Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Oct 2011 23:17 UTC, submitted by jello
Apple So, how serious is the legal battle between Apple and the various Android phone makers, really? Surely, it's just logical business sense that's behind it, right? Calculated, well-planned precision strikes designed to hurt Android where simply making better, more innovative products isn't enough? Well, no, not really. We already knew Steve Jobs took this personal - now we know just how personal.
Thread beginning with comment 494071
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: So I guess that...
by phoudoin on Mon 24th Oct 2011 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So I guess that..."
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

Google bought Android when it was a BlackBerry clone, and when iPhone debuted they turned it into an iOS clone, no one can seriously deny this


Yeah, a clone that can't even run apps made for iOS, or even have some compatibily at SDK level, not even the same language to develop for.

Something weird happened to the definition of "clone" word in the IT. Now, just sharing a vague physical shape make a product a "clone", an illegal copy of another one.

All this is not getting silly, it *IS*.
Since far too long.

Too many people seems trapped in a distortion field.

This is about turning around to go after a former partner's main strategy. Like as if Apple had gone and made a search engine.[/quote]

First, show us a contract signed between Apple and Google saying none of them will walk on the shoes of the other one. No contract, no deal. No deal, no promise. That a big player think that some one friendly company will always be is really be a uber naive businessman.

Second, nothing forbid Apple to make a search engine.
I even wonder why they didn't yet. Shy?
Difficulty? No unoccupied market share to claim first?

[q]Android is not fundamentally innovative.


As 99.9999% of software code. Even iOS, MacOS X, Windows, Linux share a large portion of software design that were written decades ago.
Under iOS, there is an UNIX layer.
Same for MacOS X. Apple invent none of them.
But without them, no iDevice, zero.

What Android did is to put a fast quasi-java runtime and write an orthogonal framework that doesn't need to learn a language only used by one company products (Objective C). Suddently, all java coders could see a new opportunity, when they didn't with Apple ecosystem.
This kind of choice also matter.

Of course there are good features (ie, notification system) but it's no major change in design.


You mean, not like the lack of multitasking in iOS until 3.0? Or system-wide copy&paste?
Sure, multitasking, aka the ability to NOT have to restart from scratch what you were doing before you accept to answer that call is not a major change in design for a smartphone operating system. It was so fun without multitasking, so true.

Yeah, right.
Sorry, but sporting an apple logo is not a major design change anymore. The same apply to huge margin.
And consumer started to see that since a year.
What did Apple innovate since?
Their latest innovation is whinning about stealers.
Indeed, that's a very big change, for a company that started to gain profit by copying Xerox WIMP design.

At least a platform like Windows Phone thought about the whole experience and tried to make something different.


Which has yet miss success, mostly because smartphone users are now expecting user interface they already how to use and are fluent with, like before others users were hooked to Windows and less ready to try something different like... a Mac.

How ironic.

Apple innovate. They create a new design paradigm, so great that nobody can think to use a smartphone that won't be a touch device and behave similar to the new paradigm.

But they are hangry that their paradigm is copied!?
It's the price of success.

For some people, being successful and rich is never enough. They want to be the only one successful and rich?

Won't work. Never had, never will.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: So I guess that...
by frderi on Mon 24th Oct 2011 23:20 in reply to "RE[3]: So I guess that..."
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

> As 99.9999% of software code. Even iOS, MacOS X, Windows, Linux share a large portion of software design that were written decades ago.
Under iOS, there is an UNIX layer.
Same for MacOS X. Apple invent none of them.
But without them, no iDevice, zero.

OSX and Linux are very different systems. Both are based on Unix, but Mac OS X uses a different kernel called Mach, which was developed from scratch by Avie Tevanian, a NeXT engineer. Mach differs in design philosophy when compared to traditional UNIX and Linux kernels, as the former are monolithic, while OSX is a hybrid kernel.

Also, iOS (and Mac OS X) have a completely different set of programming API's (Cocoa), an unique display manager (Display PDF) and a desktop (Finder). The closest thing to cocoa you have in the Linux space is GNUStep, which is essentially an incomplete re-implementation of YellowBox/Cocoa under linux which nobody uses.

Also, over the years, most of the UNIX based system tools which run under the hood in Mac OS X (and are part of Darwin) have been replaced with Apple-developed alternatives. Launchd is one small example, to replace the cron/init stuff from UNIX. A bigger example is the compiler, where GCC has been replaced by Clang/LLVM.

The only thing which is more or less the same consistently between UNIX, Linux and Mac OS X are the BSD userland tools and X11 window system, which make you able to run UNIX and X11 applications on these systems. Both are an optional install for Mac OS X and not really required to boot the system.

Edited 2011-10-24 23:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: So I guess that...
by lemur2 on Tue 25th Oct 2011 06:05 in reply to "RE[4]: So I guess that..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

OSX and Linux are very different systems. Both are based on Unix, but Mac OS X uses a different kernel called Mach, which was developed from scratch by Avie Tevanian, a NeXT engineer. Mach differs in design philosophy when compared to traditional UNIX and Linux kernels, as the former are monolithic, while OSX is a hybrid kernel.


To be clear, the Linux kernel was also written from scratch. The Linux kernel contains no UNIX code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg

In the diagram above, Linux is represented by the second column from the left. Unlike Mac OSX, Linux has no UNIX or BSD predecessors.

Unlike Mac OSX, Linux is not a certified implementation of UNIX.

The Linux kernel is UNIX-like, since it is designed to be POSIX compliant after all, but it is not UNIX, it contains no UNIX code, and it is not therefore based on UNIX.

The only thing which is more or less the same consistently between UNIX, Linux and Mac OS X are the BSD userland tools and X11 window system, which make you able to run UNIX and X11 applications on these systems.


UNIX userland applications will not run on Linux as there is no ABI or API compatibility. Error codes, for example, are different, because Linus mixed them up (unintentionally). X11 applications can run on Linux if they are re-compiled for Linux, binaries will not run. Bash scripts will run.

Edited 2011-10-25 06:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: So I guess that...
by phoudoin on Tue 25th Oct 2011 08:16 in reply to "RE[4]: So I guess that..."
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Mac OS X uses a different kernel called Mach, which was developed from scratch by Avie Tevanian, a NeXT engineer.


Not true. NeXTStep kernel was based on Mach 2.5 microkernel, which was NOT made by Apple or NeXT engineers but written by Carnegie Mellon University.
Thanks to give credits where it's due.

Also, over the years, most of the UNIX based system tools which run under the hood in Mac OS X (and are part of Darwin) have been replaced with Apple-developed alternatives. Launchd is one small example, to replace the cron/init stuff from UNIX. A bigger example is the compiler, where GCC has been replaced by Clang/LLVM.


Clang/LLVM was not started by Apple but at University of Illinois and release under open-source licence, which latter allow Apple to 1) hire one of the student behind LLVM and 2) reuse and improve the code without breaking the licence. Otherwise, they will have to start again from scratch, which they didn't have to, thanks for the open source output of others, like for the Mach kernel.

Again, thanks to give credits where it's due.

The only thing which is more or less the same consistently between UNIX, Linux and Mac OS X are the BSD userland tools and X11 window system, which make you able to run UNIX and X11 applications on these systems. Both are an optional install for Mac OS X and not really required to boot the system.


Try to remove the Mach kernel and see how fine it boot, just for fun.
The NIH syndrom (Not Invented Here) is not an excuse to
NOT give credits where its due.
Worst, when it make someone hide or voluntary forget the actual history track is a bit sad but, to be straigth, also a kind of revisionism.

Facts are facts.
Apple innovates? True.
Apple wrote all her stuffs from scratch? False.
Apple own some credits to others works? True.

Apple (and fanboys) gives credits to them?
No so often.

Edited 2011-10-25 08:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2