Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#61

Post by ajross »

jdq wrote: post #43
arjn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone looks a lot like the LG Prada mentioned in the article and it predates the iPhone.

You mean the non-smartphone that was announced a couple weeks before the iPhone? I forget, how was multitouch on it? And the web browser, was it any good?

It's undeniably true that Apple shipped the first good multitouch implementation on a handset. But there were lots of phones with very capable browsers, and a comparatively successful company (Opera) selling them for years before Apple started work on the iPhone.

Which of course is the whole point: ideas are items of trade. Someone thinks of something and someone else improves it. That's the way innovation works. Apple has surely done more of it than any other single company, but they've also, like everyone else, "stolen" far more than they invented themselves.

Claiming that they have some special ground with the iPhone is just a laughable, juvenile flame war. I wish these would stop.

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#62

Post by huggyface »

zefhous wrote: post #9

> Jobs called Android a "stolen product," but theft can be a tricky concept when talking about innovation. This article is heartily missing the point. Android is basically a stolen product. It's a direct successor and competitor to the iPhone, and the direction of Android in it's current form has been and is extremely influenced by what Apple has been doing. Sure, the iPhone is a bunch of "stolen" technologies and id…

Nobody was making products that resembled the iPhone before Apple

Years before the iPhone I was carrying around an iPaq. Now it isn't quite the same, most notably because the original device didn't even function as a phone. Yet I would argue that the phone part of smartphone is by far the least important part (and the only reason it is so prevalent is that carrier subsidization allows people to stomach $700 iPhones). Really these things are ultra-portable computers and the phone thing is ancillary.

The iPaq wasn't multitouch. But here's the thing -- Apple bought that multitouch sensor. They didn't invent it. They didn't specify it. They didn't even initiate its creation. Their software used it brilliantly, but by the common narrative you'd think they had invented it.

Capacitive touchscreens evolved. Embedded processors evolved. GPUs evolved. Wireless technologies evolved. Batteries evolved. Makers like RIM pushed much of that evolution.

Apple stepped in at the perfect confluence of technologies and made the iPaq v2.0. Better in every way -- largely owing to those hardware improvements, all of which came from outside Apple -- but did it really invent an industry?

It's actually a bit sad how little credit RIM gets, given that they were the ones who pushed a lot of the innovation in mobile that made the iPhone possible. A distributed messaging, application platform, camera, etc...everyone just focuses on the damn keyboard as if it defines the platform.

Already I'm seeing many ascribing the iPad as inventing the tablet, forgetting so many products that came before (both real, such as Archos, and conceptual like the Crunchpad). Apple executes amazingly well, but their creations are seldom as out of left field as people imagine. They say that the victors write history, but it is sad if we're blinded into confusing commercial success with innovation.

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#63

Post by amartya916 »

binarybits wrote: post #48
amartya916 wrote: post #2

By the way, a much better and more detailed commentary can be found here: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html Bill Buxton is currently a Research Scientist at MSR and he more than knows what he's talking about.

I link to that page in my story. I tried to interview Buxton but Microsoft's PR people turned me down.

Sorry, I'd missed that link in your article. Although I don't claim to know him personally, I've interacted with him a few times and I know that he takes an interest in getting the mainstream tech. media to cover or correct popular myths (such as Apple pioneering multi-touch). Next time around, drop him an e-mail. Never hurts to ask, although I know why Microsoft's PR might have turned you down :).

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#64

Post by orbitingpluto »

zefhous wrote: post #9

> Jobs called Android a "stolen product," but theft can be a tricky concept when talking about innovation. This article is heartily missing the point. Android is basically a stolen product. It's a direct successor and competitor to the iPhone, and the direction of Android in it's current form has been and is extremely influenced by what Apple has been doing. Sure, the iPhone is a bunch of "stolen" technologies and id…

Just to add to the list of previous art:

The Nokia 770 from 2005/11 and the N800 which was released (2007/01) around the same time that Jobs was announcing the development of the iPhone. (These were Internet tablets with the hints of the telephony stack already included. Eventually the N900 phone did come out, too little too late unfortunately.)

Android has much more in common with Maemo than Apple iOS.

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#65

Post by eddieplan9 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #3

If you focus only on the single feature that is multi-touch, sure, but it's the entire package that likely pissed Jobs off. Pre-iPhone, Android's demo phones looked like a BlackBerry clone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_mobile_phone_platf...

Exactly. Picking individual feature to judge innovation is like saying Sydney Opera House is not interesting because the concrete, the flooring, the paint and window are pretty much the same as any one of the boring office buildings; and Golden Gate Bridge is just a bridge because it's still a bridge-looking bridge built with bridge-building materials.

Like design of any architecture, a consumer product is always a package of many components. Knowing what component to keep and what not to and tuning each to best please the user and work together are the art and the kind of innovation that is the most difficult to find.

And you know people are copying/stealing just by looking at it:

- http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjetjep/4100430224/ - http://micgadget.com/8168/shanzhai-sydney-opera-house/

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#66

Post by tcskeptic »

ceejayoz wrote: post #19
bunderbunder wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-iPhone, they were also demoing devices that did not look quite so much like Blackberry clones: http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Li...

> We're talking November 12 2007 iPhone was announced January 2007 and released June 2007. That's hardly pre-iPhone.

And I think the real point of contention was that Eric Schmidt was a member of the Apple board starting a year before that and as such had seen early iPhone prototypes. That in particular is what Jobs was angry about.

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#67

Post by vibrunazo »

jbrennan wrote: post #4

I'm not sure anyone is arguing the iPhone invented all these individual technologies, and if anyone is claiming that, they shouldn't be as the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. I think the real meat of the argument is "iPhone synthesized all those individual pieces into something coherent and incredible.". It's kind of like how the Macintosh and Lisa took the ideas from PARC, perfected them, and turned them i…

I think it's a bit "pushing it" by saying the iPhone was a "big" technological revolution for having synthesized a few technologies together. Deep down, every invention is to some level, an evolution over existing inventions. As many great inventors said throughout history "I can only see this far because I'm standing in the shoulder of giants".

But sometimes, to better see the whole picture, we need to take a step back from the drawing board. We, as engineers, like to think that every great revolution in consumer behavior is due to a technological invention fundamental to the shift. But if you pay attention you'll notice that Apple's biggest innovation wasn't technological. The area they excel the most is marketing. They built a coherent experience from the device interface design, to the propaganda on TV ads that was powerful enough to convince consumers to buy their products.

Steve Jobs was a genius. But if you believe he was a genius engineer who you should try to mimic, then you'll end up making poor technical decisions. He was a genius marketer who excelled at convincing consumers his products are worth it. That's what we should take from all this. That's we should learn from Apple's growth. Marketing matters.

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#68

Post by omerta »

ghshephard wrote: post #59
JoelSutherland wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a 2002 Palm Treo Phone: http://www.gsmarena.com/palm_treo_180-623.php Palm OS looks a lot like iOS when you factor in the era's technology.

I owned three Palm Treos from 2002 - 2006, including the 600 and the 700p. I _lived_ on those phones for the better part of four years - and I recall waiting for each new release. So, as a Palm "Fanboy" I can say with certainty that those devices were not even in the same product category as the iPhone. Suggesting that they looked like iOS is farcical at best. I recall struggling for the better part of a week to purc…

I agree. Comparing those devices to the iPhone is just laughable. The iPhone took everything Palm could do and made it much more elegant and intuitive to use. It did it in such a way that made the older palm devices look so incredibly archaic.

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#69

Post by tzs »

wvenable wrote: post #15
zefhous wrote: post #9

> Jobs called Android a "stolen product," but theft can be a tricky concept when talking about innovation. This article is heartily missing the point. Android is basically a stolen product. It's a direct successor and competitor to the iPhone, and the direction of Android in it's current form has been and is extremely influenced by what Apple has been doing. Sure, the iPhone is a bunch of "stolen" technologies and id…

> Nobody was making products that resembled the iPhone before Apple That's blatantly false. Every smartphone I owned going back to 2003 resembled the iPhone. Smartphones of the day either resembled the iPhone or they resembled the blackberry but both designs were out there in number. After the iPhone was released almost everyone dropped their blackberry-like designs (except for RIM). Apple's innovation was the capaci…

> Every smartphone I owned going back to 2003 resembled the iPhone

Do you have specific smartphones in mind? The only ones of that era I'm more than passingly familiar with are the Palm phones, and they were nothing at all like the iPhone.

Re: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

#70

Post by aaronblohowiak »

Apple-Guy wrote: post #40
arjn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone looks a lot like the LG Prada mentioned in the article and it predates the iPhone.

Not in reality. http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/72B08E9A-D46...

The Prada phone is as similar to the iPhone as the android phones people claim are rip offs of the iPhone. Given the short difference in time between their announcements, it is. Lear they were developed concurrently. Therefore, the android devices are derivAtive more of the Prada phone than the iPhone or the design decisions in common to the iPhone and Prada phone are "obvious"
Post reply on HN