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

201–210 of 437 posts

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

#201

Post by flatline3 »

jasonlotito wrote: post #197
flatline3 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're inventing a false narrative, whole cloth.

> 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.

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

#202

Post by corin_ »

taligent wrote: post #196
georgemcbay wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft developed the "old" Surface (now called PixelSense) at the same time Apple was working on the iPhone. Both were released in very early 2007 after years of R&D work. Both had multitouch UIs of the type you seem to think are so innovative. Both arrived at these solutions at the same time because the wide availability of capacitive touchscreens (which neither MS nor Apple invented, mind you -- capacitive and m…

Well this comment is ridiculous. If timing and marketing is all that matters for market success then Apple should NOT have been successful with iPod or iPad since they weren't the first MP3 player or tablet. And they definitely didn't have the experience of companies like Sony when it comes to marketing. You criticize others about grasp on real history when you seem so quick to ignore it yourself.

I agree that it's about more than just timing and marketing, however I'd definitely suggest that Apple's marketing was superior to Sony's and played a big part in their success. Not the only part, but a big one.

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

#203

Post by taligent »

hazov wrote: post #172
nirvana wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it's not Linux or open source, it bad/wrong/etc. It's ideological. There is a trend in these objections in articles like this and across hacker news. They simply ignore what was unique about the iPhone and trivialize it completely and then pretend like it was obvious all along. Notice the repeated comparisons to stylus based devices as prior art for multi-touch. They don't care about the differences, as long as…

> If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years? People were just enamored with the iPod, it was a good device and people paid to see if Apple would make a good phone as well, which it did.

This makes NO sense what so ever. Apple has had plenty of failures in the past e.g. Cube G4 so it is not the case that people will just blindly "buy and try" Apple products.

And the idea that ANYONE is going to spend nearly a thousand dollars and lock themselves into a year long contract just to "see if Apple would make a good phone" is plain and utter lunacy.

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

#204

Post by vlisivka »

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.

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch

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

#205

Post by taligent »

vibrunazo wrote: post #185
rayiner wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you can see the logical evolutionary history of a design in hindsight does not mean it's obvious. One of the considerations for "obviousness" is "failure of others." Companies failed for a decade to have usable touch-screen devices before Apple came out with the iPhone. Within just a couple of years, smartphones all went from looking like Treos to looking like iPhones. Multi-touch was a game-changer and…

You're reinterpreting what's written to fit your argument. Failure of others should be considered to define obviousness when you come up with something new that succeeds where others failed. Not because you can patent something someone else invented just because you sold better than the original inventor. That's absurd. Apple's inventions existed before, so there's prior art, that's all. It's this simple.

If everything Apple has done existed before then it should have been EASY to find clear examples of prior art to convince the jury of this.

But there were no clear examples. Just stretches of the imagination e.g. Star Trek.

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

#206

Post by physicslover »

pinaceae wrote: post #136

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 at the time that their supporters feel they should be protected or rewarded for changing the industry.

However, there is a problem in granting protection for these types of innovations, in that we are setting a dangerous precedent for patents and innovation. The individual user interface elements that make up the iPhone, by themselves, are all relatively obvious. Swiping to turn a page is the natural evolution of the book. Movies like Minority Report suggest the range of gestures we can imagine given the appropriate technology. It's quite a stretch to suggest that something so similar to what we have done all our lives should be protected by law and in effect create a protected monoply and prevent others from using these ideas in their products.

Instead those that admire Apple and what they have done should continue to do what they have been doing, buy their products.

As someone who has owned multiple ipads, ipods, iphones, and mac books, I know how compelling their products are and the loyalty it breeds in their users. Therefore, I think it is unlikely that many will step back and think whether this really is the best result for our industry.

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

#207

Post by taligent »

jonknee wrote: post #140
sjwright wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LG Prada was a feature-phone with a nicer display. If Samsung had released the Prada in 2008, they would have been at zero risk from retaliation by Apple.

Feature phone or not (you have to compare it to the original iPhone which wasn't a smartphone either), it looked a lot like the iPhone. Apple didn't invent touch screen phones, they "just" made them popular. It's a big accomplishment, but they didn't create the segment.

The LG Prada looks a lot like the iPhone ?

That's crazy. I couldn't think of two phones that looked less alike.

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

#208

Post by confluence »

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 - it's also leading the charge with the explosive growth of Android - open systems always win in the long run.

Dad: So Apple is done?

Me: Yeah - I sold my Apple stock after this very short case finished up. Funny thing is - the new CEO will be blamed for the fall set up by Steve Jobs - a damn shame if you ask me.

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

#209

Post by taligent »

gergles wrote: post #130
sjwright wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like your problem is with the law, not Apple.

This is farcical reasoning. Apple chose to sue Samsung. They could have not sued them. Therefore, the problem is with Apple, who chose to be the aggressor in a bullshit rounded rectangle lawsuit.

Actually Apple has an obligation to defend their patents.

And this idea that Apple patented rectangles is just a figment of your imagination. And a sign of your ignorance.

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

#210

Post by taligent »

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…

Apple is the most successful IT company in the world and they are the most profitable in the phone industry and have the greatest market share in the tablet and music player industries. So not sure how you come up with this ludicrous idea that they can't compete.

Also "open systems" always win ? Linux would like a word with you.

Post reply on HN