Apple files another patent suit against Creative
By Paul Miller 
posted June 6th 2006 1:43PM
posted June 6th 2006 1:43PM
[Via iLounge]
posted June 6th 2006 1:43PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
someone else needs to help creative in taking down apple. Personally I think they have the worst customer service and pricing in the world. but thats just me.
Well Robert, given that comparison after comparison have shown that Apple computers are priced comparably to similar specced PC's your pricing complaint flies out the window. And given that they have contiously been ranked by groups like Consumer Reports has having outstanding customer service and reliability your second point is pretty much shot down as well.
I'm glad Apple is fighting back against creative's pathetic attempts. And I'm sick of all the iPod haters who just don't get it. People aren't buying iPods cause "everyone is doing it" they are buying them because they are simple, easy to use and do well what they are designed for, playing music. Sure there are a few extras (viewign photos and video) but the bread and butter of the player is playing audio. As soon as other companies manage to get that done right first, then all the other gadgets they add to their machines might be worth it. But for now Apple knows the key to consumer electronics sucess KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.
ok creative plays music WAY better than apple does. there sound quality is sooo much better than apple's cheap sound quality. and zen's are designed for music much more than ipods are, they have an fm tuner (for music), voice recorder (for music) but for the ipod you have to go and pay 50$ for an fm tuner that attaches to the ipod and is half the size of the ipod itself, and for the microphone you have to pay, once again, 50$ for an attachment. ipods are soo freakin overpriced though, i was looking through an ad and saw that the 4gb ipod nano was 200$! and it has no features! the zen's 8gb zen v plus was for 170$ and it has all those features and it honestly looks better, not just brick- like thing that breaks if you put the littlest pressure onto it
Robert, I am sure that plenty of others agree with you, but I am not one of them. I have experienced and seen some pretty amazing customer service coming from Apple. Of course they have screwed the pooch on a number of things as well. As for the pricing, I think that varies from perfectly reasonable (Macboook) to insane (Airport basestations) but people still buy. But the bottomline is this: someone needs to out-market Apple with a compelling product, which they have all failed to do. Their only resort is to sue. pity.
Couldn't have said it better Krizoitz.
Ok guys, it's not like Creative cannot keep up, so now they have to "resort to sue". They are still producing top-notch products and providing more features for less money. This goes beyond a last ditch effort, this is just business. Creative won the patent. If there was no patent to win, then this would be a moot point. Obviously someone thought they deserved it, so now they're using it. Neither Apple nor Creative are perfect, but Creative seems to be more interested in making a great player, and less interested in becoming a cultural phenomenon.
Pablo, that Creative couldnt become a cultural phenomenon doesnt mean that they are not interested in becoming one. It's all about making money. Who doesnt want to become a cultural phenomenon and get the most benefit from it?
iPod probably doesnt have the most/best features but it provides what people need. Thats why people are buying it. Other players claim they are cheaper and provide more features and better sound quality (errr...some even say they are better looking than iPod). But they those functions what people care? Obviously from the sell number of the iPod, they are not. People are buying music player to play music. Apple does a good job in this field. It provides easier-to-use user interface and makes listening to music easy. Others struggles in making better interfaces so they add more features and lower the price to compete with iPod. However, do those extra functions make those players better ones? I wouldnt say so before those companies fix the user interface problem.
Pablo, the problem is that the patent system is this country is broken, you can patent just about anything because the patent office is pretty much overwhelmed these days. Then you have lawsuits like this where companies who legitimately came up with the idea on their own (Apple had heirarchical navigation when the Mac first debuted you may recall) and hav eto contend with people granted a patent they probably never should have in the first place.
Well I was mainly saying that Creative seems less concerned with being a hip buzzword, but I think that one of the issues here is that the user interface is what is being debated. For better or worse, the patent people did award this to Creative over Apple, and now they're "trying to make money". If it's really all about business and money, then applaud Creative for doing whatever they can to make an extra buck. If Apple had won the patent, it seems like many people would have insinuated that they had deserved it all along. I'm merely rejecting the idea that Creative is sooooo desparate that their only option now is to sue. That's just silly.
Apple computers are NOT "priced comparably to similar specced PC's"[sic] and they are ugly as hell, also there's no software to run on them which is a little bit of a problem in the real world.
Apple are finished. If I want to have a different skin on a linux desktop I'm not going to pay Apple for it.
Seán, you are obviously biased towards PCs and not very well informed either. Apple's OS is built on top of UNIX not linux. And Apple hardware is used consistently moreso in the graphics and audio worlds. I use 4 different platforms on a daily basis and I have the least amount of problems with the Apple machines...it just works!
Seán - additionally - as far as software capability, and "ugly" yet, hmm, somehow, award winning design go - you haven't caught up lately.
I can't really think of more than one piece of software that doesn't have an OS X equivalent, and it's a very obscure CAD program used to design circuit boards for satellite receivers.
And as I said, Apple has won numerous awards based on their industrial design.
I do detect a hint of bias on your lips? No?
I am doing research on these players and I have to say that I have read two articles on this website and the people commenting on both are like children.
I think Apple products are overpriced and I think Creative spends too much energy competing with Apple through trying to duplicate their products. If Sean thinks the iPod is ugly...WHO CARES?! You can't tell him he's wrong. Anytime someone writes something against Apple, two guys have to jump and and defend its honor.
I don't give a (darn) which company you like better! You guys are ready to fight on the playground because someone said something bad about your stupid media player company.
Here you go: Apple sucks, Creative sucks. They're both bloodless companies out to make a dollar anyway they can. Stop acting like they are people with good hearts and intentions. All I've read is "Apple stole the menu system" and "Creative players look like iPods". Take a look at any DVD player or notebook and guess what? THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME! The difference is what is inside and what suits the individual user.
If someone can tell me what they like about their precious player and what they don't like, it will help me determine which player is best for me. Regardless of the stupid manufacturer.