Doctorow on the iPad

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Answered my own question. Looks like they do have a patent on the pinch to zoom interface and recently sued HTC over patent infringement from use of something similar in some apps or something.

That sucks, as that feature is one of the things that really makes the iPad click for me. If the Android tablets can't use it, hopefully they can be creative and come up with something that works just as well. Or win in court and get the patent tossed out!

I bet thats also why they 'HAD' to refuse that app dawnfalcon was on about! it was an image viewer that was rejected for using pinch to zoom. I guess if apple had ok'd teh app then in effect it would be harder for them to enforce such a copyright on others eg HTC

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Answered my own question. Looks like they do have a patent on the pinch to zoom interface and recently sued HTC over patent infringement from use of something similar in some apps or something.

That sucks, as that feature is one of the things that really makes the iPad click for me. If the Android tablets can't use it, hopefully they can be creative and come up with something that works just as well. Or win in court and get the patent tossed out!

I saw that demoed in windows as well. If Apple actually has a patent on it, I wonder if Windows has licensed it or some such thing.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Answered my own question. Looks like they do have a patent on the pinch to zoom interface and recently sued HTC over patent infringement from use of something similar in some apps or something.

That sucks, as that feature is one of the things that really makes the iPad click for me. If the Android tablets can't use it, hopefully they can be creative and come up with something that works just as well. Or win in court and get the patent tossed out!

Most likely wouldn't win. Nobody had pinch zoom before Apple. The entire iPad/iPhone/iPod touch monopoly is based on it. You want it, you pay. And pay. And pay.

A legal monopoly and an egomaniac is always a very toxic mix....

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Most likely wouldn't win. Nobody had pinch zoom before Apple. The entire iPad/iPhone/iPod touch monopoly is based on it. You want it, you pay. And pay. And pay.

A legal monopoly and an egomaniac is always a very toxic mix....

to be fair they did invent it so surely they shouldnt let others have it for free and profit from it should they?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by stustaff

to be fair they did invent it so surely they shouldnt let others have it for free and profit from it should they?

Wait, I didn't know we were going to talk about pirates and copyrights and ebooks want to be free!

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

...

My main concern among sites I visit daily was ESPN.com, but it worked fine both in terms of all the menus etc., the videos played fine as I said above etc....

You were most likely directed to the mobile site, or something in between, regardless of your initial choice. I am not saying that most major sites don't work, but that you are getting the "lite" versions (in most cases mobile).

As to the Apple lawsuit against HTC, here is a good summary of the patents involved:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/a...ent-breakdown/

But I wouldn't worry too much - it's mostly trying to scare those thinking of licensing Android and kill competition. Especially the UI patents can be invalidated if it ever comes to blows (and Google has the pockets to do it).

It would be like worrying about buying an iPhone because Nokia is suing Apple for infringement involving core technologies (a stronger suit, IMO, even if I don't necessarily agree with it)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stustaff

to be fair they did invent it so surely they shouldnt let others have it for free and profit from it should they?

The issue at hand is not letting other people have it for free. The issue is how should you use the monopoly.

Apple is choosing to go for short-term profit maximization, trying to grab every possible dime from it. That's why external developers are treated so shabbily, and outside standards (such as flash) are tending to be ignored. All to block outside competition and have the users, who want the dominate patented feature, give every penny they have to Apple. They are not worried about extra value added to the system by external development, if it's big enough, they want to subsume it into an Apple product. These are the very type of actions that cause the great anti-trust rebellion of the 1880's-1910's in the US.

On the other hand, if you don't want or need the patented feature, you will have a much cheaper alternative products over time. Whether touch/zoom wins over folding green over time, I can't say. It does for me, already. But I'm a cheapskate...

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by stustaff

to be fair they did invent it so surely they shouldnt let others have it for free and profit from it should they?

Not true. Apple did NOT invent pinch to zoom. It DOES NOT hold a patent on it.

If you want a nice summary of Apple's relating patent portfolio (which came up when the Pre was introduced), take a look at this:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/a...epth-analysis/

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sonist

You were most likely directed to the mobile site, or something in between, regardless of your initial choice. I am not saying that most major sites don't work, but that you are getting the "lite" versions (in most cases mobile).

As to the Apple lawsuit against HTC, here is a good summary of the patents involved:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/a...ent-breakdown/

But I wouldn't worry too much - it's mostly trying to scare those thinking of licensing Android and kill competition. Especially the UI patents can be invalidated if it ever comes to blows (and Google has the pockets to do it).

It would be like worrying about buying an iPhone because Nokia is suing Apple for infringement involving core technologies (a stronger suit, IMO, even if I don't necessarily agree with it)

It's pretty much insane what they allow patents on these days I think.

Thanks for that link!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Not true. Apple did NOT invent pinch to zoom. It DOES NOT hold a patent on it.

If you want a nice summary of Apple's relating patent portfolio (which came up when the Pre was introduced), take a look at this:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/a...epth-analysis/

Thanks again. I was questioning that one myself....

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

As I said elsewhere, I can live with iAds if it leads to more free and very cheap apps. I can't if we end up with adds in $5-10 apps.

It'll lead to bad devs using them everywhere, and less good devs. You can be sure that they'll prohibit other adverts, and as I've said before, targeting adverts where you can keep 100% of the revenue can easily pay a order of magnitude more than generics with only 60% kept. At least two good iPhone dev studios I know use targeted adds, and they're currently both preparing for an switch to Android on that basis.

Ralph Sir Edward - Thing is, they are not making a profit. The App store does not generate them that much money! They're running it down for no good return. It's bizarre.

Sonist - Yes, that makes it even worse. And of course, even if they did they could easily grant a licence for iPhone apps to use them, unlike certain appologia suggesting they somehow have to ruthlessly crush good apps.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Sonist

You were most likely directed to the mobile site, or something in between, regardless of your initial choice. I am not saying that most major sites don't work, but that you are getting the "lite" versions (in most cases mobile).

Nope, it's the full ESPN.com site as far as I can tell. The mobile site is very barebones.

I visit it regularly and compared on the laptop and the iPad simultaneously and couldn't find a single difference.

I'm not saying many sites have done it, but ESPN.com works just the same as on the PC for whatever reason.

I know flash is big to you, but for some of us it doesn't much affect our browsing experience. I thought it was more prevalent than it is until I turned on flash block in firefox, as well as surfing on the iPad.

But I do pretty basic web browsing. Mostly a couple news sites, ESPN.com, facebook and a couple forum sites are about it. That and streaming video, but Apps are taking care of that on the iPad, and I prefer apps to having to launch the videos in a web browser as you get right into the video player interface, vs. having to launch it from the websites.

You should find a way to play around with an iPad. I was nearly as skeptical as you before my girlfriend bought one. But it's impressed me a lot more than I ever anticipated.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

unlike certain appologia suggesting they somehow have to ruthlessly crush good apps.

If the dev had not used an action that apple claim to have a patent on then I doubt apple would have rejected it.

i dont claim to know patent law but apple have applied for pinch to zoom and an article on wired.com states

""It seems that Apple could win patent claims where they are directed toward a touchscreen user device," says Chad Peterman, an expert on patent and antitrust litigation and an attorney at Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler. While a gesture like "the pinch" in and of itself is not patentable, if you connect that motion to a specific function on a popular device, it is possible to argue that other devices using the same technique are infringing, Peterman says."

"Ruthlessly crushing good apps" over react much? Apple they asked that they not use 'apples' pinch to zoom as Apple believe they own that(still to be seen if they actually do or not) if they use a different gesture then it may get approved.

I was under the impression that if you were claiming a patent you also had to actively protect that patent or you could end up losing it? thats what I meant by saying Apple 'had' to say know to it as if they approved it then they are saying yes others can use it?

[Lemurion]

Personally I believe Apple has every legal right to put all apps on "double secret probation" and deny apps for reasons that can be most charitably described as rampant idiocy.

It's their store, they can do what they want.

Accepting that right does not mean I think it's an intelligent, rational, or even ethical way to do business. I think it's wrongheaded and messed up and just adds to the list of reasons why I've been using the term "Apple fascists" for about thirty years now.

Just as they have the choice to do what I consider stupid things, I have the choice not to buy in to them. There are multiple reasons there is an Android device in my pocket, and Apple is one of them.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

It'll lead to bad devs using them everywhere, and less good devs. You can be sure that they'll prohibit other adverts, and as I've said before, targeting adverts where you can keep 100% of the revenue can easily pay a order of magnitude more than generics with only 60% kept. At least two good iPhone dev studios I know use targeted adds, and they're currently both preparing for an switch to Android on that basis.

Ralph Sir Edward - Thing is, they are not making a profit. The App store does not generate them that much money! They're running it down for no good return. It's bizarre.

Sonist - Yes, that makes it even worse. And of course, even if they did they could easily grant a licence for iPhone apps to use them, unlike certain appologia suggesting they somehow have to ruthlessly crush good apps.

They make their money on the hardware, using the software to drive hardware sales...