Live data from Hacker News

A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

osnews.com

61–70 of 437 posts

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only the reviews of the people who had tried the device were glowing, even of those who turned into Apple haters lately (either because of the trial or because of app store policies), but the opinion of those who had NOT tried the device is even more interesting, as 99% of those who had never tried a device that had an actually working touchscreen, with the right software inside, thought that the iPhone could onl…

Many of us still use a slider phone with a keyboard. Yet those have been found infringing of Apple's illegitimate patents.

"illegitimate" in some novel sense? Because the courts seem to think otherwise.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#62
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it wasn't about a 'few' buttons, the iPhone was about none. Excuse me? Last I checked, the iPhone has at least three buttons, maybe four! Home, Volume Down, Volume Up, Power.

It's not a button, but if you count the mute switch, that's 5.

It's a dedicated hardware switch. I'd count it.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#63
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly, touch screen technology, faster ARM cpus and the rest make these things possible and came from elsewhere. My first computer with a GUI was 100mhz. As soon as smartphones got 600mhz+ and as soon as people get touch screens (foreshadowed endlessly in sci-fi) are you seriously suggesting that if you took a room of fresh graduates from a design school (which is a bar lower than "ordinary skill in the art"…

If it was so obvious then why did it take a company that had NO history in making cell phones to make a good one with a usable touchscreen and gestures ? Nokia couldn't do it. RIM couldn't do it. Samsung couldn't do it. LG couldn't do it. (LG did make a touchscreen, and I owned one before I bought an iPhone, and it sucked hardcore) And they were on that market way before Apple. Cry me a river if it hurts your feeling…

The market was waiting for capacitive touchscreens to become viable. You can't use multitouch properly on resistive screens (or non-touchscreen devices). Apple pounced as soon as capacitive screens became viable - albeit extremely expensive at the time. The first iPhone was "ahead of its time" in the sense that the market wasn't really ready for it. The first iPhone was an expensive PoS - it wasn't until the app store came along and the price came down that it turned into a good phone.

No-one really thought to patent the obvious design decisions that would come with the viability of a large capacitive touchscreen - rectangular, large screen, few physical buttons, multitouch gestures such as pinch to zoom (that already existed elsewhere).

Apple are absolute masters at combining existing technology into an attractive package. They also have excellent timing at bringing products to market (just before the market is ready for them - see original iPod, iPhone, iPad, Macbook Air).

But to say that these "innovations" wouldn't have happened anyway is disingenuous - no competent observer seriously believes that the market would not have moved on to large capacitive touchscreen devices over the last 5 years.

Apple deserve plenty of credit for their OS animations, smoothness of UI and (either praise or damnation depending on your point of view) the curated app store. They don't deserve credit for "inventing the capacitive touchscreen phone".

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#64
post #50

"Just to drive the point home: a device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious.." I still don't buy it. This still misses the mark - it wasn't about a 'few' buttons, the iPhone was about none. All those pda's in the picture don't really mean anything to me. Sure, some of them had cell networking and a lot (most? all?) had wifi. But I would never consider the old pda's a mobile device. 'Mobile' to me comes fro…

[deleted]

>> Why does Apple deserve protection from being copied when it could easily be argued that they copied or took a lot of inspiration from what came before them?

I don't know if they deserve protection, but the IP laws entitle them to it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the lawsuit or the outcome, but bashing Apple for using existing law in a place like HN is misplaced energy.

If we're really outraged about the outcome, we should be hitting the social media channels in large numbers and trying to influence the politicians SOPA-style to get them to change the laws.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only the reviews of the people who had tried the device were glowing, even of those who turned into Apple haters lately (either because of the trial or because of app store policies), but the opinion of those who had NOT tried the device is even more interesting, as 99% of those who had never tried a device that had an actually working touchscreen, with the right software inside, thought that the iPhone could onl…

Many of us still use a slider phone with a keyboard. Yet those have been found infringing of Apple's illegitimate patents.

"illegitimate patents": perhaps, but like others have pointed out, it sounds like your beef shouldn't be with Apple, but with patent system. If Apple has illegitimate patents, I suspect some of the 24,000 patents Google acquired from Motorola Mobility are as well.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#66
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us still use a slider phone with a keyboard. Yet those have been found infringing of Apple's illegitimate patents.

"illegitimate" in some novel sense? Because the courts seem to think otherwise.

To be completely honest, I'm not really sure the courts finding Apple's patents non-obvious makes them any less illegitimate in some cases...

Some of them, sure, are legitimate; but not all of them. :-/

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a button, but if you count the mute switch, that's 5.

It's a dedicated hardware switch. I'd count it.

The funny thing about that switch is that in 2007, I thought it was the best invention in the world.

It was a pain muting my Windows phones because you had to fiddle around with the UI to change the profile to silence the ringer.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#69
Just to drive the point home: a device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious - at least to the millions and millions of happy PDA users.

Yet somehow they look so different you could never confuse them for an iPhone while Samsung also agrees it's obvious but many of their devices look very much like an iPhone. I think the author is unintentionally proving Apple's point.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#70
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly, touch screen technology, faster ARM cpus and the rest make these things possible and came from elsewhere. My first computer with a GUI was 100mhz. As soon as smartphones got 600mhz+ and as soon as people get touch screens (foreshadowed endlessly in sci-fi) are you seriously suggesting that if you took a room of fresh graduates from a design school (which is a bar lower than "ordinary skill in the art"…

If it was so obvious then why did it take a company that had NO history in making cell phones to make a good one with a usable touchscreen and gestures ? Nokia couldn't do it. RIM couldn't do it. Samsung couldn't do it. LG couldn't do it. (LG did make a touchscreen, and I owned one before I bought an iPhone, and it sucked hardcore) And they were on that market way before Apple. Cry me a river if it hurts your feeling…

At the time the iphone was released I had one of the early HTC touch screen + slide out keyboard phones (Tytn or something like that). I recall laughing about the first iphones. Terrible e-mail support, no MMS, my year old phone had twice the capabilities. I couldn't understand why anyone would want such an expensive phone that was so functionally handicapped. What I didn't understand at the time was that the phone was never targeted at me, it was targeted at the general consumers who didn't care that it couldn't handle 5 e-mail accounts, VPN, etc, etc.

The iphone wasn't so much a matter of technological inovation as it was one of market building. Apple lept ahead of the incumbents by realizing that a 'smartphone' could be a device every consumer wanted, rather than something that 'business folks' used. It wasn't so much that the incumbents couldn't have thought up something very similar, it was that they were caught up dealing with their current target markets: business people whom needed a blackberry or Wmobile phone with exchange support, whom didn't want change, they wanted a device that did its job and didn't require them to think about it. Its very difficult for a company to have the foresight to produce a product that they know their current customers will hate.

This is classic incumbents vs newcomers leap frogging, if you haven't read "The Innovator's Dilemma" its worth checking out as it speaks directly to this pattern of development.

Post reply on HN