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

A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

osnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 437 posts

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

#261

Post by confluence »

wklauss wrote: post #246
confluence wrote: post #208

My dad: Apple just won right? Me: No - they just lost big time - Apple is done. Dad: Wait - What? They just won the court case and got a billion dollars to boot. Me: That doesn't matter - Samsung won. Dad: Explain. Me: As soon as you have to sue your competition to remain competitive - you're done. Apple did the same thing with Microsoft in the nineties. Furthermore, Samsung builds not only many of Apple products - i…

So what if you are wrong? How long do we have to wait to see if you gave your father an inaccurate reading of the situation? I mean, I remember a lot of the "Apple is at 90$ a share now, it will go down soon" crowd in the '06 in the Yahoo Finance forum posts and I'd love to see them now and sincerely ask them what were they thinking or why did they reach that conclusion back then. I'm completely serious. This kind of…

Seeing as I bought Apple in 08 I understand your reasoning :D

A few factors lead to my understanding of this situation changing.

1: Mobile saturation - only thing left is more of the same and virtual/augmented reality.

2: Absolute domination of Android and the continual manufacturing dominance of Samsung

3: The move towards commoditizing most consumer electronics thanks to work done by Google and other hardware manufacturers. The iPad was insanely cool when it came out - not so cool when everyone else looks the exact same as you do.

4: Domination of the living room by both Sony and Microsoft - leaving Apple little room for entry.

5: CPU underutilisation - people don't really need to upgrade their computers anymore.

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

#262

Post by veemjeem »

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #103
Nicole060 wrote: post #5

As someone who has owned a pre-iPhone phone with a touchscreen, and seen another one in the hand of a friend, no, what made the iPhone the iPhone is NOT obvious. For the love of god, my LG Prada was so shitty I had to hit a 2px scrollbar with my thumb to scroll in the contact list. I can't contain the nervous laugh whenever some ignorant who never touched the device link to wikipedia proud of their attempt at mocking…

"the iPhone, as a whole package, without just singling out a feature here and there, was a real innovation, a breath of fresh air" Ah but then you admit, it's "the whole package" that is the real innovation, the individual pieces were really not that novel and a lot of them not even from Apple. Six months or a year later, as the technology became more available, most of these pieces would have crept in other smartpho…

> Ah but then you admit, it's "the whole package" that is the real innovation

Actually I would say scrolling by itself was an amazing innovation. Every phone/tablet/pda out there had to implement a scrolling interface for lists, whether it be for contacts, todo items, or call logs, however nobody has created a scrolling interface as usable as Apple's first scrolling interface on the iphone. Their flick scrolling with inertia was probably the first time I wasn't in pain scrolling through a thousand entries.

How can anyone disagree about scrolling being novel? If it was not a novel idea, Nokia should have implemented this on their phones so it wouldn't take a thousand button presses to get to the bottom of my contact list.

When something is novel, every instance prior to the invention would implement it (scrolling) in various different ways, and after the invention it would all be implemented in the same way that emulates the invention. I can't think of an instance where someone implements scrolling without a flick + inertia nowadays.

Hence, the invention brought something new to the table that was never used prior to its existence, and everyone now copies because they feel it is the proper way to do something.

Here's a simplistic straw-man: Prior to the transistor, everyone used vacuum tubes. After the transistor invention, everyone uses transistors.

Everyone used standard scrollbars on handhelds before Apple's invention, however they now use flick/inertia scrolling and nobody goes back to standard scrollbars.

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

#263

Post by jasonlotito »

flatline3 wrote: post #201
jasonlotito wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The quotes that I said lacked context and don't actually say what is claimed? Okay, let's look at the OP you replied to, and take at look at the claim you are disputing: "The jury foreman admitted that they "skipped" prior art because "It was bogging us down."" Okay. So, that's the extent of the claim. Going by the quote from the juror: "In fact we skipped that one,", it matches up with the claim. Claim: They skipp…

Your extrapolation from off the cuff out of context quotes is mind boggling daft in its scope. Instead of providing supporting evidence, you're merely building a larger and larger narrative on top of the same incomplete data. This is the same sort of reality twisting that we see out of the likes of the birther movement -- facts and supporting data take a back seat to whatever supports an appealing narrative.

What lacks evidence? I can support all claims.

You, on the other hand, make unsubstantiated claims. You equate me with birthers, you contradict yourself... and even when faced with concrete evidence, you dismiss it out of hand. You even go so far as to lie by claiming I offered no supporting evidence.

No, I've provided evidence. You've merely attempted to insult and claim that the quotes are out of context, and when asked to explain yourself, you merely repeat, as if it will somehow make a difference.

Still, you've proven you are more interested in trolling with the birther remark. This is not reddit. If you cannot discuss things like an mature adult, leave. Feel free to disagree, but insults, ignorance, and trolling are not welcome here.

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

#264

Post by mbq »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #165
eropple wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those have a touch based UI. Touch means finger touches. This is dishonestly revisionist, given how common it was to see people thumbing through applications on Palm devices. That Palms came with styluses doesn't mean that they weren't touch-friendly in a lot of ways, and that should be taken into account.

Since I don't know, I thought I'd ask -- were Apple the first to create a multi-touch UI for a phone? That would seem to me to be the major innovation in touch UI if that's the case.

Precisely they used capacitive touch sensor (used on touchpads mostly at the time) instead of resistive standard used on PDAs; in practical terms this was a switch from notebook-like experience (which invites writing and checking small boxes) to magazine-like (smooth, glossy surface inviting sliding pages and large Nokia-like UI plus gestures to remove accuracy/finger-hiding problems). This way, multitouch rather just come in bundle with capacitive technology. BTW this is why I see the whole stuff as a mainly target group revolution -- simply way more people buy magazines than notebooks.

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

#265

Post by jonhendry »

lotharbot wrote: post #85
Nicole060 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I never said they invented the capacitive touchscreen, but that's apple haters for you. What they did that no one else did before is to put the right gestures, the right UI, environment to make it work. I had a LG Prada, it had a capacitive touchscreen so I obviously know Apple didn't invent it.. except the LG Prada was also behaving the same as Windows XP on a tablet. You use widgets like scrollbars instead o…

> "that's apple haters for you" Comments like this do not add to the discussion. "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." - http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Comments like this do not add to the discussion."

You'd have a point if that was the extent of the response.

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

#266

Post by brc »

flatline3 wrote: post #27
w1ntermute wrote: post #16

This entire trial was a farce. The jury foreman admitted that they "skipped" prior art because "It was bogging us down."[0] > "Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the produc…

The groklaw quotes were taken out of context. As far as I can tell, there's no evidence from those quotes that they skipped prior art, so much as skipped the task to move forward on others before circling back around to it. > I don't like to think of Apple as a pure innovator - I think of them more as an assembler. When they see a market in which all the hardware pieces are available and waiting to be put together, t…

>Sigh. I'm sick and tired of people twisting reality to fit an Apple anti-hero narrative.

Makes a change from all the Microsoft bashing. Hard to fit a $ into Apple, though. A$$le maybe?

Apple might not have discovered or invented everything (macintosh GUI case in point). But Jobs and Apple in general have a habit of discovering useful technologies and commercialising them. It's a hindcasting mistake to say 'oh, well it was obvious that GUIs or iPhone style screens were always going to happen'.

Well, if it was so obvious, why is Apple continually breaking new ground?

The answer is that there are literally millions of good ideas that don't go anywhere. To pick some out, commercialise them, make them work and deliver for an affordable price. Well, that's innovation.

Egads. I sound like an Apple fanboi. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. But I'm tired of seeing the army of cutters heading for Apples tall poppy.

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

#267

Post by learc83 »

rayiner wrote: post #178
arrrg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the trial had a normal result given the legal framework. Sometimes trials like this might go a bit this or that way, but in general they will have results like this. My own position on this is very simple: All (yes, all) patents should be abolished. The current law is the problem, not Apple or Samsung or the Jury or the judge. I also think what Samsung did was – in part – morally reprehensible, but should hav…

For people who believe that patents should be abolished: how do you see an ARM-like company existing without patent protection? Or do you think there is no value in being able to transact in designs?

It's harder to build an arm processor than just looking at one from some random phone you bought.

Most companies are going to need assistance from arm which arm can still charge for. Additionally the design can be copyrighted.

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

#268

Post by DanBC »

nirvana wrote: post #111
antidoh wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a touch oriented UI- don't exist until Apple develops them." Hmmm. I'm still using my Palm Centro phone, which used to be a Treo, which used to be a Palm PDA, which used to be a Palm Pilot. All of those have a touch oriented UI, and most if not all of them pre-date iPhone by years. So now I guess we can watch the debate about whether Newton or its competitors pre-date each other.

None of those have a touch based UI. Touch means finger touches. Very different from a stylus which is only touching one or two pixels at a time. This is very easy to sense because the stylus pushes two layers together physically and effectively is closing swithces. A touch is much difeferent, a finger is an amorphous blob over many pixels of a varying shape, and Apple had to figure out how to resolve that into a sin…

iPhone - 2007

Nintendo DS - 2004

You've shifted the goalposts from "touchscreen" to "touch screens only include things operated by fingers". The DS fits that requirement. Note that makers and sellers of touch screens don't make the distinction that you claim is obvious.

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

#269

Post by nirvana »

vidarh wrote: post #179
nirvana wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the major parts- like a touch oriented UI- don't exist until Apple develops them. And having seen them, other companies can't replicate them well at all because they don't do the research. Calling them a lego assembler ignores all the real innovation they do.

> Except that the major parts- like a touch oriented UI- don't exist until Apple develops them. I worked on a tablet in '99. I wrote the widget library (we used Nano-X plus a custom widget library and font loader to keep memory usage down - this was a unit with 32MB RAM...) and managed the developers who wrote the apps that are featured: http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Article... (the names on th…

The device you linked to has a touchscreen and a UI, but it is simply a desktop widgets and metaphors with the minimal adaptations necessary to make it work with a touch screen.

None of the key metaphors or widgets Apple developed for iOS are present in that device.

To claim that Apple didn't invent anything in iOS, and use that device as an example is to claim that there was nothing new in the iPhone because Alexanger Graham Bell had phones before.

It is absurd. And to me, all it says is that you're desperate to rationalize this belief that Apple never invented anything.

Remember: I'm rebutting the claim that Apple just assembled off the shelf pieces, like legos.

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

#270

Post by jonhendry »

varelse wrote: post #147
protomyth wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm, no. The Atari Jaguar was a 32-bit with a 64-bit bus to memory not 64-bit addressing or registers. It would not be counted as a 64-bit processor particularly since it used a 68000 and its GPU was 32-bit. The Amiga CD32 beat it to market by a month. I would argue the whole Atari game line based on the 400/800 should count, but others peg the Amiga as the first with a GPU. GO Corporation was formed in 1987 and can…

Incorrect but don't take my word for it: let's go look at the Tom and Jerry instruction manual at http://www.hillsoftware.com/files/atari/jaguar/jag_v8.pdf On page 50 describing the GPU instruction set, you should note right at the top the instruction LOADP which I quote is a: "64-bit memory read. The source register contains a 32-bit byte address, which must be phrase aligned. The destination register will have the…

"64-bit memory read. The source register contains a 32-bit byte address, which must be phrase aligned. The destination register will have the low long-word loaded into it, the high long-word is available in the high-half register. This applies to external memory only."

Which is 32-bit addressing, not 64-bit. Exactly what was claimed in the comment you're responding to.

Post reply on HN