331–340 of 437 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple started it - Google is defending both Samsung and it's Android product from the litigiousness of the new Apple.
No. Nokia and Motorola did. If you are going to pontificate, get your facts right.
I didn't actively buy Nokia or Motorola for this very reason.
Google acquired Motorola to defend against Apple and Microsoft. They are doing so admirably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could be wrong (?) but I think the first Prada was capacitive but not multi-touch.
You are correct - the Prada II was capacitive and multi-touch, not the first one. Mea culpa. It doesn't really change much, though, as "make a [Surface|Lemur|Diamondpoint] handheld" is about as obvious a conceit as one can want.
Further, "obvious" is silly since nobody did it before them, and it is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is saying that Apple invented the touch UI? This is a false argument. Apple's patent is on a very specific type of touch interface and the interactions with it. Apple-style multi-touch interfaces did not exist before the iPhone. And if they did, you could be damn sure that whoever did invent it would have been suing Apple left and right.
nirvana is. In the first two paragraphs of the post to which I replied, he explicitly says that finger-based touch "is a major invention".
I think its funny that people are responding to what I said, pretending I said something else, and then others are attacking me for saying what I didn't say... and you're saying I said it!
I guess it doesn't matter what I say does it? Everything gets distorted by the google distortion field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I never said there was never a screen you could get a reaction from by touching before the iPhone.
Never said that at all.
I said that to build the iPhone Apple couldn't just use off the shelf components, they had to invent new ones.
Nintendo DS is not running iOS.
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. Umm... I guess you never used a kiosk before the Iphone then. Calling someone lego assembler is not necessarily a bad thing. You can put two and two together and create great things but people are bound to copy great things and make it better. That is how innovation drives forward. Ever heard of the phrase "Reinventing the…
Because if you're not saying that you're not being honest about what I said.
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. How does the LG Prada exist in this strange world of yours, then?
By the way, the LG is not multitouch, it isn't even a smartphone. IF Apple had licensed it -- necessary for the claim that Apple just assembled lego blocks-- the iPhone would not work the way it does.
%99 of the features would be missing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All Apple does it pick up the legos and put them together? That's how I think of them, and it's what I have great respect to them for. It can be worded to sound like a putdown, but in my opinion it should be considered a compliment.
Yes, they pick up hardware and put them together. Why do you consider this as an insult to Apple? I don't think anybody implied what they are doing is easy. Obviously it isn't. If it were, anybody would easily be able to create a great product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's even simpler. Only Apple had the supply chain to build an affordable device. Everyone else knew the outcome would be too expensive relative to the feature set. I love my iPad, but there's no way I would pay $1500 for it. It's just not that good. Only Apple could build one at a competitive cost.
>> Only Apple had the supply chain to build an affordable device Don't disagree, but if you flash back to 2007, there was still a huge outcry over the "high" price of the iPhone. People back then had forgotten that they had paid just as much for the first Razr.
Remember how the lack of Flash was the biggest strike against the iPhone/iOS platform? How it was a design flaw that would cripple the platform from gaining wide adoption?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No good deed goes unpunished. I responded to your insults in a civil manner. But you cannot be civil. I'm not surprised.
You're delusional - sorry. "I can't count the number of times on this site I've gotten personal attacks, such as yours, responded by not calling them names (as I have not called you names in response) and merely illuminated what they were doing in the hopes that they could see their errors (I named your logical fallacies above, for instance) only to have it escalate." That says everything about you, nothing about me…
That's the only way I could be "wrong about this topic". You didn't even notice that you weren't responding to what I said, but instead knocking down a strawman!
And despite that and your insults, I granted you leeway and responded in a civilized manner. And for that, you insulted me again, and then compared me to a neo-nazi with more insults.
I would guess you're trying to make me angry, but you're so far off the mark I'm mostly just perplexed.
Hacker News would be a better place if people focused on arguing to the point and not the person. I've responded to the point, you should too.
[1] I was rebutting the claim that the iPhone was assembled from off the shelf components, like legos.
Ever notice how Jony Ive looks nothing like a Googler? This whole trainwreck of a discussion is fed IMHO by the big rift between common, male IT-oriented folks and the rest of the population around visuals, aestethics and yes, concepts like fashion. Sit in the cantina of any company and you can tell who is development/IT. Neckbeards? Socks in sandals? Leather cowboy hats? Attachments on their belts? Unshapely bodies?…
Interesting take that gets to the heart of the matter but my interpretation is different. Like you say, the genius of Apple and Jobs is an incredible focus on the simplicity and intuitiveness of their products. I have seen two year old kids able to use ipads. This was their innovation and it has won them millions (billions?) of loyal fans. This was so radically different than the prevailing ethos in the tech industry…