Hold the chips: Apple axes Samsung RAM order for iPhone 5 Apple has cut down its order of memory chips from Samsung, reducing its reliance on its smartphone rival for components, say supply chain sources cited by Reuters. The iPhone 5, widely expected to be announced next week, will feature fewer Samsung components than its predecessors, say the sources. The newswire speculated that …
"A4 and A5 are Apple-designed ARM derivatives"
Derivatives is the key word. You must remember Apple engineer fuck-all themselves. They simply take something already invented, put it in a glass case and then claim everyone else is copying them.
----
Some fandroids go to enormous lengths to make themselves look stupid. Yes, they are "derivatives", in the EXACT same sense that ALL the other ARM SoCs used in Android phones whether made by Samsung, HTC, or whoever are. ARM Ltd licenses out the design to lots of people, Apple and Samsung among them.
But here's one fact that should really stick in your craw. It was APPLE, back in the late 80s, that teamed up with Acorn to turn Acorn's RISC CPU into what became the ARM architecture. They designed it specifically to use in the Newton. People who say Apple engineers nothing should read a little history so they know who helped design the first version of the ARM architecture and used it to design one of the first (if not the first) PDA nearly a quarter century ago.
Getting ready for the inevitable downvotes from fandroids who downvote anything that praises Apple or calls out anti-Apple bullshit.
No it weren't Apple engineers who designed that processor. It were the folk(s) at Acorn Computers Ltd. (Stephen Furber and Sophie Wilson) who did.
Apple and VLSI (which was already a partner with Acorn) invested into Acorn to separate the cpu business which became ARM Ltd (about 1990). That way, they could license the technology to anyone independent from Acorn Computers Ltd. If ever something happened to the latter then Apple (or anyone else) would still be able to get cpu's. And unfortunately in 1999 something awfull DID happen to Acorn, while they were on the verge of introducing their new Risc PC II (I blame a conspiracy against them but others would probably have another name for it.)
The original name o/t cpu was "Acorn Risc Machines" after the spin-off it was re-branded as "Advanced Risc Machines".
Well after sanctimoniously lecturing me with your comical 'facts' you now look like a giant bellend. Well done.
----
Because other people corrected me and you choose to agree with them it makes me look like a giant bellend? (that's a new one on me, not sure if I should be insulted or laugh at you typoing an insult...) Here are a couple links that say pretty much what I did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#Apple.2C_DEC.2C_Intel.2C_Marvell:_ARM6.2C_StrongARM.2C_XScale
http://www.ot1.com/arm/armchap1.html#advanced
I said Apple worked with Acorn (sorry forgot about VLSI) to design a new version of ARM, which was the first one suited for embedded use rather than being used in the Acorn PCs. Wikipedia says that Apple started working with Acorn in the late 80s, the other article says Apple didn't start working with them until 1990, after they'd already started work on a lower power version suitable for embedded use. So maybe I was somewhat wrong, and maybe not, depending on which source is correct.
Regardless of the exact timeline of events, the reason I brought it up is that it is lost on most people today that Apple actually has more history with ARM than anyone selling smartphones or tablets today, and they not only design their own ARM SoCs today, they were involved with designing ARM cores over two decades ago.
Regardless of the exact timeline of events, the reason I brought it up is that it is lost on most people today that Apple actually has more history with ARM than anyone selling smartphones or tablets today, and they not only design their own ARM SoCs today, they were involved with designing ARM cores over two decades ago.
ARM has a long history with phone and "smartphone" vendors, staring with VLSI and Ericsson 20 years ago. Nothing to do with Apple, who were very late into the phone business. And you still haven't demonstrated that Apple had any design input into ARM cores (it's certainly possible, but details please). And there must be literally dozens of companies who design SoCs with ARM cores, and who have source licences, and so who also "design ARM cores".
As a historical side note, I did some design work for a company in 1990 that was developing a hand-writing recognition tablet with an ARM variant. Nothing to do with Newton, Apple, or anyone else.
But that's the thing - it's hilarious how Apple fans continually have to spin things, to make it so that Apple Apple Apple is what we only ever hear about. Yeah, sure we should thank Apple for wanting ARM for the Newton, I'm sure Acorn would never had developed their CPU without Apple, obviously they're too stupid for that(!) Never mind their own RISC PC, or the endless embedded uses of ARM in the 90s, or the billions of phones and smartphones that were sold in the 90s and 2000s, years before johnny-come-lately Apple joined the party.
I'll thank Apple, the day I hear Apple fans thanking all the other companies, be it ARM, or Samsung, Nokia, MS, Intel etc. But I never ever do.
The fact that Samsung etc also use ARM is irrelevant - people don't go on and on falsely crediting Samsung for creating the CPUs.
"Getting ready for the inevitable downvotes from fandroids who downvote anything that praises Apple or calls out anti-Apple bullshit."
I couldn't give a damn about Android, I'm just tired about constant Apple advertising that we get rammed down our throats, day in, day out.
"But here's one fact that should really stick in your craw. It was APPLE, back in the late 80s, that teamed up with Acorn to turn Acorn's RISC CPU into what became the ARM architecture. They designed it specifically to use in the Newton. People who say Apple engineers nothing should read a little history so they know who helped design the first version of the ARM architecture and used it to design one of the first (if not the first) PDA nearly a quarter century ago."
Leave it up to a full time Kool-aid drinker to think Apple invented everything. I bet that includes touch screens and square icons too right?
... or "Jerk", for short.
The Apple A5 and A5X are systems-on-a-chip (SoCs) designed by Apple Inc. and manufactured by Samsung under contract to Apple.
If Samsung do speak as eloquently as you - unlikely, since they're grown ups - then they cannot sell on any "surplus" A5 or A5X cpus:- all they have to show for it is a whole lot of over capacity.
Whether you like it or not, that's how it is.
No doubt there will be hordes of downvotes from those whose comprehension of such matters is sadly lacking, and whose maturity is year to progress beyond pre-adolescence...
Also, because the CPUs are manufactured under contract and the quantities and dollar values are very high, it is almost certain the contract stipulates severe penalties should either company fail to meet their obligations. I would not be surprised if Apple is required to buy and Samsung is required to ship certain quantities at regular intervals. It seems both companies are keen to wind down their relationship, but both appear to be managing it responsibly.
Er, I assume the OP is talking about ending any contracts - obviously any already made might as well still be sold to Apple, but Samsung could then stop making any more for them.
Designed by ARM, manufactured by Samsung. Apple just stick a logo on it, and get all the credit from the media.
"They're not selling CPUs to them. They are manufacturing a part to a design produced by Apple."
That's a key point that many people miss - most devices using ARM CPU's are not easily interchangeable as the devices are dependent on the add-on parts of the package rather than the ARM CPU that is used in a number of suppliers products.
"Why would they tell their largest customer to get lost? they would halve their workforce."
I'm not sure that either Apple or Samsung would want to part company on the A5 CPU's at the moment. Apple would struggle to find an alternative supplier for the production volume they want at 28/32nm. While I'm sure Samsung could fill the capacity, a quick exit could leave them with idle capacity in a very expensive facility....
Designed by Jim Keller from PA Semi actually. He''s just left to go back to AMD, where he was involved with designing Athlon.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/08/amd-hires-apple-inc-aapl-lead-chip-designer-jim-keller/
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apples-A4-and-A5-chip-designer-Jim-Keller-leaves-for-AMD_id32904
I may be missing something that you are trying to say, but you do realise that P.A. Semi are owned and have been owned by since April 2008.
"AMD wants a piece of Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) and that’s why they recently hired Jim Keller, the former lead from Apple’s chip design team." First line of first link.
"Jim Keller, who joined Apple when it acquired P.A. Semi" First line of second link.
This post has been deleted by its author
Really, downvotes for that very witty remark?
AC, if you can repeat that, please register to The Register ;-)
I pity the future of certain commenters here...
And please notice I didn't use regtards, freetards, commentards, m$, snapple, flamsung or any of that 'creative' name-calling, either. Or complain about Lewis, Andrew, 'shills', etc.
Make an effort, instead of using four-letter words to show you don't agree.
And if you still don't agree, vote with your mouse. As in - don't click any links, and don't read these articles anymore.
"Without the income from being an Apple supplier you may find Samsung will have to tighten its belt"
They'll have to tighten the belt anyway with that billion they have to pay Apple.
I would indeed tell Apple to find another fab (or as someone else wrote: Go F U!), which they won't find in such short notice causing significant delays on the release o/t iPhone 5 (not to mention current sales o/t iPad/iPhone) and potentially generating more sales o/t Galaxy S 3/Note 2. In which case they might fill up the loss by producing more SoC's for themselves.
I begin to think whether this all isn't some charade to keep prices high for both Apple and Samsung products and to generate free advertising. I mean, apart from Nokia who's struggling at that, none o/t other phone makers make much advertisements to sell their products. In fact Nokia even have to lie about their new products (which questions how good they actually are) according to recent fake clips and fake photos.
I occasionally see some HTC-poster on a bus-stand but I've yet to see a commercial for LG's current flagship phone Optimus 4xHD or any new Sony Xperia's. In fact the most recent LG that I've seen in a well known store is the LG Prada 3 which unfortunately for LG wasn't such a big success. LG's presence in at (Belgian) stores is very thin to say the least.
There's something fishy going on between those 2!
It was a marketing blooper from Nokia (supposedly), but there's plenty of evidence and reports that Nokia make damn good cameras in their phones.
I do agree it's sad the way that some companies get tonnes of free advertising from the media, whilst most get none, even if they sell far more. And it's Apple who benefit by far - Samsung have only got coverage after they've become immensely successful (the number one company - though Nokia got ignored when they were number one), whilst Apple got wall-to-wall hype about the Iphone from before it was even released, even though it's never been the number one platform, or they the number one company. Same with Ipads - ridiculous hype even before it was *announced*. It only sells better because most people aren't even aware of alternatives - including from Samsung, whose tablets are also ignored by the media.
Sad. Every other advert seems to have a "Get this on your eyyyyephone", despite it's appalling 16% share, compared to Android's near 70% (with Symbian being number one before Android).
I saw a hilarious article from the Telegraph about the Lumia 920 being Nokia's last chance to enter the market. WTF? A tech journalist so dumb, he wasn't aren't aware Nokia were the leader in phone/smartphones for years until 2011, and still are number two? The question now is more how they will do with WP. Might as well say that Windows 8 is MS's last chance to enter the operating system market.
Why is it Apple's responsibility if Samsung chooses to not create jobs in Texas? Samsung decides where and when to build new plants, not Apple, so Samsung would be the one risking US job growth.
By the way, there is a lot of good chip-design talent in the Houston-Dallas area, which is probably why it makes good business sense for Samsung to open a facility there, whether or not Apple is a customer.
The Samsung Fab in question is in Austin, which is sort of close to Dallas, but its still a different area.
Its Central Texas and therefore geographically in between the big TI fabs and Intel's company town/giant fab complex in Central New Mexico, so its close enough to leverage talent coming from from both TI (which is who I'm assuming you're referring to in regard to East Texas/Dallas, correct me if I'm wrong) and Intel.
Makes good sense to me to build there, though I probably would have put it in Amarillo myself because cost of living's lower as are land prices and there's a pretty significant technical workforce in the Amarillo area at the Pantex plant.
Androids generally were selling 4 units to every single Apple one and that was some time ago. The margin is likely to increase as people mostly want the latest products not from someone always playing catchup. Apple were essentially the last people to get into the mobile phone business and naturally benefitted greatly from all the development done by others before them. Has everyone forgotten that they had to pay Nokia for wrongly using no less than 12 Nokia patents! Some would say it would be hard to imagine a less ethical company.
Think Samsung?? They were the ones doing the copying and they are just as happy to lawyer up.
All those Android units - it's unsurprising considering the number of manufacturers and 'price' - for most people they get one as an upgrade from a candy bar - so it's like calling a Nokia running S40 a 'smart phone'. I bet a huge number of those 'volume' Android users use it 'just' as a phone - i.e. not for much if any email or web browsing and certainly few apps (probably Angry Birds free edition).
Given that the first Iphone couldn't even run apps, I think S40 is more deserving of the title "smartphone" than Apple phones.
Yes plenty of people use smartphones for simple things. Same applies for plenty of people buying Apple phones. "Smart phone" is just a marketing term, with no objective distinction between them and "feature phones". There's no objective definition that includes the original Iphone, but not 2005 era feature phones - let alone S40 in 2012.
Hmm, I had a touchscreen Samsung in 1999 or 2000 - ran PalmOS. Also had every Treo phone out there.
All that said, they were in no way comparable to even a 1st gen iPhone. Apple made a HUGE leap with the touchscreen by using a highly sensitive capacitive touchscreen vs all the previous resistive touch screens, most of which required a stylus to properly use. Never mind easy to dismiss things like UI responsiveness & the tile centric interface.
I was working with Palm & Motorola around the time the iPhone came out and it had a profound effect on some people - others described it as a fad - I'm sure both camps now wish they had an iPhone like fad. There is no doubt that Apple redefined the modern phone interface, so much so that even feature & home phones are getting similar interfaces. And at the time I had a Blackberry....
As far as Apple not having engineering talent - you've got to be kidding. This is a company that built it's reputation on engineering consistently great, easy to use hardware & software and that takes very difficult, complicated engineering, much more difficult than just being first to market with some new thing. Just go look up the story about Steve Jobs obsession with power supplies to understand how deeply high-end engineering is embedded at Apple.
You may not like or use Apple products, but it's hard to deny that they have had engineering excellence and industry defining products for the last 30 years.
False, I had a resistive Nokia 5800, worked fine with touch. Resistive has advantages, such as ability to be used with pen *in addition* to touch, and works when you're wearing gloves.
Even if we agreed that capacitive was overall better, the difference is minor - the advantage of touchscreen is far bigger than the additional advantage of capacitive.
If you wanted to credit Apple for being first with capacitive (which also was something inevitable, as they didn't invent it, they just happened to be first to market), big deal - that's one minor thing that Apple did first, compared to loads of things that everyone else did first.
Moreover, that's not what the OP said. He didn't say capacitive, he just said touch in general. I don't know if you have an inability to read properly, or you're just misleadingly backpedalling.
"it had a profound effect on some people"
Yes it turned people into fanatical shills.
Like you. The rest of your post is just fanatical worship. You could say the same about many other companies, including Nokia, Motorola, Palm, Samsung etc. So no, I'm not going to "look up the story", listen to what you say at all - not until I hear you praising those other companies, who have achieved just the same things.
Industry defining? Get real. One minor improvement in 5 years of phone releases does not "define" an industry - the other companies have done far more to define the phone industry, including years before Apple turned up to the party late with their dumb phone that couldn't even run apps.
And wait - did you really praise Apple for releasing something slightly better than what you had *7 to 8 years* earlier? Wow.
Meanwhile, my 2012 Samsung Galaxy is miles better than a 2007 Iphone (only five years earlier, so less of a gap). Apple are obviously crap, and it's Samsung that revolutionised everything, by your logic.
Sure HTC had skinned Win Mobile with TouchFlow, and Prada did much the same thing with a custom OS and some icons. But these phones basically sucked, as anyone that has owned one would admit. And YES, I have one of the first 100 HTC Touch gen. 1s sold in the UK sitting in my drawer, and my then gf owned the Prada. Compared to even the first gen iPhone, they were very, very weak products. The HTC worked OK...up until you needed to dive into actual Win Mobile setting menus, when all the icons went away and you needed a stylus or really, really small fingers to manipulate the _cascading menus straight out of desktop Windows_!!! Or try to actually enter text on the screen, which had a pretty difficult keyboard. So perhaps YOU had better learn what you are talking about, by say, actually using the products who's names you drop....because they really didn't cut it. After owning a Touch, I was blown away by simply how much better the hated iPhone was...
I'm an iPhone fan and I think Apple was the first to do it right, but Nokia had all sorts of weird and wonderful designs years before the iPhone. I remember an IEE (now IET) magazine cover with a Nokia WITH NO BUTTONS! This was when 3 lines of text on a low contrast screen was common. I wanted to get a Sony Ericsson P1 long before the iPhone appeared (friend had a couple of SE Symbiams, thought they were OK, he's now on an iPhone 4)
"Androids generally were selling 4 units to every single Apple one"
And that has nothing to do with the fact that there are more (many more) than 4 times as many Android phones on the market than there are Apple phones, many of which cost <£200, and lots even <£100.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with it at all.
They lost the judgement but the appeal is still on the books and as for Nokia and MS, not exactly a threat since there was a share drop in both after announcing the new WinPh 8, so already the market doesn't look good for those 2.
Don't forget all the other products Samsung produce as well, they are still cutting edge on their TV technology and to the best of my knowledge they have a stable income from things like white goods (e.g. fridges etc).
A drop in Nokia's share price does not automatically mean Nokia will fail and Windows Phone is a non-starter you know.
Samsung are just another Android phone maker - HTC or 'many' others could produce the same handset with the same OS and the same crumby extensions. There is little brand loyalty - if anything you are buying a decent Android handset but if Amazon came out with a similar / cheaper / better one... you would buy that.
Samsung are also just another WinPh8 manufacturer, they also have their own OS on the back burner, if anything they are smart cookies for hedging their bets in a number of different directions from a long term strategic perspective.
And yes a share drop CAN have implications for both firms, more so for Nokia as their balance books are not great. If shares for them dip too much MS might loose confidence and could drop them like a hot stone and look at their other hardware manufacturing partners which ultimately filters down to the consumer as brand confusion. When it comes to big corp finances small stones can cause big far reaching ripples.
I'm not saying that's a certainty but it would be a mistake to overlook or discount it as nothing.
... and genius when Apple find out the parts are defective or better yet someone grasses them up / they find out they were purposely defective Samsung could face damages that make their most recent 'fine' look like chicken feed plus it would permanently damage their reputation.
State-of-the-art chip geometries are around 18-20nm right now, and it would be near impossible to change the metal-mask enough to create long-term failures without causing an immediate and noticeable decrease in yields due to manufacturing variability.
Now, if Samsung were to zap a few pins with just the right amount of static electricity, they might be able to cause a long-term problem. Of course ESD damage can be seen under a microscope, so Samsung would still have a problem when Apple performed their root-cause investigation.
So appropriate.
I choose what I'm happy with.
If my friends/acquaintances & colleagues differ - well, that's their affair. I don't vilify them, cast doubts on their manhood/maturity/intelligence or anything. If they're happy, then fine.
I would like to not be painted as a complete moron (usually BY a complete moron) just for my preferences.
à chacun son goût
While it is true that Apple can move their CPU design to another chip foundry, there are not many that can implement the geometries Apple's design uses in the volumes that Apple needs. I read a trade article last week stating that Apple wanted a dedicated line at one of these other foundries, and the foundry refused.
| It's not as hard as you think to switch to an alternate fab.
Sure, if all you want is a sample run to verify your design. If you want someone who can do production runs with guaranteed quality and output levels, it's a bit more challenging. I doubt any of the manufacturers you listed have enough excess capacity on the required process to absorb Apple's demand.
I think, in practical terms, it would be nightmare. You need to find someone with a lot of spare capacity, which is bad enough. You'd need to put in a lot of effort to re-validate your design with the new libraries, and a lot more effort in testing and sorting out yield problems. It's probably 6 months hard work to get significant volumes of chips, even assuming that you could find a fab in the first place. And what's the point? Apple would certainly have to pay more for the new chips to cover the start-up costs, and they'd probably have to pay more in the long run, as the new fab would have them over a barrel.
There was speculation last year that Apple was going to buy a fab - maybe this will push it up the agenda.
"losing the worlds largest electronics company as a customer"
What? Samsung losing Samsung?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Group
Electronics are just a subsidiary!
I've got a Samsung TV, Samsung Blu-ray & a Samsung camera, my nipper has a Samsung phone & Samsung tablet, the missus has a Samsung vacuum cleaner & even a Samsung bloody toaster.
That's shareholder valuation, which only an idiot would count as "largest".
Yet another case of hand-picked statistic to make Apple look best. Who was most valuable before Apple, and how come we never heard about that? Once again, a stat is only news if it makes Apple look good, which suggests that actually, no one cares about the statistic. (And it's hardly surprising that Apple will do better on "valued" - no shortage of Apple fanatics to buy as many shares as possible. Apple are also the most hyped and shilled company in history, but sorry, I don't consider that anything to be proud about.)
Samsung are way bigger by any sensible measure that's relevant to consumers - e.g., sales. Shares only matter if you're a shareholder, and if you are, you're a shill.
Game over.
"Samsung are way bigger by any sensible measure that's relevant to consumers - e.g., sales."
But revenue from those 'sales' is lower. I say 'sales' as Samsung have a habit of only reporting shipped numbers, which are very different to sales numbers. I'll give you one thing, market capitalisation isn't a measure of size, but measure of value. However it's still fair to say that in terms of value, Apple a considerably bigger than Samsung. In terms of revenue, which could be argued is a pretty important metric, Apple is outperforming Samsung 3:2 with an apparent lower shipping yield. Suffice to say that Nokia and HTC would love to have either Apple or Samsung's numbers.
FTR, Exxon Mobil were the most valuable before Apple and going back over the last 10 years, GE, Microsoft and PetroChina have all been at the top. Samsung haven't bothered the top 10. Only a complete nincompoop that didn't know what they were talking about wouldn't know that.
"Samsung are way bigger by any sensible measure that's relevant to consumers - e.g., sales. Shares only matter if you're a shareholder, and if you are, you're a shill.
Game over."
What's this - 'phone company Top Trumps' "My comanpy's bigger than yours"
What lesson do you have after playtime?
Plus if they were the largest, can the media and fans please stop talking about Apple as if they were some small startup? "Ooh, isn't it amazing that the largest company can, with tonnes of free media hype, sell a few million of a product. Let's praise Apple endlessly for that. Never mind that every other multinational routinely sells millions even with no free hype. Apple obviously deserve special credit, because they manage to do that whilst only being the world's largest company."
In other news Samsung are suing LG for claimed infringement of yet-to-be patented technology and patents in the television business, some say they're being a bully (the firm is a third of South Korea's GDP vs a much smaller rival).
But there's a double-standard when it comes to patents and Samsung on most Internet comments.
Fortunately competition authorities might have a word or two to say about that idea. Mind you looking at Window H8 they might not need to buy M$ they appear to have a death wish anyway.
My only problem is finding a replacement for my slightly ageing Nokia 6230i mobile telephone, the battery only last about 3.5 days, or up to three times longer than a 'dummy phone'.
Samsung are a seriously big company. The executives that sell fab services, those that sell memory, and those that run the phone division probably never see one another from one month to the next. Their individual jobs are to make money with their divisions. If one of the other divisions is lawyering up with one of their customers, all they will care is that that customer continues to buy their product or service. This is simply how large companies operate. Nothing is ever personal, it is always just business.
> Or just use a single digit percentage of their cash mountain to build a fab or two.
Actually, that would be a great idea! They might have to actually engineer something, or would they then just use the Reality Distortion Field to kidnap engineers and great minds from other companies to slave away in the Apple Fab of Happiness and Joy?
Move screen production to Sharp - who cannot make enough of them
Move memory production to Toshiba - also on record as struggling to produce required volumes
Result - shortage of iphone5 leading to loads of free publicity in the media frenzy declaring how it sold out in record time and they can't keep up with demand
It is also a very good business practice to diversify your suppliers:
a) A range of suppliers (should) keep prices lower or more stable and quality high
b) If a supplier goes under, you still have others
c) Supply problems at one supplier are less business critical
Basically the "single point of failure" principle.
"So before the iPhone came out, mobiles were already heading the smartphone/touch interface way"
Yes indeed ... in 2007, 64% of smartphone sales were Symbian phones ... admittedly a lot of those were Nokia phones that didn't use touchscreens, but a fair chunk of them were SonyEricsson phones that *did* (and had cameras, wifi, bluetooth, installable and downloadable apps, touchscreens, removeable memory cards, GPS (sometimes optional), cut and paste and many of the other features that the iPhone "invented" ...
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2011/02/smartphone_sale_1.html
The first touchscreen smartphone is arguably from 2000 ... but didn't have installable apps ... but by 2002 (five years before the first iPhone) the P800 had added that feature too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ericsson_R380
No "pinch zoom" at that point as the phones had resistive screens and could only pick up a single touch point ... but multitouch capacitance screens go back to 1985, and pinch zoom was documented in 1991 and may well have predated that ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch
There were so many UI irritations on touch screen phones that I doubt anyone would have really got there without iPhone-isms to steal.
Firstly, a touch screen web browser pre-iPhone 1 would have had drop down selectors that behaved like on the desktop. Apple changed that and everyone else went "oh yeah".
Call these simple changes obvious, but they weren't obvious at the time as so many companies who build user interfaces simply do not spend any time thinking about HCI (human computer interaction). You need to think about what the user will do, observe them using special labs and put all of this information in a guide for developers.
Apple and Microsoft have done this for years. Google released their style guide January 2012, a whole 4 or so years after they released the OS. I'm sorry but you have to think about all of these things when designing the OS and not retrospectively say to developers "Oh yeah, this is how you should be doing things".
@Giles Jones
So before the first introduction of transistor radio, you don't think people were thinking about how to improve the size & quality of radio? So when Texas Instrument made the first transistor radio then Sony should be prevented from making & improving on transistor radio?
All this shows, e.g. w.r.t radio & HCI, is that some company will get to the next stage of evolution first.
But they all 'borrowed' from previous generations of products/technologies.
Nokia had developer guidelines & patterns for their phones before Apple had an iPod let alone an iPhone.
All companies/people play to their strengths.
The Sony Ericcson p800i I had back in the early 2000`s had a touchscreen, grids of icons, installable apps (with a free sdk available) and yes, rounded corners. In fact it had most of the features and a similar form factor to most modern smartphones, iphone included.
As an aside, it had an awsome fold away physical keypad that could be positioned over the onscreen dialpad to give tactile feedback as well, Only phone I have ever seen with that feature.
What im trying to say is that the Iphone is an evolution of phones like the p800, rather than a completely new concept, and this evolution in the look of the UI and formfactor shouldnt be anything but public domain as it really is bloody obvious as technology advances.
By all means patent electronic tech that you have invented and used in a marketed device, but not UI concepts that you tweaked slightly and then summoned the lawyers or shit like `a method of unlocking a phone by swiping an icon, oh and corners, rounded ones`.
I don't recall drop downs on web browsers on even 2005 feature phones.
Even if that was true, so what - it's one single feature. Lots of improvements have been made over the years, by many companies - evolution, not revolution. Introducing one single thing isn't the only thing that matters. We're fed up of Apple fans hand picking whatever minor thing that Apple once did five years ago, and portraying it as the most important thing ever, whilst being oblivious to all the important innovations made by everyone else.
And only Apple and MS think about HCI? I could pick holes in plenty of things about Apple UIs, like the disaster that is Itunes. My Sansa Just Works. Similarly, just because you can pick holes in other companies, doesn't mean they don't think about HCI - Apple are no better than anyone else here.
I had a P800 - you had to use a stylus and it was slow. It was all plastic, the screen was terrible. Battery life was good and voice quality was better than an iPhone, but it was probably the worst smartphone of it's time.
Re: phones moving to touchscreen - yeah, but Apple moved the goal posts for everyone - it was not an incremental rev, it was a huge leap & mindset change. Capacitive, fast reaction, universal connectivity (e.g. cell data & wifi), high build quality (how's the front keyboard working on your P800?), etc. It's the accumulation of technology AND the slick integration that delivered a far better device than anything before it. And it benefited hugely from being an iPod successor, which already had huge adoption.
Never mind that Apple's been trying to create the ultimate portable computer since 1987 (see Newton), this is not just a one off effort but the result of a lot of R&D and failed products.
I keep hearing <Apple - Worlds Biggest Electronic Firm> (or similar).
They are NOT*; they are the worlds richest firm, based on their stock market valuation, which we all know are a crock of ship. Any major problems with the iP5 and the share price will fall, Samsung winning their appeal and the share price will fall, investors lose confidence and the share price will BOMB.
At the end of it you will have a company with (admittedly), huge cash reserves, but only of average size at best.
Personally I think Samsung are idiots to keep playing with Apple, the writing was on the wall when the patent war started, they should have started distancing themselves then, no matter what the short term costs.
If the appeal fails, they should consider withdrawing ALL Samsung products from the USA in protest at the blatant abuses of the patent system.
I know this will be very expensive for them, but really, how much more expensive than the ongoing patent wars are costing??
*They are a fashion company and sell 90% of their products based on their label.
(as in - "It doesnt matter that its slower, less capable and costs twice as much - IT'S AN APPLE!!")
Let me correct your business knowledge, as you want to be so factual and disdain fashion.
A corporation can not be "richest", or even "rich". It doesn't own it's own wealth, the stockholders do. It can have the "highest valuation", it can have "the largest cash reserves". It can be said to have "the largest assets".
But again, "rich" does not apply.
And #epicfail for not knowing the difference between "fashion" and "design". Fashion is changeable , often just for the sake of change - it is something that is intentionally going to be obsolete by another counter trend, so that they can sell you more of the same. Flat trousers versus pleated trousers, narrow versus fat ties, suits with vents versus suits without vents...etc. That is "fashion". DESIGN is making something that makes a visual impact, and fulfils it's function smoothly, where hopefully form follows function. Take, for example, the Kenwood kitchen mixer, which looked like no other mixer on the planet when designed - and hasn't changed in 30 years. Take the London black taxi. Take the Kodak Instamatic 33 camera. All products beautifully designed by one man - and icons of both form and function Now...take the iMac. Take the MacBook Pro. Designs that certainly do not change randomly for the sake of "fashion". The same basic MBP aluminium case has held on now for...well, I don't know, but closer to 10 years than not. The current iMac case design is again, a long time standard in PC terms. In contrast, look at all the varied case designs that Asus has tried on the Eee PC line - every colour on the planet, carbon fiber, bamboo skinned...etc. THAT is fashion for fashion's sake.
Apple is about user focused design, not trendy "fashion". As with the business language above, please get the terms right.
Lets face it, Apple doesn't invent anything. All they do is trawl around at others ideas and stick them together in something pretty and sell it with immense marketing muscle they have. Yes all credit to that, but invention, innovation isn't part of Apple for the last 15+ years.
Innovation is to actually invent something. Have a look at HP and the memristor. Hell, even MS is more innovative with the Kinect.
As for those wittering on about Samsung stealing Apples idea's. Look at the court cases in every location (including here in the UK) where Apple tried and got slapped down for it. The ONLY reason they won in the US was the utterly screwed up patent system and the fact the trail was down the road from Apple HQ.
With Apple's abuses of the patent system they could probably get away with claiming they invented the wheel and fire. Imagine a company claiming a patent for brewed beverages from hops and trying to screw everyone else. That's Apple!
" Apple doesn't invent anything. All they do is trawl around at others ideas and stick them together in something pretty and sell it with immense marketing muscle they have."
That IS "innovation".
Innovation is NOT inventing portals to go to the moon. It's mainly repackaging or tweaking something that exists so that an appealing product results, enabling you to rake in the money.
In the entire history of science and technology, there are only a handful of inventions or theories that would not have been invented if one specific person hadn't thought of it right then. It might have taken a few months or years, but the general flow of human information, and lots of parallel processing by billions of people, ensure that _something_ like it would have come around sooner or later, usually sooner.
The exceptions are things like Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - not his Special Theory, not his theory of Photoelectricity, but only the General Theory. Most academics agree the others would have happened soon if he hadn't thought of them, but the General Theory was way ahead of it's time in human thought - perhaps by a century or more.
So icons and mice were invented at PARC. But it was Steve Jobs that thought of how to package them. The first effort to make a direct translation of PARC was Lisa, which was an epic failure. Then Apple innovated, and re-thunk it significantly, and voila, the original Mac, which was _very_ different from Lisa.
Apple may or may not invent things by your definition. But what most _designers_ agree is that Apple is the only consumer tech company that focuses on good design, in everything. Mostly they get it right. The Mac has a plethora of custom type faces designed for it at launch, whereas Lisa had a handful of boring ones. That one design feature single-handedly enabled true desktop publishing...and it was added not because of a "need", but because Jobs had a personal interest in typography and had been studying it.
Good design enables humans to work more effectively and more creatively. Sometimes working with well designed tools enables people to do things that they might not be able to do with clunkier, more distracting tools - tools that make you think about how to use them, rather than what it is you are trying to accomplish. Apple deserves IP protection on what they do that gives them an edge in that, just as XEROX profited on the work they did at PARC (sweetheart deal on a lump of Apple stock if memory serves).
And let me remind you of one thing - when Apple started, they were good marketers (naturally in Jobs case), but they certainly didn't have "massive marketing muscle". In fact, companies like Ohio Scientific, SOL, PET, TI and of course Radio Shack routinely took out huge ads and outspent them. Anyone seen a C1P, SOL, TI 99/4 or TRS-80 lying about recently? Apple won by having better products and design, then as now. I know, because I still HAVE my OSI C1P...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
