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!

Apple Forces Google To Degrade Android Features

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the advancing-the-arts-and-sciences dept.

Android 498

walterbyrd writes "The latest in the ridiculous saga of the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung, which has resulted in Samsung phones and tablets being banned from sale in the U.S. is that Samsung, with the help of Google, has been pushing out an over-the-air software update to make its phones worse. Yes, the OTA update is designed to take away a feature, in an effort to convince the judge that the phones no longer violate Apple's patents. The feature in question? The ability to do a single search that covers both the local device and the internet."

cancel ×

498 comments

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

six hundred dollars? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40576939)

don't forget to pay your licensing fee, you cock smoking, teabagging faggots

Re:six hundred dollars? (0, Troll)

psergiu (67614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40576997)

It's not nice to say this about Google & Samsung.
But they should really licence the patents required to keep the full functionality of the phone and not take away features from the end users.
If Samsung's profit margins are so slim on those devices that they cannot afford a few pennies for this patent, they are doing something wrong.

Re:six hundred dollars? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577031)

If Samsung's profit margins are so slim on those devices that they cannot afford a few pennies for this patent, they are doing something wrong.

Can you be a bit more explicit about what you think this license fee is? And preferably cite a source for it? Because my understanding - and I'm happy to be shown wrong - is that Apple is suing not for a fee but to prevent the features being used.

Re:six hundred dollars? (5, Funny)

Pringless (2679219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577205)

If you have ever used any of Apple's products (especially OS X, iTunes or iOS) you know how great they are. They are also innovative to no end. Windows and Linux shows that innovation requires hard work and only Apple magically manages to do it. Apple is fantastic for this and deserves all the credit and patent fees.

Re:six hundred dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577509)

how a post this dumb got modded +1?

Re:six hundred dollars? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577043)

paying for a valid innovative licence yes I agree.
BUT a patent exists for a single search of local AND internet?

This is classed as logical development and in any sane country isn't patentable. Searching local has existed for ages (but if a patent existed for that sure licence it), searching the internet is what google does... todo a search checking local and net is a logical evolution.

Best thing is people just stop selling in america leave the locals to Microsoft and apple

Re:six hundred dollars? (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577083)

More fuel for the "patents are garbage and the whole system should be scrapped" crowd...

Re:six hundred dollars? (1)

DMorritt (923396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577433)

"in any sane country isn't patentable", indeed it shouldn't be.

I'm sick of all these blatantly obvious ideas being used in court, it's about time resources were directed at innovative new ideas and products, not silly obvious ideas (Method_of_exercising_a_cat [wikipedia.org] ) or next logical steps in technology.

Re:six hundred dollars? (4, Insightful)

Mitsoid (837831) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577451)

didn't google desktop also do searches for both ?

Re:six hundred dollars? (4, Funny)

VMSBIGOT (933292) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577059)

LOL; Gotta laugh when a search patent is being used against Google. Not saying anything on the merits, but still...

Re:six hundred dollars? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577017)

Got to love liberals

If it were Adobe (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40576953)

You'd have to pay to be de-graded!

Kill Patents (5, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#40576955)

Time to kill off the patent system. It has become absurd.

Re:Kill Patents (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577021)

I think Apple should be killed first. I have never seen a worse bully or a sorer loser. The tech industry needs to rid itself off this idiocy of a company once and for all. With all the money they have, they have the power now to completely annihilate innovation in the entire tech World. Things were better when they did not have that kind of money power; atleast then they had the hunger to build better products. Instead of quashing competition in the Courts and with the FTC.

Re:Kill Patents (5, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577075)

I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.

Re:Kill Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577255)

Methink you forgot your Googles, I mean the Googles.

Re:Kill Patents (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577259)

In FL it is legal to shoot someone in the face if they are on your property without your consent. It doesn't mean people should be doing it, though, does it? Apple's patent has tons of prior art. Your passive aggressive attempt to defend Apple merely shows you what a fanboi you truly are.

Not true (2)

daninaustin (985354) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577429)

You don't know what you are talking about. In Florida, like most states, you can only shoot someone when in fear for your life. If someone comes in your house, you can probably shoot them, but if they are just trespassing in your yard, you will most likely go to prison.

Re:Kill Patents (5, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577265)

I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.

thing is, what Microsoft can't do they have Apple do. Either for fear of government interference(this is still a very large real threat for MS, but not to Apple due to legacy reasons and Apple owning just a small part of the desktop world) or fear of pissing up their manufacturers, some of which are only shipping windows phone as lip service to MS to keep them from litigating against their Android phones - and to reap money back from MS they have to pay to MS as licenses when shipping androids, by getting discounts on WP licenses.

Apple has no problem with the manufacturers shipping MS products(cross licensing in place - with unpublished details). And Nokia has cross license agreements with said manufacturers so they don't want to stir the pot(and they're knee deep in frand licensing too, which Apple isn't).

It's sort of a new age duopoly arrangement. Mere few years ago these players were busy litigating each other but now they're effectively married as far as patents and blocking each others products go, with cross licensing agreements between Apple, Nokia and MS going every way and even a patent troll created by MS and Nokia as a pool - and they all want android and the other manufacturers dead or under their control(Nokia maps as default win wp8 amounts to wp licensees effectively paying their competitor a small sum for every shipped phone, though again details are hidden). It's part of the system that has kept new handset manufacturers blocked from market despite foxconn being available as a manufacturing resource for anyone, the os being available for anyone, the parts sources being available for anyone...

what's even more ridiculous is that multiple firms have patents for things which amount to being the same thing when executed. that's sick.

anyhow, mixed local and web searches suck ass.

Re:Kill Patents (0)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577401)

Well said.

Re:Kill Patents (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577337)

While you are absolutely right that what they are doing is legal, it doesn't mean that they aren't also bad actors. Getting a patent on "searching local and remote content with one search, OMG on a phone" is - well - a corruption of a broken system and it was disingenuous to even file for that patent. Then, actually using said patent in a blatant attempt to prevent competitive sales is almost the definition of a bad actor. (I imagine the "war room" sessions at Apple as they look through all of their patents and look at all competing devices to try to find something to sue over). While it is legal, it is also reprehensible. Just because it is legal doesn't mean they need to act in bad faith. However, I do believe that they will continue to do it (and so will others) until such time as the ludicrous rules allowing patents on software features are abolished.

Re:Kill Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577415)

taking abuse of a system is absolutely not excusable. Just because a system says "you can get away with XYZ" doesn't mean it's great to do so. While this works properly in taxes if they were to cut abuses out quickly, in any situation where abuse is slow to be corrected punishing the abusers is the right course of action.

Re:Kill Patents (5, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577431)

I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal.

It is also legal to be greedy and avaricious, and in some cases, immoral and unethical. Though legal, such behavior still needs defending.

Re:Kill Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577473)

So you are saying Apple is only the "messenger" and its hands are clean? I don't think so.

Re:Kill Patents (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577171)

Typical iHater. If it weren't for Apple, Android would have continued copying RIM.

Re:Kill Patents (0, Troll)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577197)

People seem to forget that Motorola AKA Google's mobile division has threaten to sue people over patents that they agreed to license under FRAND. Half the reason that Google bought MMI is because they threaten to sue other Android manufacturers.

Re:Kill Patents (0)

jkrise (535370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577241)

You are confusing between Cause and Effect. Apple were the first ones to sue competitors, specially Android mfrs.

Google had to take protective action to prevent untold damage to the Android ecosystem which they created.

Re:Kill Patents (2)

cmdrbuzz (681767) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577257)

Uh no, Motorola sued first.

Re:Kill Patents (3, Informative)

jkrise (535370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577307)

Firstly, this article is about the tussle between Apple and Samsung's Android offerings. I very clearly remember that Apple started the mindlessness vs Samsung first.

Google was not directly sued by Apple, but the suits against Samsung and HTC were enough motivation for Google to acquire MMI and take some counter action.

Re:Kill Patents (-1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577331)

Apple started the mindlessness vs Samsung first.

Nope Samsung started this when they broke the law.

Re:Kill Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577403)

Bingo!

Re:Kill Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577435)

Which law?

Judge Posner destroyed Apple's argument, and now in the UK, Apple got their tiny balls handed to them in regards to slide to unlock, which means Apple just bullshitted Judge Koh.

Re:Kill Patents (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577483)

If making a rounded rectangular shaped tablet is a violation of a law, then I have an antique soap-box to sell you for a million bucks. And if you believe that Apple deserved a patent for such a design, then you will be gullible enough to buy it from me at the price offered.

And FYI, matters of law are not decided in your head or Steve Job's head either; it is for the courts to decide whether there has indeed been a violation.

Re:Kill Patents (5, Informative)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577507)

No, Apple sued first. The fact that Apple sued a different Android vendor than Motorola is immaterial, it was still a direct troll patent attack on Android.

2010, Mar 02: Apple sues HTC over 10 patents and files an ITC complaint against HTC over 10 other patents. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Kill Patents (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577335)

People seem to forget that Motorola AKA Google's mobile division has threaten to sue people over patents that they agreed to license under FRAND.

You're just not going to stop trying to force the "AKA Google's mobile division" misinformation down our throats, are you? No matter how much we know it's wrong?

No, please, come take a little trip with me down to the magical world of "history". Yes, to the far, faaaaaaar, distant times of "before your ADD-addled pop culture brain can remember". A whole YEAR ago! Now, when did Google purchase Motorola Mobility? No, try again. No, no, the correct answer is they haven't yet. Now, when did Motorola Mobility start the FRAND nonsense? Was this before or after Google bought them?

No, wrong. Think harder. Let's use some of that so-called geek cred for something other than rattling off the specifics of each WoW expansion's patches. Like, say, logic. If Google hasn't yet purchased... yes, I said logic. Yes, "logic". You remember those college classes you took on basic logic? ...you didn't. You were a liberal arts major. And why did you... so you could have more time to watch movies and TV. I see. Well, can you use whatever excuse for reasoning you DO have and determine that if Google hasn't yet purchased them, was the FRAND nonsense before or after...

Okay, no, quoting Celebrity Jeopardy lines is not a valid answer. No, I'm not going to address you as Sean Connery. No, quoting The Big Lebowski doesn't count, nor does any of Kevin Smith's movies. Look, if you don't have the attention span to carry on an intelligent conversation without getting distracted like that, maybe you shouldn't be straining yourself to try to contain the news in that apparently great big brain of yours. Critical analysis of basic cause and effect might take some time away from learning new pop culture references. *sigh* No, dipshit, I don't care that the word "analysis" has the word "anal" in it.

Re:Kill Patents (0)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577405)

Apple is already dead, it is a zombie of its former self. When Steve Jobs died, Apple's engineering prowess died with him.

Typical Apple Hater whining (-1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577449)

I think Apple should be killed first. I have never seen a worse bully or a sorer loser

That is absurd. They are not a "sore loser", they literally cannot be since they are currently winning by any measure.

What they do is understandable, they try to prevent outright copying of things they do.

That works fine for design patents, they've only attacked companies for blatant violations. But the software patents, even though Apple has done some things first are ideas that truly are too broad to be patented, and have been used in software before.

Re:Kill Patents (1)

kungfuj35u5 (1331351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577023)

You're just now coming to this conclusion?

Re:Kill Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577147)

I know it isn't a popular opinion here, but some of us think there's a place for patent protection. Just... not at all like this. Arguably not in software at all.

Re:Kill Patents (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577425)

"You're just now coming to this conclusion?"

No, I've been saying this for decades. Probably since before you were born.

Re:Kill Patents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577111)

In a turn of events, Monsanto and Apple will fight the latest legal battle. Apple will be forcing Monsanto to remove all apple seeds from the market.

Re:Kill Patents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577225)

1) Make patent submissions free
2) 1 Patent per month can be filed by a individual or organization for free. Second patent is 1000$ then Fibonacci the fee per patent and cap at 20 patents per month. (around patent 15 should be 1million per patent application.)
3) Patents are perm affixed to individual or institution and are non transferable, purchasable, trade-able. If a company is bought, sold, bankrupt, ect it's patents do not transfer. If you want to purchase a company because of a patent you are forced to license it thus decreasing the life span of the patent.
4) Patent expires after 60 months
5) Patent can be licensed but the number of different entities it is licensed to divides the number of months before it expires. If I license it to 4 companies then the patent will only be valid for 15 Months.

Re:Kill Patents (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577389)

It's not the patent LAW that's the problem. They law says that a patent is for something that's innovative and that would not be obvious to a person skilled in the art (in this case, of programming computers). The problem is that this is a bad patent that should never have been granted in the first place. The problem lies with the PATENT EXAMINERS who ignored that portion of the law or were so incompetent in the field of programming that they didn't realize that passing the same data to an internet search engine that you pass to the search function on the computer or phone and then aggregating the results is obvious. The judge is supposed to presume that a patent is valid once granted. But it seems that in the area of software patents these days, that's an increasingly invalid assumption. Patents do get invalidated, but not often enough and often not before considerable damage is done to parties accused of violating patents.

improvement (3, Interesting)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40576969)

I actually prefer separate web searches and local searches. I find it annoying that the default Android search sends query terms over the web to Google, and I rarely if ever find the mixed searches useful.

As far as I can tell, I can turn off mixed global/local search, but I end up having to choose one or the other with the Google search app. Or is there some way I can get separate shortcuts for local and web searches?

Re:improvement (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40576975)

Get a Samsung phone?

Re:improvement (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577117)

I have one and I agree 100% with the GP.

Re:improvement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577365)

I have a Samsung phone. What do I do?

Re:improvement (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40576991)

Even if you like it that way, having them reach out and take a feature away sucks.

Reminds me of when Amazon pulled copies of 1984 off of kindles.

Re:improvement (4, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577121)

Your personal views on the matter are completely irrelevant. That a company can be forced to remove a feature that it has provided in the desktop market for almost a decade, in order to not violate a patent that ought not to have been granted; vindicates Posner's views that the patent system is truly broken and absurd.

Re:improvement (0)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577295)

The view is relevant because this is a useless feature that people dont' need. Which means that the OTA upgrade to remove it is just an overture.

They would not do this to remove something significant and competitive.

Re:improvement (1)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577319)

If you think this is new, you really don't know much about patents. We've had cases like this going back more than a century. This particular example actually shows more that these kinds of bad patents are becoming less and less relevant with increasingly software-driven products, products that can be updated essentially overnight. At some point, Apple will hopefully figure out that they are just embarrassing themselves with these kinds of legal shenanigans.

Should the patent system be fixed to prevent this kind of abuse from companies like Apple? By all means. But this patent is perhaps not a good test case.

Re:improvement (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577155)

I haven't seen a "feature" this idiotic since Microsoft removed normal file name search and replaced it with a poor man's Google. Now I can't search for a file by the name I want, but it searches through all files on the whole god damned computer.

Didn't Google do this first? (1)

buzzzz (767841) | more than 2 years ago | (#40576979)

Google desktop search had this feature long before iPhone came along. A search box on the windows desktop that searched both the local drive and the computer. Migrating this feature to mobile seems obvious.
Is there anything more to this patent? Otherwise, this is the perfect examples of how the patent system can be easily abused for software patents

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (0)

psergiu (67614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577025)

Sherlock on MacOS had this feature long before Google was a company.

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577081)

Was it already patented on MacOS? I'm wondering, because you aren't supposed to be able to patent things after you've already made the knowledge public.

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (3, Interesting)

VMSBIGOT (933292) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577119)

Grep on Unix had this feature long before Apple was a company.

FTFY.

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577291)

Grep has jack shit to do with this patent.

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577461)

Fuck the patent. Apple shouldn't have been allowed to patent something that already was in use. I was doing web searches from apps on an Amiga before Apple shat into existence the iPhone.

A judge should see that if it's been used before, then fuck the patent in question.

That's the whole issue; companies patenting something (and being allowed to) for things that have been done before, or things that are blatantly obvious.

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (5, Funny)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577349)

Grep on Unix had this feature long before Apple was a company.

FTFY.

How does that work exactly?

grep "search term" /dev/mypc_and_theinternet?

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577505)

Mount the internet as a local directory. (We are talking about Google here.)

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577035)

it's a feature from '90s.

the patent is a rehash combination of earlier patents.

also, nokia had this on mobile phones mid 'zeros I think. nobody fucking used it since it had couple of sucky points...

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (0)

beltsbear (2489652) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577067)

And that is the problem. An example: Music playlist patent on an ipod like device. It is obvious but I am ok with that patent for the first time if it was not used before. But then to allow a new FRESH patent when you put this on a built in car stereo is crazy. It is more then obvious, it has been done, just not there. Once the car stereo had a big enough computer, there was no real 'invention' to allow a patent on that item.

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (1)

VMSBIGOT (933292) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577099)

I guess either there is a typo, or I don't really get the functional difference between searching "local drive" and "computer". I guess you *could* search the CMOS and the video card memory, but what is the benefit?

And Google Desktop only searched locally. I thought the same thing, but a quick trip through Wikipedia reminded me that it was only a computer search function.

Re:Didn't Google do this first? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577281)

It even worked on mobile devices. My laptop did mixed searches just fine, and it was definitely a mobile device. Most Windows tablets could also do mixed searches. I'm pretty sure that even with our hair splitting where we define one kind of computer to be a completely different animal than another computer because of how it was marketed, a tablet is still considered a 'mobile device'.

One of the stupidest things about PI (Patant Insanity) is the current trend of getting patents on things that are already covered by patents. Old PI would patent "A Device that does X". Now we get a bunch of PI that is in the form of "A MOBILE device that does X". Only in bizzaro IP world is "mobile device" not a subset of "device".

webOS had this (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577013)

Did they license it, or is there more to this story?

Re:webOS had this (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577285)

Didn't webOS use tech from Palm which bought Apple/Newton tech way back when?

More to this story (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577419)

Much as I like my Pre 3 (yes, I know I'm strange), the simple fact is that webOS isn't running on a phone line (Samsung S3 and Galaxy Nexus) that could well overtake the iPhone in world wide sales if Samsung can ramp up production enough, so even if it infringed Apple wouldn't care.

This dispute is entirely about what will happen to the Apple share price if Samsung's higher end phones overtake Apple's sales. US shareholders don't seem to care about the world market, only the US one. Therefore, Apple executive bonuses depend largely on keeping Samsung out of the US.

This may be partial truth and an oversimplification, but I think there is merit in the argument. Currently HTC is struggling, so is Motorola, but Samsung is a huge threat not to Apple (the market is expanding) but to its share price.

Maybe.. with enough lawsuits (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577015)

Just maybe I can buy a device that's been 'degraded' into being just a phone. Think of it as a good way to get rid of bloat, where you turn the device on, not boot it up.

Re:Maybe.. with enough lawsuits (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577097)

They exist. I've got a cheapo Samsung phone from Walmart using their Straightalk service. 1000 anytime minutes for $30 a month. It works everywhere and I don't have to charge it every 6 hours.

Do net cheer any software patent victories... (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577019)

This is just the kind of software patent that really strikes fear into smaller developers, since it's a technique that comes to mind naturally (I've had search boxes that have done mixed kinds of searches for decades).

I have never cheered "victories" even from companies I like, for any software patents... these truly are things that need to be abolished as patentable.

At this point though, I do not think the international community will allow it unless we get some REALLY strong support from government...

Question? (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577055)

Is there a feature with this automatic software push on an Android to get prompted if you want to install this or is it choice-less?

Re:Question? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577101)

There's a prompt. In most cases a notification in the pull-down appears and you can just ignore it and it will occasionally pop back up. You can also completely disable it under 'Settings > About Phone' so it doesn't appear at all.

Why no voice maps on iPhone? (2, Funny)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577087)

I would feel sorry for Android users, but then I remember that iPhone has not voice directions. Android does on Google Maps. iPhone does not. Allegedly Apple pys more in license fees to Google than Google gets from Android. We know that MS probably gets more from Android than Google does. Google seems to playing an aggressive game, which is looking like a rear action. Bing is becoming acceptable. Apple is going to fight hard on maps, and probably give features that Google will not. Google is a trusted necessary brand for many people, no matter the platform. As it becomes platform specific, Chrome, Android, who knows what will happen.

Re:Why no voice maps on iPhone? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577167)

Bing is becoming acceptable.

Bwahahahahahah....*catches breath*....hahahahahahaha...when can I buy your DVD?

Re:Why no voice maps on iPhone? (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577459)

iOS 6 brings turn by turn voice on their new, in-house map system.

Thanks Apple!!! (4, Funny)

sensationull (889870) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577089)

We all love you really, now die in a fire!!!

The blocked feature is not even in any Apple OS... (1)

zeraien (704094) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577165)

As far as I know, no Apple products support simultaneous online and offline searches...So whats the bug ruckus about? iOS search shows local results and a link to do a Google search (oh the irony) in Safari when you search for something.... Makes me so angry that Apple can block a feature that they don't even implement in their own OS. fah!

Apple is pathetic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577169)

Apple is pathetic.

On the bright side... (1)

haus (129916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577175)

......as bad as the handset makers/carriers for Android phones are at getting updates out, most of these handsets will be obsolete by the time this 'update' gets pushed out.

Re:On the bright side... (1)

Analog Penguin (550933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577219)

Except that this case deals with the Galaxy Nexus, for which Google controls the updates directly.

Re:On the bright side... (1)

haus (129916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577253)

Fortunately for them, their business partners have established such a low level of success that they can do nothing and show that they have exceeded the industry standard.

Apple Must Die (0, Flamebait)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577193)

Needs to be said: Apple must die. I don't want an all Apple world; they don't deserve a good number of the patents that they have been erroneously granted; and it they were gone they would be little missed by many many people because they, their always high prices and overly generous profit margins, and their walled-garden beliefs, aren't what many of us want in our devices.

Re:Apple Must Die (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577235)

Better than running antivirus...

Re:Apple Must Die (1)

ToastedRhino (2015614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577243)

Undoing all of the modding I've done on this thread just to respond to you.

and it they were gone they would be little missed by many many people..

You've got to be kidding me right? While there may be a sizable chunk of people on Slashdot wishing for the death of all things Apple, "many many people" would most certainly miss Apple if they were gone, or did you forget about that whole Steve Jobs is dead and everyone is freaking out thing?

Re:Apple Must Die (1)

Known Nutter (988758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577377)

aren't what many of us want in our devices.

Never mind the fact the iPhone has sold over 100 million units...

Re:Apple Must Die (0)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577399)

But who would do Microsoft's research & development?

Re:Apple Must Die (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577443)

Needs to be said: Apple must die. I don't want an all Apple world; they don't deserve a good number of the patents that they have been erroneously granted; and it they were gone they would be little missed by many many people because they, their always high prices and overly generous profit margins, and their walled-garden beliefs, aren't what many of us want in our devices.

You don't know what you're talking about. Would you rather have Microsoft dominate the music business, or for Palladium to have succeeded? Both would have happened if it weren't for Apple. But you think they should die because they do what all other companies do with their software patents, including:

Microsoft
Google
Motorola
Oracle
Samsung
Nokia

So, please explain why Apple alone, and not the U.S. software patent system as a whole, needs to die.

patent thought (4, Insightful)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577249)

Shouldn't the patent be on how it's done and not that it's done at all? That's like patenting the concept of a machine that seperates fibers from its seeds and not actually patenting the cotton gin itself.

Nice inflametory headline (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577251)

Especially since the article in question doesn't use it. Apple didn't "force" Google to do anything, Google gave up a feature to avoid a patent fight. Not that the actual article is much better. I hate most of these stupid patents, but don't go around like Apple was whacking Google with a stick to remove a feature. Blame the judge for his ruling, if anything.
And I don't even have an iPhone. I don't even have a smartphone.

Re:Nice inflametory headline (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577357)

"I didn't do anything to him, I only showed him what a nice shiny knife I have and asked if he can see it clearly. He voluntarily gave me his wallet. Blame his fear fo misunderstanding, if anything."

Of course Apple does nothing wrong, they only try to ban competitors over bullshit patents that have a nice chance of getting invalidated [slashdot.org] on closer inspection. Nothing wrong with that. It's not their fault that others don't have balls to lose money and time challenging this in courts.

just license the fucking patent, cheap bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577277)

god is it that hard to actually follow the law. apple uses tons of "other people's patents" but guess what they actually pay for them! Duh!

Re:just license the fucking patent, cheap bastards (1)

Carcass666 (539381) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577363)

god is it that hard to actually follow the law. apple uses tons of "other people's patents" but guess what they actually pay for them! Duh!

Yes, that is why if you Google "Apple pays patent lawsuit" [google.com] you will get no results. Unlike most of us on Slashdot who think that software patents have devolved into a corporate arms race that has created a minefield for independent developers; Apple considers it a civic, perhaps patriotic, duty to proactively find and pay for patents that apply to their product lines.
not.
duh.

Re:just license the fucking patent, cheap bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577457)

The suit is not to get license fees... it is to block the usage of the "feature".

Apple has a choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577367)

Apple chooses to do the deed. No one is forcing apple to do this but the end result is Google is forced to do something they don't want to do. Legal? Probably. Moral? I wouldn't even start there. Apple doesn't have morals but of course most companies don't either.

"Worse" (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577373)

"Samsung, with the help of Google, has been pushing out an over-the-air software update to make its phones worse."

The connotation of "worse" is that it was already bad to begin with.

Futile attempt (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577379)

A futile attempt to make Android worse than Apple. But a successful attempt to leave Apple's engineering reputation in tatters.

Apple should be banned from the courts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40577397)

I posted this on the site that is linked to from /.

It's ridiculous, and Apple even being allowed to get an injunction for "slide to unlock" is horrendous. The English courts showed that this patent was absolutely useless since it was already in use by another company before Apple. So, Apple should never have even been allowed to get that idiot of a case into court.

Also, now we see Apple has been granted a patent on AR glasses. Again, this is stupid since Google are actually one of the first to market with an actual real thing, and even if they weren't I can point Apple to several films I worked on during the 90s and early 200s in which we not only done this, we basically had the concepts and ideas all over cinema screens around the world!

It's ridiculous that Apple might try to use this patent to stifle others from launching their AR glasses, but prior art should basically kick Apple in the teeth once and for all.

Prior Art does not kick (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577521)

prior art should basically kick Apple in the teeth once and for all.

Rather a bad metaphor since all prior art does is allow everyone to do something instead of just one company.

To date competition has not hampered Apple.

It doesn't matter to me... (1)

LiroXIV (2362610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40577427)

Because my carrier, for some reason, hasn't put out ANY of the Galaxy Nexus updates at all. Why does this yakju/yakjux BS even exist I wonder?
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>