What is Digg?61 Comments
- OneManArmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20"Apple Considering Licensing iPhone OS, Multitouch?"
Ain't gonna happen. They didn't do it with Mac OS X, and they won't do it with the iPhone. Remember the quote jobs showed during one of his keynotes: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware". Anyway, lets wait and see. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Another day, another thousand incorrect Apple rumors. This game has gotten old.
- swaggadocio, on 08/20/2008, -1/+18The OS and multitouch are the biggest sellings points and Apple will guard them with its life. Steve Jobs was pretty clear that everything was patented up to the eyeballs and he seemed very proud of that. The message was clear: "You're only going to see these technologies or anything like them from Apple". Who will drop 600 bones on the iphone if some OEM licenses the tech an makes something similar for $200 - $300?
- Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The day apple licenses its software without its hardware is the day Microsoft gets into th PC manufacturing business.
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14People would buy it. However if you mean the rumor as opposed to the product, it's hard to believe.
- LavaHot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think its more likely they are going to liscence people to make software for the platform, not the platform itself. Like how Nintendo licenses 3rd parties to make games for their platforms.
- j_bellone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Apple doesn't even license OS X for the computer and you think that they are going to license it for an embedded device? Fat chance.
- Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The idiots are Crunchgear are either too stupid to realize or are pretending that all market share is the same. Hint: the market share that Apple has captured is a *****-ton more valuable than other low-end pc vendors have.
- ddfall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I completely agree with you. I'd be just as surprised if they let others install OS X legally. Don't see it happening any time soon at all. Their market share continues to grow. They don't need other mfg's now.
- FyreFiend, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@alwaysmc2: They do love making people happy, as long as they can make some coin in the process. Same as any publicly traded company.
- alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That's really a bad name. Apple's specific technology, "Multitouch", is the name of the more generic multi-touch which lots of companies have already used.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4endless conjecture. the iPhone has done more for random ass rumors than any device ever... except maybe the segway.
- garths, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Multitouch has been around for decades. Multitouch as they demonstrated it has been done for many years (before their patent was filed). If I were a company thinking of licensing their technology I would consider this as relevant.
For references, look up Bill Buxton, early Xerox PARC work, Mitsubishi Electric Research Lab (MERL), the University of Calgary, etc. etc. - modusop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I could see licensing multitouch - it's probably going to be big for all kinds of computers.
- Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If this supposed company doesn't do hardware anymore, what would they need to license Phone OS X for then?
If there is a shred of truth to this, maybe they're doing applications for the Iphone. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think they meant they were going to discuss licensing other people's IP to include in the iPhone or iPhone OS. From that sparse statement, it's quite a leap to assume they're trying to license their OS to other headset manufacturers...
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're right, but that doesn't contradict the point I'm making. At one point, IIRC, they had between 10-12% of the market. That was the most Apple ever had. But when someone uses phrases about how the "big boys ate Apple's lunch", it implies that at one time Apple had much more than that. They were significant in desktop computing, but they were never the dominant player. Not even close.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Pre-iPod, if you had asked 100,000 music lovers if they really wanted a little hard-drive device for listening to music, how many do you think would have said yes? Not very many, I bet.
The iPhone's success will depend on whether or not the features are so compelling that people use them once and realize that they need them, even if they never conceived of the idea themselves. - gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This goes beyond the "phone" marketplace, it covers pretty much all of the handheld electronic marketplace including areas we've just started to touch on and beyond. Also from a development standpoint you get a single component (touch screen) that now takes care of all your UI interaction, drop in and you're done. This is also a prime of example of why even Linus says that the microkernel approach is better and will win out over a monolithic kernel in the end. You can do bring up on a new hardware platform in record time. If they've done a good job of properly abstracting OSX Lite they could really shake up the marketplace.
- robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jesus the author of this article is a retard. Apple wont license OS X or fairplay, why does he think they'd license this cash cow?
- gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I know .... I know .... microsoft could do that and could call it.... the Xbox.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Apple doesn't license their IP, ever."
Except for TrueType, parts of ARM, huge parts of PPC (Altivec exists partly because of Apple), and any one of a hundred licenses covered in Apple and Microsoft's cross-licencing deal from the late 90s.
"They haven't even licensed FairPlay,"
Except to Motorola.
"They're not going to license multitouch, which doesn't really matter, because their patent will be invalidated whenever anyone musters up the balls to challenge it."
Having read over the four patents Apple now controls in consideration to Multitouch in Fingerwork's design, I have to say they're quite solid and could withstand the test of time quite easily. Those patents are 7030861, 6888536, 6570557, 6323946. Feel free to go read them yourself and come to a conclusion as to whether they actually invented something, or if they're just blowing smoke. [Here's a hint, 6888536 goes a _long_ way towards describing how the technology works and the insane number of manhours put behind it, from the algorithms used to generate the touch, touch chords (more than one finger down), detecting which finger is which, calculating angular momentum based on capacitance changes, etc.] Hell, even some of Microsoft's patents on multi-touch interfacing reference 6323946 "Method and Apparatus for integrating manual input". - pong32, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Please... Jobs will license the iPhone software just like he will license the Mac OS.... like, um, never.
- woojoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"ZUNEPHONE! With our new techonlogy! Multi-touch!"
- garths, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't fret about being dugg down. People will still read your comments. There will always be a degree of digg irrationality on topics that evoke emotion, such as Apple products.
- LemmingJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"...the market share that Apple has captured is a *****-ton more valuable than other low-end pc vendors have."
The snobs? - joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1props to skyre for labeling a rumor as such. This is how all the rumor posts should be, instead of trying to pass themselves off as news. Keep up the good work.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"the problem i have is that multi-touch touch screens exist OUTSIDE of apple. how is this an apple-only technology?"
It's not exactly like Apple trademarked Multitouch, they're just the first company to bring multitouch to the market in a significant way with the iPhone. Fingerworks tried, but they were a tiny, insignificant company that nobody had ever heard of, so they weren't going to get much fuzz. Furthermore, Fingerworks made 4 patents for Multitouch technology the way they implemented it, so licensing that is up to Apple now. No doubt in my mind that Apple will probably start looking for licensees of the technology, as it's simply too important for them not to. - garths, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Your sarcasm is appreciated, and it makes me think. Why does Apple have to pretend that it invented multitouch? The iPhone is an example of excellent design even with it being built on existing technology. Even if there wasn't a single piece of patentable technology in the phone I would be just as impressed by what they made.
- therightclique, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7the problem i have is that multi-touch touch screens exist OUTSIDE of apple. how is this an apple-only technology?
- DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1" touch the corner of a photo and drag inwards/outwards .. or to move the photo around just touch the center and drag it about. "
How can the software make a difference between moving and zooming? Your solution doesn't seem to be very practical.
Your idea is that corners would be used for zooming, and the center for moving?
If you start to drag too close to the corner, you can't drag outward. If you are too far from the corner, it may be interpreted as a moving gesture instead. Determining the areas where zooming and moving occur would be confusing and limiting.
Multi-touch also has other advantages, like being very good at eliminating unintended touches. If you look at Apple's patent, you'll see that it's used with touch-screen keyboards to improve accuracy.
Let's say want to press "E" but your finger happens to land on the right side of the "W" key first. Multi-touch will enable the device to know that while you finger also touches the "W" key, the majority of the finger pressure is on the "E". It also enables usage of modifier keys like Shift.
Also, what we've seen from the iPhone demo is just the start, I'm sure other multi-touch gestures will be implemented as time goes by. - cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From article: "--his team was tasked with figuring how to get the OS [could][sic] run on other hardware. We like the sound of that--"
Personally, while bad editting doesn't inherently mean "inaccurate information", it sure doesn't help. Undigg... undigg... ah, there you are you pesky devil... It makes a small amount of sense though, that Apple shouldn't be thinking of using its patents to *****-block other vendors from using such important features. It's going to need to look at licensing, if these features/patents hold any water. - cheddarbek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bury as inaccurate.
First off, why should we trust anything from a site that doesn't know about Apple/Steve's history. If they knew their history, they'd know that Apple did license the MacOS back in the day to various vendors. And it should also be noted that the reason we all aren't running computers running NeXT was because when IBM was looking for new software, Steve was too stubborn and lost the opportunity to Microsoft.
Also, look at this.
hat’s the idea, but is it logical? Steve Jobs has always maintained that Apple is a hardware company, and it’s no secret that iTunes is an incentive to iPod
No, just no. Apple is a 'product company'. That doesn't necessarily mean 'hardware'. They make complete products, under the philosophy that people who right their own software should build their own software.
In summation: the writer doesn't know ***** about Apple's history, and Apple would just never license any portion of the i
Phone's OS or technology to any manufacturer. Period - justnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1web tv could not ever be considered a PC in any way. I had web tv before Microsoft bought it. It served it's purpose but was no where near as robust and useful as a PC.
- goodcompany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Naw [dogg], we don’t do [no] hardware anymore. It’s a meeting about multitouch and the OS and stuff."
Seems credible. - gbdc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds to me more like licensing the right to write 3rd party apps for 'Multitouch'/iPhone.
- Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a fairly unthought-out rumor. What exactly is the incentive for Apple to license it's iPhone OS? The selling points of the iPhone are that it is a simple, elegant, tightly integrated hardware and software product that does *exactly* what you want it to do when you want it to. It has been tailored for a specific hardware set to accomplish this. Remember the hub-hub about "no 3rd party software on the iPhone" (which was greatly over-exaggerated, there definitely will be), one of the main reasons Apple said they were going to be clamping down on who writes software for their phone is because they can control the platform better, and ensure that it acts exactly how users want to without crappy software bugging it down.
They would be stuck employing a *****-ton extra engineers to work on platform compatibility issues for marginal licensing arrangements that would actually cannibalize their own hardware line. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From the article:
> Apple’s been stung in the past by the “big boys” who’ve eaten its lunch in the OS market
This is a total and typical mischaracterization. Apple never had a huge market share to begin with so there was no lunch for the big boys to eat. I don't know why people keep phrasing it as if Apple had been the king of the hill at some point in the past and were knocked down by these scheming "big boys." Even the most hardcore Apple fans would admit that Apple's failure to dominate with the OS was primarily due to their idiotic approach to selling the Mac in the early days. (Snobby protective behavior about who can sell Macs, incompatibility with the rest of the world and product evangelism? C'mon!)
The handling of the iPod was 180 degrees opposite the Mac and it dominates its market with no licensing or cutting others in on the music download pie. Likewise with the iPhone. If it's a good product and Apple handles it right, they can charge into the market just like they did with the iPod, no licensing or anything like that required.
IMO, that whole thing about MS dominating in the OS because it licensed Windows to everyone is a myth. Apple never had a huge market share to begin with and their early marketing practices were horrible. That's all there is to that. As long as they stay away from that approach, any good product they introduce will be a success. - ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apple's primary advantage with the iPhone will be software. iPhone Mac OS X will be a major driving point in making the iPhone work well. Plenty of other phones can match it or exceed it in features (see iPod vs. other MP3 players, but in a more competitive industry), but no one will be able to touch the software, because no one will have the budget to make their own OS.
Multitouch, on the other hand, would be a great licensing candidate - if it takes off, people will be more familiar with the concept. The downside of a new control scheme is that it's unfamiliar, but if Apple wants to use it in multiple places, licensing it will make it a feature, not a potential worry. - robbielaney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would buy one when they came out if they had more than an 8 GB version. I need at least a 30 if not 60 GB. How long do you think befor ethey come out with that.
- nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2multitouch versus single touch gestures ... I don't see why anyone would pay more than a few cents to license multi touch for phones (assuming they have a even have the core patents on it).
For example .. the photo manipulation they showed with multitouch (expanding and shrinking the photo) can be done with single touch .. touch the corner of a photo and drag inwards/outwards .. or to move the photo around just touch the center and drag it about. I am not saying multi-touch is useless .. but the advantage it offers over single touch gestures on a current generation phone is limited for now. After all, I don't do advanced video editing on my phone yet. - alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Why would companies license MultiTouch, when there are other screens that can handle multiple simultaneous touches?
- divabox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0This post rocks! Are you people blind to vote for THIS?
- WiZZLa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1or one could simply use the OpenMoko FIC Neo1973's multi-touch technology.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Mac executive:
[...and when our license is in place we shall sue all the companies that uses touchscreen device!...] - amescreative, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good comment Inkswamp. Apple chose the wrong marketing strategy in the beginning and then having lost the initial market share land grab with Microsoft it re-branded itself as a niche product. It tried licensing in the 90's to limited success and has learned from these mistakes with the marketing of the iPod.
However Apple has never and shows no likelihood of ever licensing it's software. It's part of the beauty of Apple products that the software works so well with the hardware because both are produced by the same company. It's likely that Apple's benefits in the computer arena would be lost if it licensed OSX to any Intel hardware. However since cell phones are largely walled gardens, the licensing of the OS on cell phones might work for Apple.
I for one would LOVE to see the Mac OS licensed to third parties even though I doubt it would happen. I'd rather see Apple keep it's control of the hardware / software connection and instead open the iPhone OS to third party developers. Here is a place they could really make a difference and make the iPhone explode! I work for Versadial, a company that makes software ( http://www.versadial.com/call_monitoring_pda.html ) for Windows based smart phones and PDAs and we'd love to port that to the iPhone. I'm sure our company is not alone in wanting to develop for the Mac mobile OS. However it's going to take a huge public demand to get that in the same way Bootcamp was brought about by public demand. (And some dedicated hackers) So spread the word and let's get Apple's attention! - popapiska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dugg. My dog loves it :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7I meant which companies would buy it? Can't see Nokia coming out with a smartphone running the iPhone OS somehow. All that will happen is a ton of rip off touchscreens will be a bit more desirable.
- cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Addendum: Apple licensed aspects of the Mac OS to Microsoft for Windows 1.0 before Microsoft bent them over. It's the same thing, happening all over again. Only this time, Apple's not going to make claims on the GUI, it'll be a bunch of other stuff. Apple and Microsoft's patent-cross-licensing agreement from yay-many years ago should pretty much be useless for any of this new stuff.
- FutureDreamz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Uh, the Mac OS X kernel isn't micro. it is a hybrid.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is