Posted on 11/19/2014 11:35:22 AM PST by Swordmaker
“Just months after selling its ailing handsets business to Microsoft, the Finnish company is planning to go back into the consumer market with a new tablet,” Matti Huuhtanen reports for The Associated Press. “It will launch a 7.9-inch device early next year in China, the world’s biggest market, before selling it elsewhere.”
“The device will be manufactured by Foxconn, which makes Apple’s handsets. And it will operate Android instead of the Windows software Nokia used on its cellphones when it began a partnership with Microsoft in 2011. That partnership ended unsuccessfully — in April, Nokia sold its cellphones unit to Microsoft for $7.2 billion,” Huuhtanen reports. “Sebastian Nystrom, head of at Nokia’s technologies unit, described the N1 tablet as ‘a new beginning for Nokia.’”
“The aluminum-cased tablet uses Google’s Android Lollipop operating system, and will retail for some $250,” Huuhtanen reports. “‘It’s pointing in the right direction, but there are some real challenges,’ said Neil Mawston from Strategy Analytics, near London. ‘It doesn’t have the distribution channels that others like Samsung and Apple enjoy, and nobody is making any profits in Android tablets at the moment.’”
MacDailyNews Take: A textbook example of Trade Dress Infringement, if there ever was one.
“After holding the No.1 spot in cellphones for 14 years, Nokia wasn’t able to meet the challenge when Apple in 2007 introduced the iPhone, and also began to lose the competition to cheaper Asian manufacturers,” Huuhtanen reports. “‘We are pleased to bring the Nokia brand back into consumers’ hands,’ said Nystrom. He hinted Nokia was also interested in producing an Android smartphone. That can’t happen before 2016, however, as the Microsoft deal included a commitment that Nokia not enter the smartphone business before then.”
I think you complain too much. The article is published by MacDaily News, which is mostly about Apple products. The article makes many references to Apple's iPad Mini being copied by Nokia. The thread indeed does have something to do about Apple products. Furthermore, it was posted by Swordmaker, and I'm on the ping list. What else are you complaining about?
You use what works well for you....Nuthin wrong with that.
I lived through the period of b/w 12” sets. I know what I saw in the stores, and am allowing for house brands.
I am describing a period in the early 70s, while most of your pictured sets are from an early generation. What’s more, many of these units are on Google because they are distinctive, so it is not a random sample.
If the iPod had something distinctive about it, that required real ingenuity, I might agree. I remember that RCA had a table top radio that had a “circle of sound, and funnel placed on top of the speaker (which faced up) to spread the sound out more. Some other vendor had eight track players with a large push down handle to change the channel, crazy colors, and large holes over the speaker grille. But NO One got sued because the VHF knob was above the UHF knob, or because the volume, brightness and contrast knobs were all the same size and in the same order. Maybe some of the vendors had to use a different fake wood grain. The dipole antennas were always in the same place. The VHF/UHF knobs were practically ALWAYS on the right of the screen, and almost always near the top.
There is no ingenuity in making the bezel black. Anything other than a neutral tone would distract from viwing. There is nothing ingenious or creative about putting the speakers along the edge, with the left on the left, and the right on the right. Putting them on the bottom rather than the top is the only place as hands’ finger have to grab the top.
Daimler-Benz did not sue Ford because Ford stole the idea of putting four wheels on the car. And if Apple chooses not to put their logo on the front, they can’t insist that other companies MUST have one.
You can do that. And I can think you complain too much.
The article is published by MacDaily News, which is mostly about Apple products. The article makes many references to Apple's iPad Mini being copied by Nokia. The thread indeed does have something to do about Apple products. Furthermore, it was posted by Swordmaker, and I'm on the ping list.
So what's the bottom line? If an article has any reference or relevance to Apple products, even if it's not the main subject of the article, it becomes an "Apple thread", and should be off limits to anyone who's critical of Apple or their products? How does that work?
Jesus, you are a broken record. Every time there’s a Mac thread I’m guaranteed to see your lame posts. Give it a rest why don’t you? Some of us enjoy reading the info that Swordmaker posts, if you don’t, you should just avoid his threads entirely. I can almost guarantee that none of us care what you think about Apple or anything else.
You said it should be off limits. I did no such thing. You whine and complain about the tiniest things. Swordmaker posted the thread, as it has much to do with Apple products. I am on the Apple ping list. I freely commented on this thread. Then you criticized my comment, as if it should be off-limits. Are you high or brain-dead? I never said anyone commenting should be off limits. You're the one trying to stop people like me from commenting. Jeesh, get a grip. Rewind back to the beginning. My initial comment had to do with someone entering a post attacking a person for merely posting a thread related to Apple. It started because an Apple hater posted some garbage that the person should be paying attention to the president making news rather than being on an Apple thread, which is truly ironic because that hater took the time to visit the thread and post a comment! You guys should look up the definition of "irony".
That would be a statement. The question mark at the end means it's a question. Did you miss that, or just think ignoring it is a clever way to make accusations?
Don’t play with words. You’re a complainer and whiner regarding Apple products - a sign of a troublemaker on a thread related to Apple products, of which you wrongly deny being related to Apple. Did you miss that?
Don't accuse me of what you're doing. And you can keep the insults and personal attacks to yourself.
I will continue to accuse you of playing with words. However, I do apologize for any of my remarks which may be construed as insults. Sorry about that. It’s just that every time there’s a thread about or related to Apple products, the haters jump on the threads like moths attracted to a flame. That gets real old to those of us who are on the ping lists. And those haters freely dispense insults. You haven’t.
I’m an appleholic. I used an HTC Droid Incredible for 2.5 years. Great phone.
While I’m all apple all the time now, I am in wonder of all the technology around windows, droid, apple and others.
I’m glad Nokia brought out this tablet. Let the competition continue. Better for all of us.
I've worked in IT for about 40 years, mostly in IBM mainframe environments. Back in the early '80's I was there in the trenches hauling 3270 coax, token-ring and ethernet cable. IBM and Microsoft were working to get personal computers to talk to the mainframes. Apple was publicly pissing on the whole idea every chance they got. I haven't really had much use for Apple products, but they worked at not having anything I needed.
Apparently that makes me a "complainer".
I was around since 84, not a tech an end user. Macs made it easy for me to learn and never called apple tech assistance. My son learned MacPaint and then adobe illustrator all on the Mac. Now he’s an internet marketing manager and still designs web sites.
I understand the early differences and the early wars. Just think we could move beyond that and appreciate what we have now. Truly an abundance and choices for those who want.
I was born in 1949, Doc. I lived through the 1950s, 60s, and 70s TVs and I strongly disagree with you on the styles of TVs. I just took the first four rows of 12" TVs for a sample. . . there are literally hundreds to choose from. I also recall the proliferation of styles and differentiations you could get. The knobs could be anywhere. Right side of the screen most often where you described because most people are right handed, but many other options as that selection showed. You also fail to recognize that by the 1970s, most of the early TV patents, especially Design Patents when do not extend as long as Utility Patents have long since expired and everything you describe is now in the public domain.
The iPad, which came out only seven years ago, did have real ingenuity. . . or someone would have come up with it before Apple did and captured the market they did. Here are some of the attempts to break into the tablet market before iPad succeeded:
Then there was Microsoft's effort:
Uh, nope, Bill, it wasn't. It was way too heavy and short of battery life and did not have many tablet optimized applications. . .
Five years later, in 2006, Microsoft, working with ASUS, tried again with this:
Again, I refer you to THE LAW. You generalities are not what we are talking about in the Nokia model. There are plenty of small tablets that DO NOT copy the iPad Mini and would not be deemed to do so. . . in fact, Dr. Sivana, there are literally dozens of models out there now that did not feel compelled to "clone" the iPad Mini to break into the market.
Daimler-Benz did not sue Ford because Ford stole the idea of putting four wheels on the car. And if Apple chooses not to put their logo on the front, they can’t insist that other companies MUST have one.
By the time that Ford started making automobiles, the 17 year patent on that had expired so there was nothing to steal. It had fallen into the public domain.
Your comment on Apple putting their logo on the front of their product shows you have no understanding at ALL of design patents or you would know that has NOTHING to do with it. . . and in fact logo position or company name are excluded from design patents as those lie in the realm of TradeMarks, but the lack of adornment CAN be included which Apple has specifically included. Read again what the law says about Trade Dress. . . and look again at the Nokia tablet and ask yourself "would an average consumer looking from a reasonable distance mistake the Nokia for an Apple?" The answer can only be yes. That question was asked in the Apple v. Samsung trial of the Samsung defense attorney and he could NOT distinguish his client's product from Apple's from a mere six feet away. . . and in fact selected the Apple product as his client's product! In that trial, Samsung was ordered to pay almost $1 billion in damages on DESIGN PATENTS. It was Samsung's advertising (propaganda) department that coined the false claims and phrases about "you can't patent a rectangle with rounded corners" in an effort to bend public sympathy their way, when that is exactly what a Design Patent allows you to do in the description portion of the product's design. . . and many other products include that very set of words in their Design Patent's descriptions of their designs.
Nokia's design in no way has to look exactly like Apple's, yet it does. Here, for example is a very nice design Nexus 7 made for Google by ASUS that looks nothing like an Apple product except in general form factor. No one would mistake it for an Apple iPad.
Here's an 8" tablet Inventec which runs Windows that looks nothing at all like an iPad, yet fulfills all the expected functions you describe without infringing Apple's Design Patents:
And a 9" tablet from Trooper Android tablet that also does not look like an Apple product, yet still fulfills the tablet requirements without infringing the Design Patents.
So, Dr. Sivana, it certainly could have been done by a company with the reputation of Nokia Oyj. Why could they not be creative in their design?
how could leave out the Pocket PC or the Apple Newton?
HEY! GUYS!!! Neither of you guys are complainers and whiners regarding Apple! Compared to some of the trolls that infest Apple threads, you both are Angels!
I'm coming down with a damn cold and getting tired. I didn't include any of the other PDAs either. But although they were predecessors to tablets, I don't consider any of them to be true Tablets. The form factors were too small.
Some people even want to include fictional ancestors as well. . . such as the Star Trek TriCorder. I didn't include those either. Others wanted to include purely reading devices. Nope. Not those either.
October 1989
4.5 pounds weight
1 MB RAM
price: US$2,370
Intel 80C86 @ 10MHz
And if I had your child-like faith in the promises of your masters, I wouldn't need a clue.
Thanks for that one. i had forgotten that one, that far back. I remember seeing those in use. They had a neck strap so the user didn’t have to hold it for long. . . they held it sort of like a cigarette tray in use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.