without OS updates and support, and I think they have kept all their phones updated to the (at the time) current iOS for like three years each. Three years of software updates seems pretty good. My Droid had one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
In a bit of a funny note, there are rounds in the Korean online community saying that Apple copied its design form from canned sesame leaves produced in Korea. Afaik, the design has been around since the 60-70s.
Supposedly the first can design to have rounded edges, and first anything to have rounded edges that are similar in shape and size to the Iphone. But that's what Koreans say and I don't think it's a good idea to believe what incredibly angry Koreans are saying right now.
Compare this to most Android phones, which receive few or no updates. I'll take a smaller update over no update anyway.
Blame that on the carriers. Apple did a shrewd move back with the original iPhone on AT&T: Apple demanded that they push out updates instead of AT&T. This stipulation, which they've gotten for every carrier that carries the iPhone, allows Apple to control which devices get updates and when. For most Android devices updates start at Google, are adapted by the manufacturer, then eventually pushed out by the carriers.
The reasons the Gingerbread update for the Droid 2 took so long wasn't because Google couldn't make it work but because Motorola spent a fair amount of time updating Blur and then Verizon held off on the update until after the Droid 4 was released. It's planned behavior on the behalf of the carriers.
The big trade-off here is that with many Android devices the user can update the phone himself. Now this isn't always simple, and in some cases impossible, but there are models designed to updated by the user if the carrier won't or is slow. My HTC Incredible is still running strong on CyanogenMod 7 a year after Verizon has written off the device completely. Furthermore, my device can run CyanogenMod 9 which is Android 4 based, albeit not as smoothly as I would like.
Not 100% software based. Hardware voice recognition chip.
Not really. Siri, and Android Voice Actions, don't do any voice processing on the device itself. The captured audio is sent to Apple's or Google's servers which process the audio, perform the search, and return the result to the device. Turn off mobile data and WiFi then ask Siri a question. You won't be able to.
Now for Android Voice Actions, and Siri I believe, you can voice dial without any sort of data connection. That level of voice processing has been around since the early '00s so it's not a matter of older iPhones lacking in hardware capabilities.
LOL - just read something great regarding this - apparently iOS getting true multitasking is lawsuit-worthy on the same grounds that this passed under.
Neither iOS or Android do true multitasking. Android fakes it pretty well with its app lifecycle, but performing background tasks is limited somewhat. Now it's not as restricted as it is on iOS, but a badly coded app that doesn't release its hold on sensors, kills unneeded services, or stops listening to certain intents on sleep is going to drain your battery like crazy.
It's a philosophy difference between Apple and Google here. Apple takes a very strict approach so performance and battery life aren't impacted. Google allows the developer more leeway with the understanding that bad behaving apps will hopefully be pointed out by the userbase. Google gives the developer more power, which is awesome if it's used correctly, while Apple protects the user from bad coding, which is a noble goal.
Nis - There's a handful of apps that do true multitasking, some like the "lost phone" apps wouldn't function without it. It's all high-level stuff though beyond anything my programmer friends are familiar with however.
But yea, it's impractical for most apps to have it - even stuff like tabbed browsing on iOS feels terribly bogged down though.
In a bit of a funny note, there are rounds in the Korean online community saying that Apple copied its design form from canned sesame leaves produced in Korea. Afaik, the design has been around since the 60-70s.
Supposedly the first can design to have rounded edges, and first anything to have rounded edges that are similar in shape and size to the Iphone. But that's what Koreans say and I don't think it's a good idea to believe what incredibly angry Koreans are saying right now.
They're just pointing out how bad the patent laws are here when you can make numerous poor patents - like the people patenting genes and most software patents. Patenting pinch to zoom is like patenting the tables from spreadsheets or double click to open.
Pretty much all the patents you hear about in this case aren't actually patent worthy. You might be able to make a case over trademarks, but if they argued over the patents themselves, the patents would fail.
The verdict might disintegrate on its way up the legal ladder, but the judgment will fall apart and if the patents are challenged, they'll collapse too.
Nis - There's a handful of apps that do true multitasking, some like the "lost phone" apps wouldn't function without it. It's all high-level stuff though beyond anything my programmer friends are familiar with however.
It's multitasking in that there is some background service running after the app loses its foreground status. Once an app on Android loses focus it is put to "sleep" and awoken once its given focus again. A quick way to test this: hold your phone landscape. Changing the orientation actually puts the app to sleep and awakens it with a new layout (if the app has a landscape layout). You can signify that you want some data passed back to you on wake when you go to sleep so you can code things so you don't have to download images and the like again, but an Android app cannot ever lose focus and remain awake.
An app can spin off a background service that waits for lots of different events, such as new input from a sensor or a phone call, but that service must send an intent to wake the app and bring it to the foreground. Since the system can kill off these services when it needs resources (although there is a way to prevent this) it isn't true multitasking. The Android OS is designed for running one app at a time and having services lie dormant until prodded by some sort of input.
@ Vaclav: While the grant was not made by Apple, the iPad was chosen for a variety of reasons, amongst them its ease of use, variety and power of apps, and interconnectivity with the school networks and the classroom computers.
One thing with Apple that they've done right since forever - the interconnectivity is so easy to implement with their own products, as it's all done in-house.
If you are correct about the statements from the judge and the jurors, why didn't the judge stop it? I won't deny that there may be something going on here...
I will say, though, that the things you can copyright and patent are absurd, to an extent. One-click shopping (Amazon), the idea of a "collectible card game," amongst others. Welcome to the world we get when business owns the authors and the arbiters of the laws.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
It's multitasking in that there is some background service running after the app loses its foreground status. Once an app on Android loses focus it is put to "sleep" and awoken once its given focus again. A quick way to test this: hold your phone landscape. Changing the orientation actually puts the app to sleep and awakens it with a new layout (if the app has a landscape layout). You can signify that you want some data passed back to you on wake when you go to sleep so you can code things so you don't have to download images and the like again, but an Android app cannot ever lose focus and remain awake.
An app can spin off a background service that waits for lots of different events, such as new input from a sensor or a phone call, but that service must send an intent to wake the app and bring it to the foreground. Since the system can kill off these services when it needs resources (although there is a way to prevent this) it isn't true multitasking. The Android OS is designed for running one app at a time and having services lie dormant until prodded by some sort of input.
Eh, perhaps I used the word "true" too freely. Sounds just like how Windows used to handle multitasking before XP with how you describe it. Still far more efficient in use than how iOS does it regardless.
Quote from goc »
@ Vaclav: While the grant was not made by Apple, the iPad was chosen for a variety of reasons, amongst them its ease of use, variety and power of apps, and interconnectivity with the school networks and the classroom computers.
Ease of use is silly to state, all tablets are similarly easy to use - master the gestures and it's no different than using a mouse really. And as stated app quantity (and power) is markedly similar here's a quote stating that the more recent Google Play store vs. Android Market is neck-in-neck with the App Store on both (http://www.lockergnome.com/mobile/2012/07/13/app-quality-vs-app-quantity/).
However I will agree "playing nice" with the school PC's is a big deal - right now iPad and Mac's are the best tablet + computer solution when it comes to the two getting along. We'll see if things change once Win8 and the Surface hit the market though, since that will be the first interconnective competition for the iPad. [In fact the only reason I don't personally own a Nexus 7, was planning to get one and then I found out the details on the Surface enough to put it on hold]
Keep in mind, too, that this decision was made over two years ago, when Apple was far more dominant. This decision wasn't made yesterday, as your data would seem to indicate. I've been abusing the crap out of this free iPad for about a year now.
I agree that the Microsoft tablet is a huge issue for the iPad. Eventually, there will be a challenge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
Ah, I thought you're in the public schools? Friend of the family is a Superintendent at a PS on Long Island, she was talking about that happening soon for them last time she was in town over Winter break - so I assumed it was coming for this school year. [At least I think - I know she was teaching on LI before she became an Asst. Super. she lives in Brooklyn though, so would've clearly wanted to have a shorter commute though]
And I knew the grant had been made a while ago though, just from her data it sounded like it was becoming "active" for this school year.
You're talking about the iPads for the teachers to distribute for video presentations and such during classes and the like - or for doing the stuff that we used scientific calculators for when I was taking classes still, right? Not ones that go home with the students or anything. (like some colleges do) If it's the latter, that's brand new to me and not what she'd been informing us of.
No, I'm not in the public system. And our kids take them home. They're encouraged to use it as a notebook and textbook, when applicable, and then whatever other apps are applicable. There are a ton of useful math and science apps for students of all ages.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
Ah - nonpublic I have no idea - only guess I could make is that it might be a Jewish private school, but that's only because I know of one out here that's done the iPad thing.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
B)The screen is like 40% bigger than a Kindle Fire.
And that doesn't address the fact that iOS has much better software availability for tablets than Android does(or maybe that changes when you root it? I have no idea).
I'm not trying to defend Apple here really. I have a heavy dislike toward them(and toward their rabid delusional fanbase). But they should still get credit where it is due, and IMO, the iPad is the best overall tablet on the market.
I think it is ridiculous that they won this lawsuit though. Samsung's attorneys really dropped the ball here. Fortunately, the S3 came out of the lawsuit fine, which is what Samsung wanted most. Now Apple will have to put real effort into the iPhone 5. Or give up on the cell phone market(I wouldn't be surprised if this happens).
Did you edit that post Vaclav? I don't remember it having the word multitask in it before..the whole context of everything I said here makes no sense now.
And outside of multitasking, it is a strong device - but multitasking is such a big deal for a device like that for everyone I know - and even the "bargain bin" Android tablets are better equipped to multitask because the iOS just isn't set up to support it yet. If they don't have true multitasking in iOS6, it's gonna be bad times for them, I'd imagine. At least in the circles I frequent.
Software support for iOS is always going to be better simply due to singular design - although the Nexus 7 might help change things, since developers can target the Nexus 7 as the "our software must work on X" platform and then tweak it for the others. Unfortunately though, iOS is starting to lose market share slowly but surely - the same thing that eroded Apple in the computer market.
The device with the most units sold in the end will be the most successful in terms of how the market perceives them. I have no doubt that iPhone 8LBGT or whatever it is by then (I added random caps'ed letters - I got those 4 hitting at random, I swear... amusing) will be looked at in 10 years as Mac's are today, a tool that perhaps excels in one or two areas but that overall due to market diversity Android or Win8 based devices dominating them.
Of which, although I don't like what I see thusfar (unless the rumored Surface price of $200 is right) with Win 8 - I've gotta say, it's position especially with the ability to tie-in to PC market reasonably easy in theory, looks to be a compelling bet for the future. Even though, my heart wants Android to be king.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Yes. And that is exactly what these patents are about.
Well, I understand why you feel this way about these particular patents, though I disagree that they were as uninnovative as you suggest.
No, it's what trade dress patents are for, and that's exactly why they used them in that way.
Siri needs the voice-processing chip in the 4S's A5 to work correctly. You can enable it on earlier devices through jailbreaking, but it doesn't work as well.
Compare this to most Android phones, which receive few or no updates. I'll take a smaller update over no update anyway.
Not 100% software based. Hardware voice recognition chip.
No. The Nexus S may have been developed as a response to the 3GS, but it was released a year and a half later in a different market. It's the equivalent to the 3GS only inasmuch as the iPhone 4 is, because both were developed in response to it.
And at any rate, the relevant point of comparison is to the update cycle, which is not favorable to Android.
The $499 basic iPad is the best-selling model.
I didn't have to teach my elderly relatives to use an iPad.
This is a trade-off for increased battery life and app performance. The iPad does "true multitasking" for a number of set tasks which are intended to cover most of the bases, and, well, do.
Yeah? Which are these, then?
There are a lot of things patented in software and technology that look bad, and frankly I would say that the patent system needs reform. But that's not the issue; under the current laws these patents are genuine, and were Samsung in the opposite position I have no doubt they'd do the same thing.
No, because you can't patent recipes.
Samsung also makes software, in various layers on top of Android. It markets these as "TouchWiz."
Nope, nope.
I mean, obviously they're going to cut off updates eventually. What generation iPod do you have?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
There's a certain point where the software just won't run on old hardware; your iPod probably doesn't have enough RAM to support the newer OS.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
Depends on which you get, they don't promise to support those forever.
The one's they have (Nexus S/Galaxy Nexus) have yet to have broken that promise. In fact that promise was actively made and Google took greater control over their design because of the failing of the Nexus One in that regard.
Think of it like the PC market - every manufacturer of hardware says that X should be compatible with future version of Windows - since they try to stick to the OS standards, but sometimes the OS standards change and they get screwed and their hardware item no longer works after a OS update. (Sometimes even just a SP)
And sometimes with a few of the manufacturers it's not even the hardware that's the problem with updates, it's that the updates don't play nice with the bloatware they like to add into their custom version of Android for their individual phone.
Galaxy Nexus is what should be used as a direct point of comparison in the Android world to the iPhone currently. Designed by the OS manufacturer, with OS manufacturer promises to support it as long as feasible (although Apple has broken that promise before).
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/a-jury-of-your-peers-apple-v-samsung-jury-foreman-also-holds-questionable-tech-patents-too/
Not the only place I found this too.
Furthermore, the comments from jury clearly indicated this was PUNITIVE, when the judge clearly directed them that they COULD NOT GIVE PUNITIVE component to judgment here. In fact they pretty much skipped over the judge's instructions, primarily due to the bastard jury foreman who should never have been allowed to sit on this jury.
Velvin Hogan, the little mother****er, ignored the judge's instructions for his own ulterior motives, and in support of his own bull**** patents like his laughable DVR patent he's protecting.
He paraded himself in the jury room as basically an expert on patent law, and used his position as foreman to basically present his own evidence.
Hope he dies.
Also multiple clear errors on the jury's final verdict, contradictory stuff, bad math, and a decision made impossibly quickly, in faster time than it would have taken to even review the material.
Ooops.
As well as cells and tabs - although the former isn't hugely relevant for non-tablets, the latter is enormous.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
TBH, I didn't follow this lawsuit too closely. It seems there was some basis of merit within the law. Copyright and patent laws are sometimes arcane and possibly in need of some clean-up, but we can't discuss things as if these laws didn't exist, which it seems is a tack some in this thread are veering towards.
As a former techie who renounced such interests about a decade ago, I have to agree with Senori, et al., in this thread when it comes to Apple's ease of use increasing its popularity. It's also getting a hard boost from the popularity ---> more apps ---> more popularity circle that tends to form when systems compete. The market speaks, folks; it's unfortunate when it speaks against a "better product" (cf. VHS vs. Betamax), or against your best wishes and efforts (Wal-Mart still exists for a reason despite people's opposition to it).
The school I work at received a grant to equip all faculty and students with iPads, and put Macs in all our classrooms to work with them. Where are the other tablet makers there? Don't wonder why other tablet makers lose share to Apple...
@ Solaran - App makers don't have to restrict their apps based on which OS you run, but, hey, if iMtG is using features of iOS5... That's his prerogative. Again, the market speaks.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
And technically last time I bothered to check the "more apps" thing actually points towards Android about 2:1.
And it's really good to read the actual data on the suit itself - it's what shows the ridiculousness of it. Claims that the iPhone 4/4S and the Galaxy phones have a nearly identical form factor. Statement from the judge that it should absolutely not be punitive, with statements from the lead juror that state explicitly they wanted to make sure it was. Claims that "pinch to zoom" and the like that existed in movies when I was a kid with the theorized touchscreens then somehow was their brainchild that they had all rights to, even though it had been imagined in the public consciousness for DECADES before they made it.
We're talking about a huge can of worms if this lawsuit stands - stuff like Sony or whomever produced the first of modern flatscreen TV's suing the rest because the others are too similar. Because Christ, TV's are all damn near identical when it comes to the form factor, certainly closer than iPhones and the Galaxy models in question.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
No one is forcing any consumer to upgrade any of their devices. Good grief.
I'm not even sure what you're expecting here, that every device is update-able in perpetuity? As far as I can find, Apple hasn't left anyone under contract with one of their phones without OS updates and support, and I think they have kept all their phones updated to the (at the time) current iOS for like three years each. Three years of software updates seems pretty good. My Droid had one.
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
http://www.amazon.com/Sempio-Canned-Sesame-Leaves-90-Grams/dp/B004Q4C86A
Supposedly the first can design to have rounded edges, and first anything to have rounded edges that are similar in shape and size to the Iphone. But that's what Koreans say and I don't think it's a good idea to believe what incredibly angry Koreans are saying right now.
Blame that on the carriers. Apple did a shrewd move back with the original iPhone on AT&T: Apple demanded that they push out updates instead of AT&T. This stipulation, which they've gotten for every carrier that carries the iPhone, allows Apple to control which devices get updates and when. For most Android devices updates start at Google, are adapted by the manufacturer, then eventually pushed out by the carriers.
The reasons the Gingerbread update for the Droid 2 took so long wasn't because Google couldn't make it work but because Motorola spent a fair amount of time updating Blur and then Verizon held off on the update until after the Droid 4 was released. It's planned behavior on the behalf of the carriers.
The big trade-off here is that with many Android devices the user can update the phone himself. Now this isn't always simple, and in some cases impossible, but there are models designed to updated by the user if the carrier won't or is slow. My HTC Incredible is still running strong on CyanogenMod 7 a year after Verizon has written off the device completely. Furthermore, my device can run CyanogenMod 9 which is Android 4 based, albeit not as smoothly as I would like.
Not really. Siri, and Android Voice Actions, don't do any voice processing on the device itself. The captured audio is sent to Apple's or Google's servers which process the audio, perform the search, and return the result to the device. Turn off mobile data and WiFi then ask Siri a question. You won't be able to.
Now for Android Voice Actions, and Siri I believe, you can voice dial without any sort of data connection. That level of voice processing has been around since the early '00s so it's not a matter of older iPhones lacking in hardware capabilities.
Neither iOS or Android do true multitasking. Android fakes it pretty well with its app lifecycle, but performing background tasks is limited somewhat. Now it's not as restricted as it is on iOS, but a badly coded app that doesn't release its hold on sensors, kills unneeded services, or stops listening to certain intents on sleep is going to drain your battery like crazy.
It's a philosophy difference between Apple and Google here. Apple takes a very strict approach so performance and battery life aren't impacted. Google allows the developer more leeway with the understanding that bad behaving apps will hopefully be pointed out by the userbase. Google gives the developer more power, which is awesome if it's used correctly, while Apple protects the user from bad coding, which is a noble goal.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
But yea, it's impractical for most apps to have it - even stuff like tabbed browsing on iOS feels terribly bogged down though.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
They're just pointing out how bad the patent laws are here when you can make numerous poor patents - like the people patenting genes and most software patents. Patenting pinch to zoom is like patenting the tables from spreadsheets or double click to open.
Pretty much all the patents you hear about in this case aren't actually patent worthy. You might be able to make a case over trademarks, but if they argued over the patents themselves, the patents would fail.
The verdict might disintegrate on its way up the legal ladder, but the judgment will fall apart and if the patents are challenged, they'll collapse too.
It's multitasking in that there is some background service running after the app loses its foreground status. Once an app on Android loses focus it is put to "sleep" and awoken once its given focus again. A quick way to test this: hold your phone landscape. Changing the orientation actually puts the app to sleep and awakens it with a new layout (if the app has a landscape layout). You can signify that you want some data passed back to you on wake when you go to sleep so you can code things so you don't have to download images and the like again, but an Android app cannot ever lose focus and remain awake.
An app can spin off a background service that waits for lots of different events, such as new input from a sensor or a phone call, but that service must send an intent to wake the app and bring it to the foreground. Since the system can kill off these services when it needs resources (although there is a way to prevent this) it isn't true multitasking. The Android OS is designed for running one app at a time and having services lie dormant until prodded by some sort of input.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
One thing with Apple that they've done right since forever - the interconnectivity is so easy to implement with their own products, as it's all done in-house.
If you are correct about the statements from the judge and the jurors, why didn't the judge stop it? I won't deny that there may be something going on here...
I will say, though, that the things you can copyright and patent are absurd, to an extent. One-click shopping (Amazon), the idea of a "collectible card game," amongst others. Welcome to the world we get when business owns the authors and the arbiters of the laws.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Eh, perhaps I used the word "true" too freely. Sounds just like how Windows used to handle multitasking before XP with how you describe it. Still far more efficient in use than how iOS does it regardless.
Ease of use is silly to state, all tablets are similarly easy to use - master the gestures and it's no different than using a mouse really. And as stated app quantity (and power) is markedly similar here's a quote stating that the more recent Google Play store vs. Android Market is neck-in-neck with the App Store on both (http://www.lockergnome.com/mobile/2012/07/13/app-quality-vs-app-quantity/).
However I will agree "playing nice" with the school PC's is a big deal - right now iPad and Mac's are the best tablet + computer solution when it comes to the two getting along. We'll see if things change once Win8 and the Surface hit the market though, since that will be the first interconnective competition for the iPad. [In fact the only reason I don't personally own a Nexus 7, was planning to get one and then I found out the details on the Surface enough to put it on hold]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I agree that the Microsoft tablet is a huge issue for the iPad. Eventually, there will be a challenge.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
And I knew the grant had been made a while ago though, just from her data it sounded like it was becoming "active" for this school year.
You're talking about the iPads for the teachers to distribute for video presentations and such during classes and the like - or for doing the stuff that we used scientific calculators for when I was taking classes still, right? Not ones that go home with the students or anything. (like some colleges do) If it's the latter, that's brand new to me and not what she'd been informing us of.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.