Basically, Apple got the jury that they wanted, ignorant and unwilling to understand the consequences of their decision.
A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
391–400 of 437 posts
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
>> The iphone wasn't so much a matter of technological inovation as it was one of market building I disagree. I think the iPhone was the first smartphone that worked. The killer app on the phone was that it was the first phone to have a modern mobile browser. It was not a browser that "didn't suck", it was a damned good browser. I had an Eee at the time, and I would pick the tiny-by-comparison screen of the iPhone's…
This is total rubbish. I had a HTC TyTn II and everything on it worked, yes even IE. I could do everything I could on a conventional browser on that phone.
Websites have changed to accomodate mobile browsers now so Safari looks like it works great. Travel back to 2007 and it would suck just like everything else.
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% agree. I used a touchscreen kiosk back in 1982 at EPCOT. It wasn't resistive, could have been capacitive, probably was infrared or surface-wave.
And thus it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're making the "graham invented the telephone so there was nothing invented to make the cellphone" error.
Except it's not irrelevant, because the user doesn't care whether it's capacitive, infra-red, or little gnomes perched on top of the screen translating your finger movements into magic spells. Apple didn't invent capacitive screens, nor did they invent multitouch. They packaged them cleverly and used what leverage they had at the time to force the price down.
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your response is non-responsive. None of these features were stolen in the original Mac UI from 1984 from windows because Windows did not exist in 1984. My point was people were claiming someone "stole" from something that came out later. Also, most of the things you list appeared originally on the Mac, or the windows "equivalents" really aren't and haven't caught up to the mac. The only thing that the Mac did take f…
> most of the things you list appeared originally on the Mac Since you seem like a fanboy who loves to make up facts without any basis. Let's iterate over the list one by one in more detail: 1. Finder Sidebar: Windows Navigation pane -> Appeared in Mac = Mac OS X 10.3 Panther = Two years after the Navigation pane appeared in Windows XP. 2. The Mac Path bar: Windows Address bar -> Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard added an option…
To be fair on 10, both OS X and Windows got that from earlier predecessors. And for 7, I'm pretty sure I remember System 7 and earlier having single Preferences folders, just like Windows 95's Control Panels. No idea which came first, but it's a pretty obvious idea once you strap a GUI on top of a config file. I'd be astonished if there wasn't a similar idea in every single GUI environment out there.
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#395Earlier 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.
I think of Apple like a great chef. Sure other cooks can use the same ingredients, but it all matters on the ratios, the temperature, the process etc. to come up with a stunning dish. And then Apple finds new ingredients that they integrate into their cuisine.
I find many similarities to cooking and project management. Apple's success, and the level of polish, are a testament to skills along these lines. The components maybe commoditized just like ingredients available to anyone cooking. How to treat those ingredients is what determines greatness.
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
Revisionist, much? The G1 came out a few months after the iPhone 3G, the first iPhone to support third-party apps.
So? The G1 launched in October 2008, over 1,5 years after the first iPhone, and it didn't even have multi-touch enabled. So my question is still, why weren't competitors further along in utilizing capacitive touchscreens if these advancements were so obvious in 2006?
Because while it may have been obvious that it would happen eventually, nobody wanted to bet on when. It was safer to build the next iteration on known tech rather than gamble on being able to force the market.
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
You then should have sold your AAPL the day Apple started suing Samsung. How is the outcome of this particular case affecting your reasoning in any way?
Price wasn't high enough and I wanted to see the outcome and Apple's reaction - would they leave it alone - or double down? They doubled down. So instead I sold at 660 instead of ~600 and got my answer.
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?
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
Price wasn't high enough and I wanted to see the outcome and Apple's reaction - would they leave it alone - or double down? They doubled down. So instead I sold at 660 instead of ~600 and got my answer.
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.
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 Alexang…
I think you should take a step back. Honestly, you are making even people who agree with you cringe.
You are replying to a very informative post from a person who directly worked on a touch-screen device. What about that post made you think it was "desperate to rationalize this belief that Apple never invented anything"? I am trying to determine how anyone could read that post and come away thinking it was desperate.
And you are making giant leaps in your arguments. The comment does not claim that Apple never invented anything in iOS or elsewhere. He is rebutting your claim that Apple invented the "touch oriented UI". You ignored him and fell back to some more specific claims about widgets and metaphors (perhaps you should have been more specific to begin with?).
I will close by quoting from another of your comments in this very thread. You would do well to read these as a reply to your own reply above.
The bottom line is you're following an ideology, and
because that ideology has supplanted reasoning for you, you
believe-- with the conviction of a religious zealot-- what
you hear that fits your reality distortion field. And thus
it is inconceivable to you that I might actually know what
I am talking about.
See the thing is, you aren't even arguing on the topic--
you're just throwing out (false) claims to try and create cover!Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the individual pieces of the first iPhone didn't seem innovative to many. The camera was "meh" and didn't do video, the screen wasn't nearly as nice as the VGA screen on my e800, the OS didn't support 3rd party apps, where was 3G?, etc. etc. The thing was that the gestalt of the iPhone was vastly superior to any of its predecessors. They prioritized the right things -- anyone who had a Windows phone who had t…
> The camera was "meh" and didn't do video, the screen wasn't nearly as nice as the VGA screen on my e800, the OS didn't support 3rd party apps, where was 3G?, etc. etc. With that you reminded me of the now classic response of Slashdot's Commander Taco when the first iPod was introduced: "No Wireless. Less Space Than A Nomad. Lame".
You're forgetting the point we are debating here. No-one claims the iPod was innovative. It was simply an excellent product with a well-thought out blend of features that was marketed well.
So you're having a 'was the iPhone a great product' debate whereas this discussion is 'was the iPhone a radical innovation in design'.