So we've been watching this sketchily-sourced piece from
VentureBeat's MG Siegler that claims Google was specifically asked to avoid implementing multitouch by Apple over
patent concerns bounce its way around the web today, and while we didn't want to contribute to the echo chamber effect without being able to lend any authority to the story, it's starting to get stupid: John Gruber is chiming in that he'd additionally heard that Apple warned Google against including a 3.5mm headphone jack on the
G1 after Cupertino was shown a prototype, which is ridiculous. Fine, we're somewhat willing to accept the complete lack of multitouch on the G1 is a result of Apple's influence, especially considering the
huffy language Apple's been using lately over its intellectual property, but the absence of a straight 3.5mm headphone jack can't be chalked up to any patent issues, since Gruber's source is probably pointing to an Apple patent that covers controlling music via a headphone jack, which in no way prevented HTC from slapping a regular 3.5mm jack on there -- and hell, HTC makes breakout boxes for ExtUSB that expose both a jack and control capability anyway. Furthermore, it's not even remotely clear why Google would be cruising around Infinite Loop with the G1 way ahead of release; as Gruber himself points out, Schmidt recuses himself from board meetings involving iPhone conversations, and we'd expect the courtesy to go both ways.
iTunes, iPod, music, your ears... we get it, Apple owns everything with a melody nowadays, but c'mon, now: at the time the G1 was designed --
many moons ago -- attitude toward the importance of 3.5mm jacks on phones was significantly different than it is today, and we can understand why HTC and Google could've reasonably thought that ExtUSB was good enough. Today, that attitude wouldn't fly -- indeed, HTC's own Touch HD does a real jack, and going forward, we'd expect most Android hardware to have them, too. Talented engineers can usually design their way around patent issues, and we're certain Google and HTC have both the legal and technical muscle to deal with Apple -- so can we please all stop playing lawyer and get back to mocking up the
Dream G2?
[Via
Daring Fireball]
posted February 10th 2009 6:14PM
LOL. Funniest article all day long. Thanks, Engadget.
You know it could be true, Google CEO is also board director of Apple. Probably He told HTC to remove it in the final design.
Probably you should try reading the article.
Also, I have to say that as much as I love my iPhone, if Apple's allowed to stifle other companies' designs, we may never end up seeing the device that beats it. And Apple won't have to compete by adding missing features like FRICKIN MMS.
MMS ? thought it was only copy/dumb/paste?
Does any company has a phone patent?
@Ryan Trevisol
Inventions are protected with patents (like it or not). Having a patent protects your hard work and investment from being thrown completely down the tube by competitors. The multi-touch thing took a significant amount of resources for Apple for perfect. Without patent protection no company would invest any money in developing new technology because someone else would just sweep in after the release and make a cheaper alternative.
So did Apple scare HTC out of including 3.5mm jack on the HTC Touch as well? There are PLENTY of HTC phones that do have a 3.5mm jack and none of it was ever considered a conspiracy before today.
Google wanted in-line headphone controls, and since Apple patented that functionality through the 3.5mm headphone jack, the G1 fell back on the mini usb for maximum funtionality. Just a company protecting its IP, nothing to see here, move along.
@catachip
The problem is companies are patenting things that are not the result of hard work other than the hard work that goes into finding ways to patent things that are already in common use or are so obvious that they work the way a five-year-old would assume they would work.
Patenting the gesture of moving something by pushing it is not genius.
Patent headphone controls on 3.5mm jack? Creative's Nomads had headphone controls on 3.5mm jack even before the iPod came out in 2001. There's no way Apple can front on that.
I control my music through my headphones on my Nokia N95, which came before the iPhone. There's no way Apple patented that. Seriously, some of these patents are getting ridiculous. I know that people want their hard work protected, but some patents are just crazy.
As, ahem, 'Albanian_Killa' says, my N95 had that functionality. In fact, I have plugged IPHONE headphones into it, and the stupid little lump thing works as a send/recieve button.
Just to add what's been said... but my old sony walkman tape player from 1992 or so had controls on the headphones (well, on the line)...
The specific specks included microphone capabilities along with the controls. They use a four contact 3.5mm jack for volume, pause, play, skip, back, and an in-line microphone on the new iPod Touch and both iPhones (except for volume controls).
Lots of mp3, CD, and even a couple cassette players may have been able to control playback through the 3.5mm jack, but I think Apple is the only one to use it for microphone input as well. If they did in fact patent the idea, then Google likely went with the ExtUSB to allow for both headsets and in-line controls (can an ExtUSB port use in line controls?) without infringing on anyone's IP.
In any case, since the 3.5mm jack is available for use to anyone, wouldn't any modification be free to use as well? That's Apple for you...
@Jimmy Jones
Self help to answer your questions :)
http://doestheiphonesupportcopyandpasteyet.com/
and
http://doestheiphonesupportmmsyet.com/
Ryan, you can not be serious.
There are already countless devices out on the market that destroy the iPhone in terms of capabilities and functionality.
Touch HD.
Touch Pro (with a custom ROM from XDA-Devs/PPC Geeks)
Omnia
Xperia
to name a few
@ who?
Yeah, that's existing art in the Nokia gear anyhow. Music controls, call controls, microphone - all in line.
@who?:
In 2005 when i bought a Nokia 6630 i got a headset with a microphone with it. And i'm sure that wasn't the first one ever so that isn't a new invention.
I like you guys and gals....I really do.... but when you start using sentences like:
"without being able to contribute any authority to the story,"
I think you forget that a large proportion of your stories are built around rumor and innuendo.
Just saying...... let's not take ourselves to seriously all the time.
Rumor and innuendo we can at least internally substantiate -- when we post something, it gains credibility, even if we're openly skeptical about it. We're very careful to not run around repeating everything we hear, and we had a spirited debate about the Apple / Google story today. We think long and hard about this stuff, mindlessly repeating things is the easiest way to trash our reputation.
NIlay do you guys have an application process? Because... I love sitting around at work and debating. Buttttt that's not what I get paid for. I would love to get paid to debate electronics rumors....
They are only reporting the story this way because Gizmodo beat them to it... HOURS AND HOURS ago.
@Tarex Trust me, if we'd wanted this would have been up at 7AM this morning. We've been talking about it all day. Again, we're not going to just repeat things for the sake of repeating them, especially not rumors with a source this sketchy.
So you didn't answer my question...
@TareX Come on, man.
"We're very careful to not run around repeating everything we hear"
I wish you were that careful with what you frequently make up. And don't worry about your credibility, it's already down the drain.
@giuliop: You need to cite specific examples when you say things like that. "with what you frequently make up" is some serious language, and I'm not going to let this comment sit without an explanation of what was meant by it. Understood?
"You need to cite specific examples when you say things like that. "with what you frequently make up" is some serious language, and I'm not going to let this comment sit without an explanation of what was meant by it. Understood?"
Did you guys forget the imfamous Blackberry Storm incident where you did take somthing that for all intents and purposes was "made up" and ran it anyway, only to get a monster backlash to the point where you threatened to cut comments out completely?
Nope -- we talked about that quite a bit too, and ultimately decided to run it as total hearsay and included a poll to try and gauge the truth because there were multiple conflicting sources. Go read it again -- it's actually a perfect example, since no matter how hard we tried to present it skeptically, people still took it the wrong way.
Nilay Patel & Chris Ziegler, why don't you guys add a little "Rate This" to every article you guys at Engadget write? This way you see how people really feel about what you write in order to improve your article writings in general.
I'm absoultly sure that an Article like this one would've got "Lowest Ranked" in less than 10 minutes. You can't assume that 20 readers are all wrong and 5 of you are always right! Otherwise each one of you writers would have owned their own business and became a millionair by now, but for all what I know that you and us read a lot about technology, and sometimes the readers, such as JB here, make more sense than you do. You are all great at writing but not so much at chosing the right content to post, somtimes.
If you are very convinced that what you guys write makes sense then you shouldn't worry much about being low ranked.
Saad, I have to say that is a silly idea. Just look at how the ratings on comments have completely failed - there are so many people who low-rank any comment that appears to support Apple without anyone checking to see if the comment is accurate and factual, is genuinely a troll, etc. The rankings on comments simply do not at all reflect the content or validity or worth of a comment, they simply reflect how the Engadget crowd (which is mostly prejudiced against Apple) is trigger-happy with their rankings and how they do not actually read a comment and judge it fairly before ranking it.
The same would happen with article rankings - the rankings would never reflect how good an article is! Any article that even mentioned Apple would get low-ranked, you just know it would, and that alone should demonstrate why the article-ranking idea is not a good one. The same would happen with any article that dared to question Android in any way. And as has been pointed out, sometimes authors are criticised for doing something they plainly are not (like substantiating rumours) and this inability of many readers to properly comprehend and analyse what has been written, would cause the rankings to be utterly meaningless.
jeez guys, you took a mostly reasonable comment from JB and took it too far. besides, the way i read that sentence, it's saying it would be hard for them to lend credibility, so they were hesitant to comment on it, because some people would take it the wrong way and blow things out of proportion. while i will side with engadget in this case, i would like to look at the feasibility of a ranking for stories. you could display a pure number, or better, have a threshold that increases with the number of people that view or comment on the story. and remember: this wouldn't just be a way to put down articles people don't like, it could also be used to praise great articles, of which you guys have plenty.
that is all. unless i forgot something...
i did forget something :/
can we lower the thresholds on comment rankings back to where they were? i want highest ranked back.
ty,
maveric101
"I'm not going to let this comment sit without an explanation of what was meant by it. Understood?"
should be reworded to
"I am curious to find examples of where this is true and hope to find that you are wrong."
i mean, come on, are you 15 years old? 'Understood?' ?? wtf
I hate gizmodo, totally gay
I'm sorry, but I find that really hard to believe
I don't. I love conspiracy theories. Remember that "Major Corporation" who was *rumored* to be floating Psystars legal battle with Apple... Cough. Google. Cough.
Just kidding. I dunno wtf im talking about. I do like Dan Brown though. Good author.
elephants > the moon.
hope the G1 can do well in the marketplace and improve enough to be a true competitor to the iphone
I thought the first assertion was pretty stupid; why would Google intentionally cripple their product unless they felt strongly that Apple might have legal grounds against them (rather than just "being nice") ... but the headphone jack thing... wtf?
Because until Android is established they don't want Apple throwing their toys out of the pram and changing search providers or locking them out of the iPhone. D'OH!
RIP steve jobs
Control music via headphone jack? Hasn't Sony been doing that for ages? I know for a fact I saw that sort of thing on portable CD players and Mini Disc players from Sony.
Sony's been doing a lot of stuff way before apple but i guess the "techies" on engapple don't count anything without a fruit on it as innovation.
Apple's patent is for the headphone jack with four contacts (which also can carry audio from a microphone). Since Google wanted the G1 to be able to hook up a headset and control the music in line, they had to go with the ExtUSB.
GAH.
How can Apple patent something that has been used on at least one device before them?
I get the feeling that that's not a problem with companies, but with the US patent office, because from what I hear, they have an attitude that is summed up as 'Award everything and let the courts sort it out.'
Actually a full moon could also be the answer. You see, when a human sees a full moon... Nevermind.
I will go back to my cave now.
http://www.ukgameshows.com/page/index.php?title=Who_Wants_to_be_a_Millionaire%3F
See under "Key Moments"
LOL..wut?
all they have left to do is pattent the phone part of a cell phone
best. tv. caption. evar.
show ask the audience or 50/50. maybe call google to get the answer as well.