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

401–410 of 437 posts

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

#401

Post by stanleydrew »

nirvana wrote: post #333
dasil003 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

It is, it is not an off the shelf component that apple just bought and assembled as other people were claiming. 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.

After spending way too much time reading all of these comments, I think I have figured out the difficulty behind most of this subthread:

You're simply not clear or precise enough in your comments and statements. It takes you awhile to fully explain what you mean, and in the interim, rather than immediately realizing what has happened and making yourself more clear, you convince yourself that everyone else is crazy for not understanding exactly what you mean.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. I am merely observing. I don't think anyone here is out to get you. Most people are well-intentioned and are arguing against the precise statements you've written, not the ideas in your head. If you can't see that, then there may be no hope. But I'm hoping you will re-read some of this thread and come to the same realization.

Here's a quote from you:

    Except that the major parts- like a touch oriented
    UI- don't exist until Apple develops them.
This statement is horribly imprecise if, as I now believe, what you intended to convey was something like:

    Apple does not merely put together existing pieces of
    technology like legos. They created iOS from scratch,
    which represented a significant amount of original work
    in the area of touch oriented UI.
If you slow down a little, and really read what you are about to post to ensure that it reflects the thoughts in your head, I think you'll have a much more successful time debating with others here on HN.

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

#402

Post by AllenKids »

confluence wrote: post #398
AllenKids wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How high is high enough and the trial has being going on for fucking 18 months. In what unicorn infested world would Apple "leave it alone" and what constitutes "double down"? AAPL will at least pop briefly in a few hours, seems like you have no problem making a profit on the back of a company you have a ethical disagreement with, can you justify your behavior to not riding the AAPL train further?

660 is high enough. I changed my mind with the Koh case.

Not rational to say the least.

Your prediction is on equally magical ground.

Good luck and have fun.

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

#403

Post by confluence »

AllenKids wrote: post #402
confluence wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

660 is high enough. I changed my mind with the Koh case.

Not rational to say the least. Your prediction is on equally magical ground. Good luck and have fun.

I got 60% CAGR on AAPL (90-660) and I've pulled 20% CAGR on GOOG (570-670). I will have fun. Check back in a year and see how my prediction pans out.

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

#404

Post by stanleydrew »

gnaffle wrote: post #135
bornhuetter wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why didn't they all have capacitive iPhone look-alikes ready in the lab then? The Samsung evidence showed that they did. Not as good as the iPhone, certainly, but they were obviously all thinking about it. > Apple ... should be credited with making the first usable, mass market touchscreen smartphone. I completely agree with this. But they don't deserve a monopoly on it. > Isn't it more reasonable to assume that th…

What evidence was presented that Samsung had a similar phone in the works in 2007? One with a capacitive touchscreen and a user interface optimized for finger touch? For all I know they might have been "thinking" about it, but why didn't they do more than think about it if it was that obvious at the time that capacitive touchscreen phones would dominate the future? I didn't say the market wouldn't move. Of course it…

    For all I know they might have been "thinking" about it,
    but why didn't they do more than think about it if it was
    that obvious at the time that capacitive touchscreen
    phones would dominate the future?
Note that obviousness of an idea and obviousness of the quality of that idea are two entirely different things. It is possible for two companies to have an obvious idea at the same time, but one doesn't think it's quite obvious that it's a good idea while the other does.

For example, many of us here on HN would agree that tv/movie video content streamed over the internet was an obvious idea even in the late 90s. But it wasn't necessarily an obviously good idea at the time.

Maybe you would agree (or not, doesn't matter, the point stands, just pick a different company) that Netflix was the company that made watching videos online enjoyable. Should they enjoy a monopoly on streaming video content over the internet simply because they had the vision to decide that the idea was obviously good enough to pursue at the time that they did?

If they had patented streaming video, or something smaller, like auto-detecting your available bandwidth to optimize delivery quality, would we be so accepting of them trying to destroy Hulu or Amazon VOD in order to protect that "innovation"?

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

#405

Post by BitMastro »

catch23 wrote: post #231
lawdawg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and people act like all Samsung did was copy. You realize they wouldn't be the most successful Android OEM if they didn't do their own innovation as well. And no, people aren't rushing out the buy Samsung phones because they look like iPhones (I mean they don't even have an Apple on the back, should be pretty obvious to anyone that it isn't an iPhone), they are buying them because they are cheaper and can do 90% of w…

Hm, I wouldn't be so sure... most "normal" people out there who don't read HN every day can't really tell the difference between an ipad and a galaxy tablet. My mom, for example, refers to both tablets as an ipad. She uses an ipad to read her news sites but when she tried to use my galaxy tab, she was confused there was no browser on there. I've experienced a similar thing on the train as well, people would point at…

Well, on the other side I saw lots of ads for the iPad on tv and I don't remember even one about other tablets (I don't know, it may be different in other countries), but because of that, every tablet will an iPad to normal people's eyes

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

#406

Post by protomyth »

varelse wrote: post #300
jonhendry wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Sure, 32-bit addressing with 64-bit memory operations, but that said, I wasn't aware of any existing videogame console even today with 4GB or more of memory so it seems a bit pedantic to disqualify on that basis or are you saying there has yet to actually be such a console? Or are you saying if the chip squanders transistors so that it's capable of 64-bit addressing, but they're useless because there's less than a GB…

It is a 32-bit architecture based on how people measure 32-bit architectures. It is not capable of addressing 64-bit either logically or physically. Having a wide bus to memory is not a qualifier for calling something 64-bit.

> "plus a 13.3 MHz 68000 and its 64-bit memory operations"

The 68000 does not have 64-bit memory operations. It has 32-bit addressing logically, but only had 24-bit physically which cause some problems with folks who did "clever" things on the Mac.

I'll go with the traditional definition of a GPU which means goes back to the Amiga for personal computers.

> Sure, Samsung copied Apple's look and feel. Why is this and why should this be illegal unless they literally slapped the word IPhone or IPad on their gadgets? Might as well have banned the Chevy Camaro for copying the Ford Mustang IMO.

Trade-dress has a long history of protection in the US. It was part of consumer fraud protection. http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/trade-dre...

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

#407

Post by jasonlotito »

taligent wrote: post #292
jasonlotito wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Then you should support them when you make them. But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional.

> "Then you should support them when you make them."

I do. At least, I tried. Anything that couldn't be found in the thread, I quoted.

You, on the other hand, make unfounded and untrue claims.

> But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional.

I didn't do that. You can reread my comment, and you'll see that your statement is incorrect.

Also, by extrapolating all of what?

* That they skipped the question, which they admitted to? You cannot deny this. * That they did not follow the instructions as prescribed? They admitted to this as well. * That context is important? Something even you agree to.

All of this backed up with quotes above.

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

#408

Post by freehunter »

slantyyz wrote: post #98
mbell wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that it didn't work as a 'smartphone' at all. It couldn't connect to blackberry's e-mail server, it couldn't connect to exchange, it couldn't send an MMS, it couldn't multitask or run background apps, it couldn't copy-paste. The iPhone was completely incapable of replacing existing smartphones for quite some time. It took blackberry's monopoly on 'push' e-mail dying and several updates to iOS before it…

>> couldn't connect to blackberry's e-mail server >> it couldn't connect to exchange >> it couldn't send an MMS Didn't realize those were "must-haves" for a smartphone (an enterprise smartphone, maybe), because I never did that with any of my Windows Phones prior to getting an iPhone. I used my Windows Phone for my consulting work, by the way. >> it couldn't multitask or run background apps That's a double edged swor…

*Windows Mobile phone

Windows Phone is completely different.

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

#409

Post by tomkin »

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.

They are just as guilty as any other hardware/software manufacturer which tries to stifle human progress in the name of ego.

Let me provide my perspective, as flawed as it may be. In 2006, Nintendo released the Wii. To those who don't know, it, for better or worse (re)introduced motion within the context of video games. Immediately, Microsoft (Xbox) and Sony (PlayStation) criticized the Wii's motion controls – deeming them "childish" and "not what gamers want".

Today, we know how that story played out. We have PS3 Move and Xbox Kinect. At the time, I had hoped and dreamed that Nintendo would sue and strike back at Sony and Microsoft (not sure if they had the grounds to, mind you). I didn't want Microsoft and Sony to benefit from Nintendo's genius, especially after they essentially deemed motion control as a ludicrous novelty.

Today, Microsoft Kinect is making all sorts of cool innovations possible – not Nintendo. But in 2009, I would have been happy to hear that Microsoft would have no right to create Kinect. What a lousy outcome that would have been. Kinect, as a technology, is a benefit to a collective of people – and I was a dink to believe another outcome would have been better. Chalk it up to being a Nintendo fanboy.

Today I'd be incredibly angry if Nintendo had the power to overturn, punish or fracture the Kinect technology. And watching Apple fanboys defend a system that essentially holds us all back is incredibly painful to watch. Apple has created a contemporary masterpiece and it is now the baseline for which all better technology evolves. What happens if you get your way and no one can build in the direction that is proven to work?

Stagnation. Thanks for that.

Post reply on HN