They 'pooled together' to buy third party patents with which to try and attack a competitor's product as they can't compete against it on the virtue of their own products in the open market place.
Technically you may be correct but I really think the 'troll' moniker is apt in this case.
Why think of it that way? Perhaps they bought those patents for use in their own devices. Perhaps they've been paying Nortel to use them up until they bought them out.
Right. Apple can't compete at all with android devices. Those same android devices that were originally copies of iPhones. Remember that android was just a better blackberry before iPhone came along.
And remember where Apple got its notification centre from. And remember how iOS was lacking copy and paste for years. And remember how it only got "multitasking" a few years after Android did. We could be here forever.
Also, didn't a Google employee basically debunk that "Google had to start from scratch after iPhone was revealed" claim?
You have a warped sense of time. Multitasking is essentially fast app switching on the devices. Copy and paste was a nothing feature. I'm surprised that you left out MMS too since your going down the trite meme route. Here's some back to Android, although its blatantly been influenced by the direction Apple took, it took Google until Jellybean 4.2 to catch up with the quality of implementation of iOS. They also continue to have a problem with fragmentation that is getting worse by the year and Google fucked consumers by handing control back to carriers in a bit to gain market share. Like you said, this could go on and on. So here's an idea; instead of trotting out tired and trite memes because someone has had the temerity to call out your favourite team, don't.
If Android was, as you seem to think, not a copy of the original iPhone OS, why did it take a further 18 months to release anything after the initial iPhone unveiling?
> Multitasking is essentially fast app switching on the devices
> Copy and paste was a nothing feature
> ... although its blatantly been influenced by the direction Apple took, it took Google until Jellybean 4.2 to catch up with the quality of implementation of iOS
I don't mean to come off like an ass (but don't really give a shit if I do), but you're just positing your own opinions in the place of the previous poster's opinions, then acting like you've proved some great point. How exactly are you advancing this discussion? Your post is just as useless as the one you're replying to.
I'm as big of an Apple fanboy as there is, but you're making us look bad. Multitasking and copy and paste may just be "trite memes" to gods like you, but mere mortals like me use both of those on a daily basis.
This is equally applicable to your post:
> ... instead of trotting out tired and trite memes because someone has had the temerity to call out your favourite team, don't.
EDIT: And your question,
> If Android was, as you seem to think, not a copy of the original iPhone OS, why did it take a further 18 months to release anything after the initial iPhone unveiling?
is blatantly phrased as a leading question. You're really trying to make it seem as though the only reason to not release anything for 18 months after the iphone announcement was to copy the iphone. Give the the iphone the credit it is due; it revolutionized mobile phones.
How are you so certain that the question in google wasn't "Why rush to compete with a product that just revolutionized the industry when yours clearly pales in comparison?"
Don't forget that the iPhone was totally rubbish when it was first released. It didn't even support text messaging - which made it a joke in most of the world.
Fair enough, Apple continued to work on it, and by all accounts (I don't have one) has managed to make it a fine product. But let's not pretend that it was obvious to everyone that "Apple revolutionised mobile phones" from day one.
So let me get this right. "Multitasking" isn't fast app switching? Care to elaborate? Didn't think so. My comment was made to illustrate how utterly banal the OP's comment was. I obviously wasn't clear enough that this was my aim. Sadly, prissy little assholes get offended at stuff like this and start relying on name calling (yes, the 'gods' comment is exactly that) to make 'points'. What you are saying is that it's OK to make these ridiculous comment that are no longer relevant, and that weren't particularly relevant at the time either, and I should just accept it as fact?
As to my 'leading' question; in context it's totally relevant. I'd like to know. I totally believe your version, although the evidence suggest otherwise. As I noted, Android didn't feel nearly as finished as iOS until 4.2.
> Those same android devices that were
> originally copies of iPhones.
By the same logic, the iPhone was just a "copy" of the Windows ME phones (iPaq etc). But with finger instead of a stylus.
Apple's revolution was in their magnificent marketing; and to a secondary degree the way they simplified the complex "enterprise" phones so that anyone could use them, then exploited that to build the App Store. In the short term they were less functional, but in the long term they "offered" exponentially more features (via 3rd parties in the marketplace).
Technically you may be correct but I really think the 'troll' moniker is apt in this case.