Yes and no. The iPhone no doubt influenced the android designers, both before and after androids launch, but android was under development for awhile (about a year if memory serves) before the iPhone was released.

Give Apple credit guys. When they copied Android, they where thorough.

Your right. Not Zune, or iPod. Mp3 player.

I know that "Retina" is how you relay a high density screen to the non techy folk(muggles, there, I said it), but give us giz readers the benefit of the doubt and lose the apple marketing please.

As much as I like to pick on Apple, on this I've got to give them a thumbs up. Wireless carriers need to wake up to the fact that they're ISPs, not phone companies. They're selling me a wireless pipe, how I use that pipe and what I choose to connect to it is my business not there's.

I completely disagree. Modern american society shields people far to much from the natural consequences of there actions.

Dear Alamo Drafthouse,

I'd say it's a 50/50 split if apple cares on not. Depending on what the real reason behind the subscription API rules are. Either

The function of sorting, for example, wouldn't be what you patent, but the method or algorithm you develop to accomplish it. So you could, and should, be capable of developing your own improved method of accomplishing the same thing. Just a loose suggestion. While I don't think outright abolishing of software…

I agree completely. The system is utterly broken, and yes, i was trying to imply not obvious, but you probably have to be in my field to get the references.

Some things in the software world make sense to patent. An algorithm that sorts data in n/2 time, a protocol that improves data transfer rates, a format that improves speed, security, ect. All these basically establish a process to accomplish something in a better way, which is what patents where designed for. But…

I'm also 6'4 and I feel your pain. I've been arguing for years that planes should remove the ability to recline seats unless there is ample space between the seats (first class for example).

In a way it does. Lets say Lodsys case stands up. Now devs not only have to give Apple a 30% cut of there content sales, but pay license fees to Lodsys as well. The result will either be 1) Apples inApp purchase API dies or 2) Apple makes an additional deal with Lodsys, paying even more for there licenses to…

Ya, those are nice features, but the OS should never be hardwired to a particular application or service. Android, for example, lets apps register themselves w/ the OS as interested in a certain kind of action/data, so when you perform said action you get that little popup asking if you want to send it to that…

So Apple has already licensed these patents from Lodsys, and the difference of opinion seems to be if that license extends to 3rd party developers or not. I hate to see 3rd party devs getting picked on (I am one after all), but given all the bull that Apple is trying to pull w/ it's in-app purchase system (that's…

Building application specific functionality into the OS is epically stupid. I've got to assume that apple has decided to build in support for some kind of communications protocol/standard and that twitter is also using said standard/protocol to implement their new picture functionality.

I never thought I'd say this, but Go Texas!

"Crap!! EMP! What do we do?"

Come on guys. The DoD isn't going to give an inch whether they where involved or not. What the hell where you expecting:

Well, if i'm understanding NFC correctly, part of the "security" is that it only works at really short distances. So someone w/ a sniffer would basically have to be hanging onto your arm. That being said, the range was also a "feature" of bluetooth, right up until some guy w/ a rifle stock and a powerful directional…