OT: Steve Jobs

[blahblahblah]

[quote=AN]How do you think they made Casper if Pixar is the only company that was developing characters 100% in CGI? I guess I’m just not in awe about a movie 100% in CGI as you are.[/quote]

Big difference — in Toy Story, the entire world is rendered. Everything else up until that point involved overlaying CGI on top of film. The difficulty in a 100% rendered film is that all of the physics have to be simulated, every object interacting with every other object, every surface, every shadow, everything. Motion, collision, deformation, etc… This is unbelievably complex and can probably only be appreciated by people who have studied or worked with the technology. And to do a full length movie in 1995 when a $20K workstation ran at 100MHz and had only 64MB of RAM! You needed banks and banks of these expensive machines to render the frames, you needed tons of special software to manage the huge job of rendering everything, this was huge but they pulled it off.

I’m actually not a big fan of animated films but some of them are great. I am a big fan of software though and I appreciate the difficulty of doing things like this…

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Actually, Xerox pretty much handed the technology to Apple. There was a cheapo stock deal that Apple offered in exchange, but Xerox had NO interest in developing/marketing/selling the Alto.

Philosophically speaking, you could probably call it a “steal” because, in that sense, it was.[/quote]

Oddly, Xerox turned around and sued Apple!

Xerox…sued Apple alleging that Mac’s GUI was heavily based on Xerox’s. The district court dismissed Xerox’s claims without addressing whether Apple’s GUI infringed Xerox’s, since the latter licensed it to the former back in 1979 for pre-IPO stock.

Also, Apple sued Microsoft and lost:

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple’s Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, “Apple cannot get patent- protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]…”

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Actually, Xerox pretty much handed the technology to Apple. There was a cheapo stock deal that Apple offered in exchange, but Xerox had NO interest in developing/marketing/selling the Alto.

Philosophically speaking, you could probably call it a “steal” because, in that sense, it was.[/quote]

Oddly, Xerox turned around and sued Apple!

Xerox…sued Apple alleging that Mac’s GUI was heavily based on Xerox’s. The district court dismissed Xerox’s claims without addressing whether Apple’s GUI infringed Xerox’s, since the latter licensed it to the former back in 1979 for pre-IPO stock.

Also, Apple sued Microsoft and lost:

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple’s Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, “Apple cannot get patent- protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]…”

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Actually, Xerox pretty much handed the technology to Apple. There was a cheapo stock deal that Apple offered in exchange, but Xerox had NO interest in developing/marketing/selling the Alto.

Philosophically speaking, you could probably call it a “steal” because, in that sense, it was.[/quote]

Oddly, Xerox turned around and sued Apple!

Xerox…sued Apple alleging that Mac’s GUI was heavily based on Xerox’s. The district court dismissed Xerox’s claims without addressing whether Apple’s GUI infringed Xerox’s, since the latter licensed it to the former back in 1979 for pre-IPO stock.

Also, Apple sued Microsoft and lost:

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple’s Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, “Apple cannot get patent- protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]…”

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Actually, Xerox pretty much handed the technology to Apple. There was a cheapo stock deal that Apple offered in exchange, but Xerox had NO interest in developing/marketing/selling the Alto.

Philosophically speaking, you could probably call it a “steal” because, in that sense, it was.[/quote]

Oddly, Xerox turned around and sued Apple!

Xerox…sued Apple alleging that Mac’s GUI was heavily based on Xerox’s. The district court dismissed Xerox’s claims without addressing whether Apple’s GUI infringed Xerox’s, since the latter licensed it to the former back in 1979 for pre-IPO stock.

Also, Apple sued Microsoft and lost:

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple’s Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, “Apple cannot get patent- protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]…”

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Actually, Xerox pretty much handed the technology to Apple. There was a cheapo stock deal that Apple offered in exchange, but Xerox had NO interest in developing/marketing/selling the Alto.

Philosophically speaking, you could probably call it a “steal” because, in that sense, it was.[/quote]

Oddly, Xerox turned around and sued Apple!

Xerox…sued Apple alleging that Mac’s GUI was heavily based on Xerox’s. The district court dismissed Xerox’s claims without addressing whether Apple’s GUI infringed Xerox’s, since the latter licensed it to the former back in 1979 for pre-IPO stock.

Also, Apple sued Microsoft and lost:

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple’s Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, “Apple cannot get patent- protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]…”

[afx114]

Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.

[afx114]

Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.

[afx114]

Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.

[afx114]

Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.

[afx114]

Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.

[an]

[quote=afx114]Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be in 2007. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.[/quote]
Fixed. What you describe is just your typical leap frogging in technology industry. Android is doing to iOS what iOS did to Windows Mobile. Without Android pushing the envelope, we probably wouldn’t see multi-tasking in iOS. Even the current multi-tasking in iOS isn’t as robust as Android. Then there’s the tighter integration to the various Google services and social networking services. Windows Phone 7 took that integration to the next level. Same with tablet. You can say, tablets running Windows was before its time. A few years back, when Windows tablet came out, CPU choices were either powerful with poor battery life (x86 chips), or very low performance with better batter life (ARM). When the original iPad came out, ARM chips have gotten much more powerful. Also, some could say today’s tablet is nothing more than a phone with larger screen. It’s not like they put OSX on there. WRT to GUI, I don’t see it. Windows 7 GUI is so much more advance than OSX is. CGI is Pixar, not Apple. Pixar did solve a problem that many are not trying to solve. Even to this day, 100% CGI movies are a small subset of movies. Kind of like animated films. CGI mixed with human actors on the other hand have been going on for awhile now and continue to advance. This is the problem many companies are trying to solve.

[an]

[quote=afx114]Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be in 2007. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.[/quote]
Fixed. What you describe is just your typical leap frogging in technology industry. Android is doing to iOS what iOS did to Windows Mobile. Without Android pushing the envelope, we probably wouldn’t see multi-tasking in iOS. Even the current multi-tasking in iOS isn’t as robust as Android. Then there’s the tighter integration to the various Google services and social networking services. Windows Phone 7 took that integration to the next level. Same with tablet. You can say, tablets running Windows was before its time. A few years back, when Windows tablet came out, CPU choices were either powerful with poor battery life (x86 chips), or very low performance with better batter life (ARM). When the original iPad came out, ARM chips have gotten much more powerful. Also, some could say today’s tablet is nothing more than a phone with larger screen. It’s not like they put OSX on there. WRT to GUI, I don’t see it. Windows 7 GUI is so much more advance than OSX is. CGI is Pixar, not Apple. Pixar did solve a problem that many are not trying to solve. Even to this day, 100% CGI movies are a small subset of movies. Kind of like animated films. CGI mixed with human actors on the other hand have been going on for awhile now and continue to advance. This is the problem many companies are trying to solve.

[an]

[quote=afx114]Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be in 2007. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.[/quote]
Fixed. What you describe is just your typical leap frogging in technology industry. Android is doing to iOS what iOS did to Windows Mobile. Without Android pushing the envelope, we probably wouldn’t see multi-tasking in iOS. Even the current multi-tasking in iOS isn’t as robust as Android. Then there’s the tighter integration to the various Google services and social networking services. Windows Phone 7 took that integration to the next level. Same with tablet. You can say, tablets running Windows was before its time. A few years back, when Windows tablet came out, CPU choices were either powerful with poor battery life (x86 chips), or very low performance with better batter life (ARM). When the original iPad came out, ARM chips have gotten much more powerful. Also, some could say today’s tablet is nothing more than a phone with larger screen. It’s not like they put OSX on there. WRT to GUI, I don’t see it. Windows 7 GUI is so much more advance than OSX is. CGI is Pixar, not Apple. Pixar did solve a problem that many are not trying to solve. Even to this day, 100% CGI movies are a small subset of movies. Kind of like animated films. CGI mixed with human actors on the other hand have been going on for awhile now and continue to advance. This is the problem many companies are trying to solve.

[an]

[quote=afx114]Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be in 2007. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.[/quote]
Fixed. What you describe is just your typical leap frogging in technology industry. Android is doing to iOS what iOS did to Windows Mobile. Without Android pushing the envelope, we probably wouldn’t see multi-tasking in iOS. Even the current multi-tasking in iOS isn’t as robust as Android. Then there’s the tighter integration to the various Google services and social networking services. Windows Phone 7 took that integration to the next level. Same with tablet. You can say, tablets running Windows was before its time. A few years back, when Windows tablet came out, CPU choices were either powerful with poor battery life (x86 chips), or very low performance with better batter life (ARM). When the original iPad came out, ARM chips have gotten much more powerful. Also, some could say today’s tablet is nothing more than a phone with larger screen. It’s not like they put OSX on there. WRT to GUI, I don’t see it. Windows 7 GUI is so much more advance than OSX is. CGI is Pixar, not Apple. Pixar did solve a problem that many are not trying to solve. Even to this day, 100% CGI movies are a small subset of movies. Kind of like animated films. CGI mixed with human actors on the other hand have been going on for awhile now and continue to advance. This is the problem many companies are trying to solve.

[Author]

Posts