Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Withdraws Counter-Suit Against Apple

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the our-bad dept.

The Courts 172

tekgoblin writes "Samsung has withdrawn a counter-suit against Apple in their ongoing legal battle which concerns similarities in the iOS device lineup against the Galaxy S lineup from Samsung. The counter-suit concerned the design of the user interface being very similar to that of Samsung's: 'related to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products.'"

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who gives a shit! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646870)

The issue is not whether Apple or Samsung are right - it's that this shit is patentable in the first place.

Re:Who gives a shit! (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646906)

Amen.

Re:Who gives a shit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646932)

But if there were no patents or copyrights, then everyone would rip off the iPhone interface and... oh, wait...

Re:Who gives a shit! (3, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646972)

The iPhone interface -- a bunch of icons arranged in a grid, each of which launches a different task. See also: Windows 95.

Re:Who gives a shit! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647002)

It has more In common with Win 3.1 than 95. Windows 95 introduced the start menu.

Re:Who gives a shit! (-1, Flamebait)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647154)

Windows 95 introduced the start menu.

Which is rip off of the old Apple menu. And Windows 3.1 was a (very ugly) rip off of the original Mac desktop interface

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647260)

Cheat the moderation system - here's where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends) to downmod them via his registered account, logout, & ac stalk, harass, and troll them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]

Here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

---

In fact, here's what countertrolling says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:

"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502 [slashdot.org]

Sounds like a sick individual to me.

(Don't get lured into their journals either. That's their main goal along with getting these data points that way. Just ignore them and they will be powerless before you know it (no mod points)).

Re:countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648328)

heh gotta love APK's insane formatting, gives him away every time whether he chooses to label his ac posts or not.

Re:Who gives a shit! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647480)

Windows 95 introduced the start menu.

Which is rip off of the old Apple menu. And Windows 3.1 was a (very ugly) rip off of the original Mac desktop interface

"Mac desktop interface" and _every_ other desktop interface is a rip off of Xerox desktop from 1960s! Matter of fact, both atknison and jobs dudes had a tour of xerox and they saw the original desktop interface there, and once Atkinson got back, he started to implemented Lisa which was a copy of Xerox desktop.

Xerox also invented the mouse. And bunch of other crap that apple (and everyone else) just ripped off.

I'm sick of stupid apple fanboys claiming that apple invented the wheel and bread slices.

Apple is just another evil corporation run by assholes.

Re:Who gives a shit! (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647562)

Apple is just another evil corporation run by assholes.

Yes, I know, but it has a prettier face, so humor me, just for a moment.. TNX

Re:Who gives a shit! (2, Interesting)

abigor (540274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647580)

I guess Xerox wasn't a corporation, but some sort of charity? Anyway, Xerox PARC was founded in 1970, making it pretty improbable that everyone "ripped off" Xerox in the 1960s. And the first mouse was invented at SRI and first shown at The Mother of All Demos in 1968, along with various other stuff we take for granted today. I guess Xerox "ripped off" SRI then, in your simple-minded universe.

In exchange for allowing Apple to make use of their work, Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO Apple stock. Welcome to the world of business.

You're sick of Apple fanboys? I'm sick of clearly non-technical people spouting rage at an industry they have absolutely no idea about.

Re:Who gives a shit! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647608)

"In exchange for allowing Apple to make use of their work, Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO Apple stock."

Alas, finally an apple fanboy admits that apple did not invent everything!

I think hell just froze over!

Re:Who gives a shit! (1)

bluegreen997 (2096462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647932)

In exchange for allowing Apple to make use of their work, Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO Apple stock. Welcome to the world of business.

Well it was not as cut and dry as that. This is from Wikipedia so it does not have a lot of the details but just want to show that it was not all everyone playing pattycakes:

The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product. Much later, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds. The lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge ruled "that Xerox's complaints were inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons," although it is commonly believed that Xerox simply waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired.

Re:Who gives a shit! (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648044)

Another wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article says that Apple took the ideas and concepts of the GUI but the implementation was more finished and different than Xerox's system.

Re:Who gives a shit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648136)

Um... Apple licensed all that technology from Xerox. The didn't rip it off.

Apple also took the icon paradigm to places Xerox didn't, like clicking on icons to activate them (the Xerox Alto from the 1970's required a keyboard command to open a selected icon).

Slashdot is a bunch of assholes who can't research or accept facts before they shoot their mouths off.

Re:Who gives a shit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647062)

See MacOS 0.7

Re:Who gives a shit! (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647250)

Which would be out of patent protection if the interface was in fact, patented.

Re:Who gives a shit! (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647162)

PalmOS was much closer. I can't find a decent picture in 10 seconds of searching, but this [wikimedia.org] should look familiar to anyone who has used an iOS or Android device...

Re:Who gives a shit! (3, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647552)

And that itself was influenced by Apple's Newton [guidebookgallery.org] . It's all a mishmash of influences. What matters is that eventually Palm hit on the definitive UI in the stylus era and iPhone finally hit the sweet spot in the touchscreen era.

Re:Who gives a shit! (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647798)

I would say see Palm, followed by see HyperCard. We are back to 1985.

Re:Who gives a shit! (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648154)

Actually you want a more exact copy see Palm [aus.com.au] . Mobile device? Check. Icons in a grid pattern? Check. Ability to add apps and games? Check.

That said TFA is kinda misleading as they only dropped ONE claim and they have...what? Something like a dozen? So they dropped the weakest one of the bunch, it still gives them plenty to smack Apple with. In any case it should be worth popping the popcorn and sitting back while the two big boys tear into each other like two cats in a bag.

Re:Who gives a shit! (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647994)

This isn't a patent lawsuit. At least, it's not reported as such (patents may be involved, but I haven't seen that reported anywhere. However, given how news reporting works these days, it's hard to be certain). The lawsuit claims that Samsung's phones and tablets look too much like iPhones and iPads.

too wordes: PUSSYES (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646892)

`Nuf Saided

Re:too wordes: PUSSYES (1)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646938)

You mean "pussies".

You missed (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647258)

"two" "words" "enough" and "said".

Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646916)

In Soviet Russia fundamental innovations sue you.

Summary is misleading, not dropped the suit but (5, Informative)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646920)

they've consolidated them to focus on their defence in this suit.

Nortel Patents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646950)

Already having an effect I suspect. While not directly related, I think Samsung sees the writing on the 4G wall...

Re:Nortel Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647228)

imma take a dump...

Well, guess what Samsung (0, Troll)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647036)

My current phone is a Samsung
My next phone is going to be an iPhone

Do you know why? Because

1 - Your POS sw called Kies is only avaiable for Windows
2 - Your POS sw called Kies is worse than iTunes
3 - You manage to screw up updates of a FREE, READY TO USE sw
4 - Cyanogen people kick your ass FOR FREE
5 - You screwed up the baseband on the phone, it doesn't work correctly
6 - Google, fix the GPS sw, it takes ages to sync

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (2)

tero (39203) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647094)

Well, don't use Kies then, it's not like anyone is forcing you?

And why on earth would you want to keep the default ROM on *any* Android phone?

I'm very happy with my Samsung phone.
But each to their own, hope you'll find iPhone does it for you.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

Funnnny (1409625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647144)

I'm the one who keeping the default/stock ROM (JVQ), but with Odin
The current state of cooked galaxyS ROM is bad, battery, camera, radio is not at usable level. UI is a different story, the only ROM I found has a usable and nice UI is MIUI, CM7 is good but the stock application is too bad.
Android has some good potential, but it should has some good user-interface and a good set of default application, in this field iPhone is the best.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (4, Interesting)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647318)

The entire point of Android is openness and flexibility. If you do not like the stock manufacture-themed flavor of Android on your phone, you can use an app like Rom Manager to change to a different one. Can you do that on an iPhone? In Soviet Russia, rhetorical questions ask you.

As far as the battery being bad, you're doing it wrong. With no OS tweaks, and using just the stock Samsung ROM on the Captivate, battery is on par with any other smartphone. Sure, if you have your bluetooth, wifi, and gps permanently turned on, and your screen brightness cranked to maximum, you will run out of juice - but really, if that's how you're operating, your iPhone, your Blackberry and even your laptop will run out of juice as well. Forgetting stock for a moment though, using apps like Juice Defender to manager resource hogs, using a kernel that lets you undervolt and set different power regulators (eg, turn CPU to 100mhz when screen is off, etc) and making sure your application data-sync settings are set to realistic intervals will do magic for your battery life. In Sovie Russia, power manages you.

If you're using Android and complaining about the UI, you're doing it wrong. There is simply no other mobile operating system that provides you with so much easy customization. Even on your stock ROM you can download a different (and free) launcher from the market - say ADW. It will give you so much customization (and preset themes) that you will find it difficult to stop tinkering. You like the MIUI interface? Swell, just download the ADW MIUI theme and use it on your stock ROM. Choice is good, no?

Finally... are you really complaining about default-bloatware? Don't like an application? Uninstall it. Want a different application to use as a system default? Download it. From replacing your text messaging software, to the soft keyboard, to the camera, to the email client, to the browser, to the system launcher... Android gives you choice.

The only real problem with Android is that it treats people as intelligent beings who will make rational choices and decisions. As Apple dwarfs almost every other technology firm, a few things are made clear: people are fickle, buy image and brands over features and benefits, and there are more stupid people on the planet than intelligent ones. I'm not saying anyone who uses an Apple product is in this category, there are many legitimate reasons to use an iPhone or an iOS device over anything else. What I'm saying, however, is that Apple has very specifically targeted the "dumb market" and lures them in with an unparalleled branding and marketing strategy that has people who shouldn't own a calculator buying $700 smartphones.

Google played this one brilliantly, Android is here and the irony is delicious. Apple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior. They guarded their technical details jealously, IBM did not, it became easier to write for IBM hardware, clones began to appear, etc, etc, etc. Perhaps that didn't work out too well for IBM as a company, since their core business was consumer hardware and they lost that to clones, but Apple was the bigger loser. $DEITY smiled on them and gave them a second chance in the personal electronics and mobile computing realms. Rather than learn from the past and avoid losing the market again due to the same kind of control-freak behavior, they are doing the exact same thing again. In a decade, Android will be ubiquitous because every hardware maker gets to use it, and iOS devices will once again be relegated to a tiny share of the market. The technology market moves and shakes very quickly. All it will take is one line of highly successful Android MP3 players, phones, or tablets to completely reshape the field. All it will take is a sophisticated branding campaign from a hardware manufacturer who is saving millions on developing their own operating system and diverting those funds into marketing. It's not a matter of if, but rather, when. As for Google, they just wanted a mobile OS to eat advertising revenue from, and that's exactly what they got.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647582)

You want to talk irony ? All the things you mention in your post are things people absolutely hated about windows. The fact that you had to reinstall it, then tweak it, then download a ton of applications to make it useful, etc. People spent decades lamenting the fact Windows won out and now it's being held up as a paragon, a shining example of why Android will win over iOS. Now THAT'S irony.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647790)

That's a backwards argument. You don't NEED to reinstall, tweak or download applications to make Android useful. Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't (eg. Swype).

If that is all you want out of your phone, great, unpack, power up, enjoy.

If, however, you are inclined to explore, Android allows for that in a way that iOS does not. That is the point I'm making, so comparing modern android to Window's BSOD's and forced tweaking, etc, is not fair or accurate. The reason I compared it to the x86 PC architecture (which by the way is much more than just Windows) is to highlight that the path Google took with this was based on a highly successful historical model.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648140)

Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't (eg. Swype).

Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.

If, however, you are inclined to explore, Android allows for that in a way that iOS does not. That is the point I'm making, so comparing modern android to Window's BSOD's and forced tweaking, etc, is not fair or accurate.

Then why was your long post almost entirely about how flexible Android is with regards to modification? Why are you now acting as though that's just a side feature?

The reason I compared it to the x86 PC architecture (which by the way is much more than just Windows) is to highlight that the path Google took with this was based on a highly successful historical model.

This is complete nonsense based on *one* example and lots of false assumptions. And it's especially ironic given that Apple's supposedly inferior model has them being the most successful player in at least three different markets, using the exact opposite model to what you think is the best one.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648256)

There's a nice quote I read on a blog once: "Those who learn the lessons of history are doomed to try to repeat it."

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648112)

All the things you mention in your post are things people absolutely hated about windows.

The pros and cons of openness. It is true that people don't like poorly written software and an open platform will tend to have more poorly written software. It is also true that Windows/x86 dominates Apple in the pc market.

Apple considers its OSes 'killer apps' in and of themselves and limit themselves accordingly. Over time history has shown that open platforms tend to spur multiple 'killer apps' Tinkerers and garage companies have more access to Android development and that will lead to thousands of niche apps that won't be available on iPhone. Not to mention in-house software when businesses start to seriously explore integrating their smart phones to their existing in-house networks.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647666)

Great. I'll tell my mom all about this.....

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647834)

Oh I'm sorry, I thought I was posting in my browsers Slashdot tab, not the Yourmom tab, or I would have made my post more Yourmom-friendly

In all seriousness though, I'm assuming you mean Android is too complicated for older users, and hence they will be drawn to iOS. Here, I disagree. Android is no more complicated than iOS, it just offers more options, features, etc, for those who are inclined to explore them. If you never want to go into the Settings menu, that is your prerogative and you can still enjoy a full featured smartphone experience. Even beyond that, due to the open source nature of the platform, nothing is stopping any manufacturer from creating a dumbed-down version of Android for use on a very basic phone for the elderly [doro.com] .

Choice is good, for the industry, for the consumer, for the developers and for your mom.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648152)

Choice is good, for the industry, for the consumer, for the developers and for your mom.

Choice is good. Quality is better.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648326)

Actually, my snarky point was that some implementations of Android don't 'just work'. True, it's easier to modify Android phones and customize them but that isn't the demographic that Samsung is going for. It's people like my mom who wouldn't know a boot loader from a sail boat.

And that is a big problem for Android - too many implementations are poorly done kludges. The incredibly odd part about this is the various modding groups have shown that it's possible to create a high quality product, but the big companies can't seem to be arsed to put enough effort to get there. You have to give Apple credit - they're pushing the customer experience farther and harder than anybody else.

And thanks for the tip on the Doro. My mom has a Jitterbug (actually a rebranded Samsung) but I'm not really overwhelmed with their system. I may look into it.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647822)

You can replace Android on many phones, but this too is akin to jail breaking. Android is open in principle, but not so much in practice.

I am not saying this to make it seem like they are no better than Apple, since at least with Android the source is available. The issue is the handset manufacturers and the service providers.

The other point is beyond techies, the average Joe doesn't care so much about openness, as long as the device works as described.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647880)

First, you don't replace Android on an Android-based smartphone. You replace the Android ROM, flavour, use-your-word-here. It's all based on Android-source however.

Second, on the flagship Android phones, currently the Samsung Nexus S, the handset manufacture works directly with Android developers to make everything fully documented and compliant with the Android vision as set by the Open Handset Alliance. These phones are now available from major service providers and subsidized on contract, so they are much more readily available to average consumers.

Third, and again, this point seems to be lost on so many people, the average Joe doesn't HAVE to care about openness, his device will work as described without any special knowledge or tweaking. However, should he decide to explore, he can. Despite what Apple would have you believe, choice is good.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647914)

I you read this entire post you can officially claim to be a subscriber to greentshirt's newsletter [youtube.com] .

Google played this one brilliantly, Android is here and the irony is delicious. Apple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior. They guarded their technical details jealously, IBM did not, it became easier to write for IBM hardware, clones began to appear, etc, etc, etc.

This did not turn out very well for IBM, if we talk about them specifically. They owned the market in 1980 and by 1985 it had completely walked away from them to silicon valley. One could hope that someone could market a Android than Google, and turn that into an alternate platform to draw people to alternate services, true open services not the Big Black Box that is Google, but considering the way the OHA has organized the market this doesn't seem likely. It's basically a cartel to make sure an AOSP Android never finds major support or market traction in the developed world.

The alternate characterization also applies, namely, that Apple failed to reap Microsoft-level profits because it insisted on being an integrator and marketing to end consumers, instead of leveraging an open product to monetize closed products, and converting the PC userbase into a locked-in pool of service demand that could be funneled, at MS's whim, to software developers, advertisers, and service providers. And that these devs, advertisers and service providers became Microsoft and IBMs real customers, and the end user would get screwed ten ways from Sunday as long as the real customers were kept happy.

The parallels with the Android business strategy should always be kept in mind.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648126)

It didn't work out well for IBM because they gave away the technical specifications of their core business offering. This would be akin to Google opening up their patents and search algorithms. Google have not done that, they have created a platform for their core business offering to thrive in. Very different.

As for your second note, yes, in the last decade Apple have done well. At one point, Myspace was also doing well. In the fast-paced tech-world, all it takes is one miss-step and you're relegated to historical marginalia. I think Apple got too greedy and thought they could continue market dominance indefinitely instead of including others. This was a massive miscalculation.

Finally, PC != Microsoft. I was discussing more the openness of the x86 architecture and the wide and varied hardware support it enjoyed than MS dominance. They are two very different things.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648208)

The alternate characterization also applies, namely, that Apple failed to reap Microsoft-level profits because it insisted on being an integrator and marketing to end consumers

That's correct, but you got the reason for this wrong. It's because businesses were the primary computer customers of the era, and DOS PCs were better than Macs for business, even though Macs were more advanced systems. And in the less important (at the time) consumer realm, Macs were *far* more expensive than the Commodore 64, Apple ][, and Amiga (among others).

In the creative market (especially printing), Macs far outclassed any other system, and that was their biggest success during the 20th century.

Windows 95 onward maintained the PC's superiority in the business world, and extended it into the consumer world. It wasn't until the 21st century that Apple's products became superior choices for the consumer. This is also around the time the consumer market became the most important market.

And that's why Apple is now worth more than Microsoft and Intel combined.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648074)

The entire point of Android is openness and flexibility. If you do not like the stock manufacture-themed flavor of Android on your phone, you can use an app like Rom Manager to change to a different one. Can you do that on an iPhone? In Soviet Russia, rhetorical questions ask you.

I know nerds have a difficult time understanding this, but *MOST* people like something that works well right out of the box.

And, your first sentence is false. The entire point of Android is a venue for Google to serve more ads. The only reason it's "open and flexible" is that were it more closed like iOS (hmm... where's the "open and flexible" Android 3.0?), Google would have a hard time developing and selling it.

On the other hand, make it open and the nerds will love it. Make it flexible and the carriers and handset makers will crapify it up. Make it low cost or even "less than free" (i.e., sharing ad revenue), and they can undercut Microsoft's offering.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648146)

Tell me, what software feature that an iPhone has out of the box, does a modern Google android phone lack?

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648298)

Tell me, what software feature that an iPhone has out of the box, does a modern Google android phone lack?

Tell me where I mentioned anything like that? I said it works right out of the box, not that it has any specific software feature that Android doesn't have. I'm sure such things exist (in both directions), but they are mostly irrelevant (unless you have a specific example in mind that is quite impressive) if the system is unappealing from a user perspective.

As a consumer, the Android system itself isn't terribly appealing. That's why your posts (and the posts of others) harp on about how extensible and "open" Android is. Because *that's* the thing that appeals to you. In that regard, iOS is inferior to Android. But the scope of that difference in terms of market share is extremely small. Very few people care about that.

Usability. And by that, I mean things like consistency, responsiveness, visual feedback, discoverability, natural interaction, visually appealing. iOS has it, Android doesn't.

Now tell me, since you seem to think this is such an important topic, what software feature does Android have, out of the box, than iOS doesn't? And explain why this is important to the average user. Your chosen example, "swype" is just a type of keyboard. It's a nice feature to be sure, and if it was consistently the sort of thing you could say about Android, it would be more like WebOS when compared with iOS, in that it's something that makes for a compelling alternative to iOS in terms of the OS itself.

But that's *not* indicative of Android as a whole. On the whole, Android is universally seen as clunkier, less consistent, and an overall mixed bag, compared to iOS. And it's really only the geeks who really don't mind such things.

And iOS has *much* more software available, including software that people actually *want*, like Netflix, Hulu, and Skype. On Android, those things come out later, and when they do come out, are highly limited.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647194)

Well, I wanted to upgrade to an official release. But apparently I won't be able to.

Of course I can go down the path of Odin, Cyanogen, etc but this is a CONSUMER APPLIANCE. It's supposed to be easy!

"why would I want to use the default ROM" same as above. Why should I have to 'fix' the products I buy?! What if there's a regression.

I like tinkering, I tried several things to make Kies run on Virtualbox under linux (but apparently that's not the issue)

"Oh but Apple is more closed than Android" yes, but they manage the updates. I have guaranteed official upgrades for a couple of versions. And I can always JB if I want.

Not to mention the GPS on the iPhone is not slow

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

thesh0ck (1983948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647224)

no one uses kies. Just connect your phone with normal usb like a normal person.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647244)

I don't use Kies for that! USB storage works, CDC_ACM works (heh, that's a huge advantage over the iPhone)

I only wanted to use Kies for fw upgrade.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

d4fseeker (1896770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647512)

Flashing another firmware _is_ easy, altough it wipes your device so I recommend an investment of 4$ in "MyBackup Pro" - having daily backups is worth every penny on ANY device. I can recommend DarkyRom.com, it just works(TM). If you want over-the-air (OTA) Updates, I can recommend HTC or Google Nexus series, altough I'll stick with Samsung if they keep the pace. Seriously, Android Phones should never have to be plugged into computers (except maybe for charging and usb-tethering) and work fairly well without any of that computer-based software voodoo.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647842)

For the average person this is no different than flashing your digital TV.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

danomac (1032160) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647628)

"Oh but Apple is more closed than Android" yes, but they manage the updates. I have guaranteed official upgrades for a couple of versions. And I can always JB if I want.

OK, I call bullshit on this one. I had an iPhone 3G - I had to update it to get some additional functionality. It broke bluetooth for my headpiece and my car. It took Apple SIX MONTHS to fix it and release something. This affected more than half of their client base. And guess what? I couldn't downgrade. I was stuck for that time with no bluetooth.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648020)

And why on earth would you want to keep the default ROM on *any* Android phone?

Why on earth would you buy a device where first order of business is to replace the default ROM and default software?

I know this meets the needs of a small niche of people, but not for the phone buying populace in general.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647124)

Since Samsung has announced that they will officially cooperate with Cyanogenmod, and *stop locking down their phones* based on community feedback ... good luck with that on Apple.

Samsung has their problems, sure, but they are WAY more open and supportive to a non-locked-down environment than Apple has ever been.

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647242)

I have a Galaxy S

wtf is Kies? It didn't come with my galaxy s
And whats wrong with anything else? Battery life on the S is far superior than the N1, and beyond that, the S is pretty much the same as the N1 give or take a few gimmicks. *shrug*

Re:Well, guess what Samsung (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647248)

motherfucker
not galaxy S, Nexus S

"Look and feel" bullshit (2, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647084)

If only Apple would withdraw it's lawsuit against Samsung [androidcentral.com] over the same ridiculous "look and feel" claim. Why should either Samsung or Apple have exclusive rights over what's ultimately a rectangular grid of icons? It would be like giving the company that released the first touch-tone phone exclusive rights over the layout and appearance of the touch-tone keypad.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647110)

It would be like giving the company that released the first touch-tone phone exclusive rights over the layout and appearance of the touch-tone keypad.

You need a better example, because that's exactly what happened in the US, up until Ma Bell was broken up. The phone company owned the very wiring in your house as well as the phones, not just the keypad design.

Also, note that Apple is only suing Samsung for producing a device that looks a lot like the iPhone in many more ways than just a rectangular icon grid. Apple isn't suing Google over the Android UI, just Samsung for making the Android UI look more like the iPhone UI than other Android phones. In other words, a significant lack of originality on Samsung's part.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (4, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647188)

"Also, note that Apple is only suing Samsung for producing a device that looks a lot like the iPhone in many more ways than just a rectangular icon grid."

Such as, say, the phone's shape [amazonaws.com] ?

Apple isn't suing Google over the Android UI, just Samsung for making the Android UI look more like the iPhone UI than other Android phones.

Which particular aspects of the iPhone UI do you think should be owned exclusively by Apple? If Apple were to sell its UI as a product (just the UI, not the operating system), what would the sales brochure look like?

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647412)

"Also, note that Apple is only suing Samsung for producing a device that looks a lot like the iPhone in many more ways than just a rectangular icon grid."

Such as, say, the phone's shape [amazonaws.com] ?

Apple isn't suing Google over the Android UI, just Samsung for making the Android UI look more like the iPhone UI than other Android phones.

Which particular aspects of the iPhone UI do you think should be owned exclusively by Apple? If Apple were to sell its UI as a product (just the UI, not the operating system), what would the sales brochure look like?

Good thing you were able to find a Samsung phone that doesn't look like an iPhone, rather than looking at every news article about the suit. Like this one. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/yowza-apple-hits-samsung-with-lawsuit-over-iphone-clones/12360 [zdnet.com]

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1, Informative)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647650)

I've posted this before, but what the hell. Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases. It was so blatant that reviewers couldn't fail to mention it. It doesn't matter where you fall on the issue, who you think should win or if there should even be a lawsuit at all, that much should be clear.

First Look: Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design [wired.com]
Review: The IPhone Look Alike Samsung Eternity SGH-A867 (AT&T) [associatedcontent.com]
Samsung Galaxy S Review [slashgear.com] : "In the time we’ve been carrying the Galaxy S, more than a few people – geeks included – have mistaken it for an iPhone 3GS. The glossy black plastic and metal-effect bezel both echo Apple’s second/third-gen smartphone"

Check out the comparison shot in the first link and tell me that isn't of a whole different order than your comparison picture.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647966)

I've posted this before, but what the hell. Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases.

Imitation is a necessary aspect of fair competition. Without it competitors would be forced to engage in conscious avoidance of competing designs, which I generally see as an overly burdensome thing. I think our IP-centric culture has blinded us to the fact that human progress owes a great deal to people imitating and even duplicating what others have done in the past.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648122)

I've posted this before, but what the hell. Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases.

Imitation is a necessary aspect of fair competition. Without it competitors would be forced to engage in conscious avoidance of competing designs, which I generally see as an overly burdensome thing. I think our IP-centric culture has blinded us to the fact that human progress owes a great deal to people imitating and even duplicating what others have done in the past.

There is imitation and the the is what Samsung did, but you knew that. I find it hard to believe that you are that misinformed.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (2)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648144)

That's the whole point of the Pablo Picasso quote famously used by Jobs : "Bad artists copy. Great artists steal." Imitation is a good learning tool but it doesn't become innovation until you steal what's good and put it together in a novel way to create something new and improved. I guess the argument against duplication goes that imitation without innovation could actually stifle progress by rewarding knockoffs over original thought. It's a difficult line to draw though.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (3, Informative)

Theovon (109752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647138)

If it were the icons Apple was unhappy about, they'd be suing Google, because that's a function of Android. Rather, Apple's beef is with the bezel of certain Samsung phones looking remarkably like earlier iPhones. And in my opinion, they do look remarkably similar, with minor differences in things like the home button.

But notice that I said "earlier iPhones." None of the Samsung phones look like the iPhone 4, while Apple has left behind the look of the original iPhone. So why is Apple so up in arms about Samsung copying a look they've deprecated? Well, one reason might be that Samsung was selling these phones while Apple was still selling the 3Gs, although I'm not sure if that's true. However, there are design patents and trademarks and copyrights pertaining to this look and feel that Apple legally must defend or else they risk losing exclusive rights to their IP.

It's also pretty lame that Samsung can't be bothered to get their own design team to make their own unique look and feel. Apple spent a lot of R&D on theirs, so it's not right that Samsung just copies it. And don't tell me that the similarities are just coincidence. Of course, copying happens all the time. Even more significant than the look and feel was the concept of the iPhone itself. It was certainly not the first smart phone, but was the first to bring this level of usability to a touch screen without a stylus. THAT's really the hard part.... and it was Google that decided to ride on Apple's coat tails there. Now, it's vital that Apple have competition, to keep Apple on its toes, but that competition has to be innovative in its own right or else Apple will have really nothing to compete against except clones of itself. I saw this one Nokia phone that had a feature that Apple didn't come up with, which was to make the whole display a button that was clickable, so touching was one kind of input, and that was separate from clicking. I thought that was pretty cool.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (3, Informative)

sessamoid (165542) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647164)

If it were the icons Apple was unhappy about, they'd be suing Google, because that's a function of Android. Rather, Apple's beef is with the bezel of certain Samsung phones looking remarkably like earlier iPhones. And in my opinion, they do look remarkably similar, with minor differences in things like the home button

I don't own an Android phone, but looking at the photos of the Samsung phones and stock Android, Samsung clearly changed several of the icons and interface elements to mimic the iPhone in ways that Google seemed to have intentionally avoided. That's aside from the obvious hardware similarities that other Android phones do not share.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

Theovon (109752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647184)

Thanks for the clarification. Someone should mod you up. :)

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (4, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647386)

Going by your logic Apple clearly copied Samsung [imgur.com] F700 which was shown to the public a whole year before the Iphone came out.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (2, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647460)

It's a funny picture and cool story, but it's just not true [androidcommunity.com] .

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647918)

That article doesn't give any proof that the F700 was not shown at CEBIT 2006, and its author obviously has no concept of development times and how/when prototypes and production models make it to trade show floors.

Besides, the LG Prada was winning design awards months before Jobs announced the Iphone. If anybody copied anyone, it was Apple copying LG!

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647926)

The issue is really about intent to misslead. Samsung is intentionally trying to muddy the waters and confuse people so that they think that the Samsung is essentially the same as the iPad. There's no coincidence it's a marketing ploy and Apple invested billions in building their brand and Samsung is trying to take advantage of people being attracted to the iOS interface.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648114)

The issue is really about intent to misslead.

How so? The name of Samsung's phone is "Galaxy", not "iPhone", and the phone itself is clearly and prominently branded as "Samsung" rather than "Apple".

Whole screen click was Blackberry not Nokia (1)

gnugnugnu (178215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648036)

> I saw this one Nokia phone that had a feature that Apple didn't come up with, which was to make the whole display a button that was clickable, so touching was one kind of input, and that was separate from clicking. I thought that was pretty cool.

BlackBerry Storm: The Novelty Wears Off Fast
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1860717,00.html [time.com]

the first smartphone with a clickable touchscreen. I even enjoyed the few minutes I spent playing ...
But after 24 hours of actually testing the new BlackBerry side by side with its main competition ... the novelty quickly wore off. I hate the click screen, and none of the handful of people I let try it had anything nice to say about it either.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (4, Informative)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648222)

Apple's beef is with the bezel of certain Samsung phones looking remarkably like earlier iPhones.

Yes but the early iphones look exactly like the the award winning LG prada, you know the full screen mobile phone with a silver bezel around the edge and icons in a checkerboard layout that was released a year before the iphone.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647160)

There are two fundamental but seprate questions that people lump together here. (1) Should look and feel patents exist. (2) Are iOS products distinct enough to qualify.

As to the first one, there are many, many companies that pour tons of research and money in designs and they think those designs should be protected. Without these design patents, any car company can copy the look of the VW Beetle, any soda company can copy the red and white designs of Coca-Cola. Do you think these companies should be able to protect their designs?

The second question is up for a court to decide if you think (1) is legally acceptable. Now bear in mind that as for (2), most other phone makers (and other manufacturers) go out of their way to make sure their design is distinctive so that consumers can tell their products apart from their competitors. That's why Pepsi does nit use the same colors and logos as Coca-Cola. In my opinion, Samsung tried to get as close as possible and thought they were safe but it was too close to Apple's liking. Remember Apple has won look and feel suits with eMachines before. Also Apple did not sue anyone else over design.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647204)

In my opinion, Samsung tried to get as close as possible and thought they were safe but it was too close to Apple's liking.

Yep. The iPhones were each distinctive in their design when released (and still are); you can easily spot them from across a room and I'm 100% sure that was a deliberate goal of Apple's. This Samsung is the only phone that I have ever mistaken for an iPhone from a few feet away, and I'm pretty sure that was a deliberate goal of Samsung's. Everybody else tries to make their phones distinctive in some way, materials, size, radius of the corners, bezel, colors, finish--because they all want that effect, that if the phone becomes really popular, people know it and recognize it and remember it. But not Samsung...

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647744)

I'm sure it was 100% deliberate that they made the phone look like a black rectangle.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647212)

They shouldn't be able to patent a design. If a company happens up a solid design or puts money into that really shouldn't matter. They will have the exclusive design until it can be copied . What they should be able to do is get a trademark which clearly distinguishes the real deal from the fraud.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647336)

I suspect you would feel different if it was your product that was wholesale ripped off by another company

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647996)

There is a difference between a trademark and a design patent. Both exist. That's why the Coca-Cola bottle is distinctive as well as the logo. That's why the VW Beetle is distinctive.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (3, Informative)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647322)

As to the first one, there are many, many companies that pour tons of research and money in designs and they think those designs should be protected. Without these design patents, any car company can copy the look of the VW Beetle, any soda company can copy the red and white designs of Coca-Cola. Do you think these companies should be able to protect their designs?

"Look and feel" isn't a design patent issue, but rather a "trade dress" (trademark) issue. The red and white design of the Coca-Cola can is an example of trade dress, but I don't think that's quite the same thing as claiming exclusive rights over a GUI's design. Unlike soda can logos, GUIs and their layouts are largely functional in nature and should therefore not be subject to trademark protection. Icons used as part of a GUI may be subject to copyright protection, but similar-looking icons should be perfectly legal (e.g. a calendar icon can only look so much different from another calendar icon). What remains of a GUI's look and feel beyond all that should not, in my opinion, be protected by "look and feel" trademarks.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647442)

Unlike soda can logos, GUIs and their layouts are largely functional in nature and should therefore not be subject to trademark protection. Icons used as part of a GUI may be subject to copyright protection, but similar-looking icons should be perfectly legal (e.g. a calendar icon can only look so much different from another calendar icon). What remains of a GUI's look and feel beyond all that should not, in my opinion, be protected by "look and feel" trademarks.

Trade dress, as I understand it, can only be protected in consumer electronics for those elements that are not "functional", but merely cosmetic. A simple button or icon is not protected, but the color, placement, and shape of those can be protected under trade dress. The background graphics clearly fall under trade dress, as do the color and shading of various UI widgets. Obviously, much of the physical design falls under trade dress.

As the poster above noted, the Samsung phone in question is the only one I've ever mistaken for an iPhone at a glance. Pretty much all the rest of them are somehow distinctively different. Samsung was pretty clearly trying to mimic the iPhone as much as they thought they could get away with.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647690)

Trade dress, as I understand it, can only be protected in consumer electronics for those elements that are not "functional", but merely cosmetic.

Exactly. GUI's are largely functional in nature and therefore for the most part not worthy of protection.

A simple button or icon is not protected, but the color, placement, and shape of those can be protected under trade dress. The background graphics clearly fall under trade dress, as do the color and shading of various UI widgets. Obviously, much of the physical design falls under trade dress.

From a usability standpoint, button placement may be crucial and therefore cannot be dismissed as being merely "cosmetic" in nature. The shape of the buttons is rectangular, which is hardly unique to Apple's iPhone. Background graphics other than simple colors and gradients would be covered by copyright, but those that aren't (e.g. solid black) may be too generic to be worthy of trademark protection.

All in all, most of what constitutes a GUI is, in my view, not worthy of trademark protection.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647962)

I think if you copied the Coca-Cola bottle or the VW Beelte, both companies' lawyers would like to have a word with you. After both have limited function when it comes to design. If you think that neither of them deserves protection, then Apple does not either. If you do then Apple deserves their day in court. Whether they win is up for a court to decide.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648088)

I think if you copied the Coca-Cola bottle or the VW Beelte, both companies' lawyers would like to have a word with you. After both have limited function when it comes to design. If you think that neither of them deserves protection, then Apple does not either. If you do then Apple deserves their day in court. Whether they win is up for a court to decide.

Try reading my post next time.

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (1)

petsounds (593538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647392)

Yeah, suing over the look & feel of a UI seems a bit silly considering Apple already lost that fight in the 80s -- when Apple sued Microsoft and lost for Windows "copying the Mac's innovative look and feel". I'm kind of surprised the judge hasn't already thrown the case out. Perhaps that's why Apple has now sued Samsung in South Korea as well; perhaps the law over UI infringement is different there?

Re:"Look and feel" bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648296)

Yeah, suing over the look & feel of a UI seems a bit silly considering Apple already lost that fight in the 80s -- when Apple sued Microsoft and lost for Windows "copying the Mac's innovative look and feel".

That was copyright, this is patent.

Palm (2)

zmooc (33175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647220)

Too bad Palm is sort of out of business. They came up with the buttons-below-the-touchscreen concept that's been copied by just about every touchscreen-enabled device since 1997.

(Which reminds me... Sony, please, please make new Clies!!1 Thank you.)

Re:Palm (1)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647290)

Too bad Palm is sort of out of business. They came up with the buttons-below-the-touchscreen concept that's been copied by just about every touchscreen-enabled device since 1997.

You mean, like this pre-Palm device? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Newton_MP100.jpg [wikipedia.org]

Re:Palm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647546)

You mean, like this pre-Palm device? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Newton_MP100.jpg [wikipedia.org]

Or, like this pre-Newton device [sony.net] . The Sony PTC-300 preceded the Apple Newton by two years, and it had permanent icons along one side, and sometime, icons along the bottom, depending on the app.

By the way, the PTC-300 was preceded by two other Sony models: PTC-500 and PTC-550 [nifty.com] .

Re:Palm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647852)

I have a 300 and there are no icons along the bottom. An app putting an icon in the lower right doesn't count as an example of most used app icons on the bottom.

Re:Palm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648302)

I have a 300 and there are no icons along the bottom. An app putting an icon in the lower right doesn't count as an example of most used app icons on the bottom.

An icon at the bottom is an icon at the bottom. Period.

It is no revolutionary stretch to simply make that icon a "most used app icon" nor to merely move such icons from the side of the touch screen to the bottom of the touch screen.

Apple didn't invent anything new with the Newton.

Re:Palm (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647438)

I went to Best Buy yesterday, and WebOS is all over the place. The Veer is prominently displayed, and their tablets look better than the Xoom (though not quite as good as the Galaxy.....the interface is cleaner, though). HP hasn't been advertising much the results of their purchase of Palm, but they are definitely trying to make profit off their investment.

Don't be deceived (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647426)

Even after dropping the countersuit in California, Samsung is still suing Apple in eight different courts, six countries, and three continents. [source [pcworld.com] ]

Lawsuits on /. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647814)

It seems to me that about 1/3 to 1/2 of /. reads concerns someone suing someone else OR corporations suing over patents. I'm calling 'Bullshit' to all these lawsuits. That is what is wrong with America.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>