Ondrej Holzman Another interesting document leaked to the public thanks to a lawsuit between Apple and Samsung. Paradoxically, the internal materials of neither of these companies were presented, but of Google. The documents show how Google responded to the arrival of competition during the development of the Android operating system.
Documents The "Android Project Software Functional Requirements" (Software and functional requirements of the Android project) were presented in 2006 - at that time in complete secrecy - to potential hardware manufacturers who would bring the Android operating system to the market in their devices. At the time, Android was built on Linux 2.6 and did not support touch screens.
"Touchscreens will not be supported," Google wrote eight years ago in its document on Android devices. "Physical buttons are expected in the products, but nothing prevents the possible support of touch screens in the future."
We can also read from the internal documents that Google originally planned to use Microsoft's FAT 32 file system, which would later be a problem because Microsoft started collecting license fees for the use of this system. On the contrary, already in 2006 there were mentions of the presence of widgets and third-party applications.
Less than a year and a half later, in November 2007, Google was already presenting a revised version to its partners dokument, this time labeled "Android Project Software Functional Requirements Document for Release 1.0". This material was created almost a year after Apple introduced its iPhone, and Google had to respond. A fundamental innovation was the presence of a touch screen in version 1.0, which became a requirement for the production of devices with the Android operating system.
"A touch screen for finger navigation - including multi-touch capabilities - is required," reads the document from late 2007, which added a few more features in response to the arrival of the iPhone. You can compare the changes made in the documents attached below.
Complete coverage of the ongoing Apple vs. You can find Samsung <a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1932/8043/files/200721_ODSTOUPENI_BEZ_UDANI_DUVODU__EN.pdf?v=1595428404" data-gt-href-en="https://en.notsofunnyany.com/">here</a>.
Android Project
Software Functional Requirements v 0.91 2006
Android Project
Software Functional Requirements Document
However valid these evidences are, the fact remains that anyone who wants to succeed in the market must know the competition and its advantages... And therefore, if one side inspired the other or vice versa, it is only a natural process of progress...
of course, without competition we probably wouldn't be anywhere today, but it's about how much other companies were "inspired".
that know-how is priceless. and that's about it in the process. how others have rejected Apple's know-how.
Of course yes. No doubt about it. But if someone already uses someone's know-how, even if they change it, they should pay for it and not build a career on it and make themselves a king.
It's as clear as a slap in the face. Of course, I will distort some here
I honestly don't understand what's going on - that the Iphone is touchscreen and Android wasn't originally planned? And what? The situation was evaluated and they went in a different direction. This patent war is really getting worse.
This has no weight, because there were others with touch control only (resistive) and in a large share of the market (not the largest, but still quite widespread) - even before the introduction of the Iphone.
So many kids fighting for Apple by a hundred and six ... and guess who it was?
ps I'm not a die-hard Google supporter and I have Apple products myself, but this is just ridiculous.
Yes, they were, but the resistive display required control in the style of classic keyboards, and it was a bit on him..o. There is no question about comfortable control and multitouch. They and the first Androids had resistive displays. First, they were cheaper, and then the transition to Apple technology was not so obvious.
fart patent war, free advertising for both…