4 ms·

"Apple brings to market a revolutionary next step in personal computers; " In this case, Apple popularized the next step - they neither invented it, nor were t

"Apple brings to market a revolutionary next step in personal computers; " In this case, Apple popularized the next step - they neither invented it, nor were they the first one to do it. In the iPhone case, you an look at the LG Prada (revealed about a month prior to the iPhone) or the HTC phones of that era (shipped a few weeks before the iPhone). If people kept that in mind, there'd be far less sympathy for what Apple is doing right now - that is trying to stop progress that would have occurred whether or not they were there to capitalize on it.

lotharbot 17y ago
And in the GUI case, Xerox invented many of the concepts for the Alto. Apple both improved upon and popularized their work (often, Xerox engineers moved to Apple and brought their ideas with them.)
whyenot 17y ago
You have it backwards. The iPhone was revealed before the Prada, and was not considered to have feature parity with the iPhone at the time. Your comment about HTC phones from that time period is kind of meaningless since you don't mention what phone(s) you are talking about, so it is impossible to check your assertion. You may want to have a look at this article from that time period: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/72B08E9A-D467-45EA-B214-28D3A340C3E5.html http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/72B08E9A-D46...
- bbatsell 17y ago
  LG Prada was announced on Dec. 12, 2006, and the design leaked on Dec. 15, 2006. The iPhone was presented on Jan. 9, 2007. Honestly, timewise, they're pretty much a wash. The iPhone could have been revealed first if Apple wasn't so good at leak control (at least at that time).
mechanical_fish 17y ago
revealed about a month prior to the iPhone... shipped a few weeks before the iPhone... If only the cause-and-effect were so clear. The iPhone was rumored for years before it was released; it was surely in manufacturing prototype for many months before it was announced, and then it was announced months before it actually shipped. Apple is legendary for keeping its secrets well. But even major government agencies can't keep secrets perfectly. Espionage works. And I'm sure that lots of people in China were in a position to figure out Apple's plans in advance. (Note how poorly the iPad's secrets were kept relative to the iPhone. The biggest advantage Apple had with the iPod and iPhone was the element of surprise: Nobody thought of Apple as a music-player company, or a telephony company, so nobody was focusing too hard on Apple product espionage. They're focused now, though.) So the argument that these various contemporaneous iPhone-like devices would have happened without the iPhone is pretty weak. For example, just because Google and Microsoft announced iPad knockoffs within days of the iPad announcement [1] doesn't mean that those products [2] were going to happen with or without Apple. --- [1] Microsoft's pad was announced earlier! Of course, I'm told it also didn't look much like an iPad. In demo-theatre, as in curling, it pays to move last. [2] If products they are. Demos are at least one order of magnitude easier to cough out than shipping products are. Of course you can build a demo of a pad. That's a couple weeks of work or less.
- martythemaniak 17y ago
  It's people like Grubber and you that want a clear cause-and-effect. To them, the iPhone was the genesis and everything that's mobile and touch derives from it. To me, this is a lot like people claiming Nirvana invented Grunge. No, there was a scene/movement, they were a part of it and they were the ones that hit it big and influenced it. But to claim anything more is a big mistake. In order to defend your absurd "there would be no touch without Apple" stance, you're going to great lengths here - accusing multiple companies of successful espionage against Apple for years in a row. Instead, you could face that fact that there were many companies with touchscreen devices, that there was much research in the area (both by companies such as the MS with the Surface and various independent researchers) and technology like high-res capacitative (vs the older, cheaper, crappier resistive) screens were becoming more available.
  - TimothyFitz 17y ago
    I'm not sure where the "there would be no touch without Apple" quote comes from (parent's parent may have edited) but I agree it's false. Trivially provable, since Apple did not invent multitouch, they purchased the company/guy who did, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks
    - martythemaniak 17y ago
      "So the argument that these various contemporaneous iPhone-like devices would have happened without the iPhone is pretty weak" How many ways can one interpret that? Clearly, he thinks large-screened touch-based phones would not have existed without the iPhone.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    your absurd "there would be no touch without Apple" stance Who are you quoting?
    - halo 17y ago
      They're using scare quotes to indicate a paraphrase.
GHFigs 17y ago
Does the LG Prada (or any other phone prior to the iPhone) contain any of the things that Apple has patented?
halostatue 17y ago
Is not the popularizing of something revolutionary in and of itself? If touchscreen phones were unpopular before the iPhone, doesn't Apple deserve some credit for opening the market? I'm really not trying to be an Apple apologist, here. They may not have invented the technology, but they sure as hell humanized it.
ytinas 17y ago
I disagree. Touch screen has been "in the wild" for quite some time in various forms. Pre-iPhone the most used one was the stylus approach. And it was awful. All the different things that come together in the iPhone made people see this as finally being the right path to moving the computer from the desktop into the hand. It might have happened without them, but judging on how all previous attempts turned out I wouldn't be surprised if they saved us decades.

lotharbot 17y ago

And in the GUI case, Xerox invented many of the concepts for the Alto. Apple both improved upon and popularized their work (often, Xerox engineers moved to Apple and brought their ideas with them.)

whyenot 17y ago

You have it backwards. The iPhone was revealed before the Prada, and was not considered to have feature parity with the iPhone at the time. Your comment about HTC phones from that time period is kind of meaningless since you don't mention what phone(s) you are talking about, so it is impossible to check your assertion. You may want to have a look at this article from that time period: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/72B08E9A-D467-45EA-B214-28D3A340C3E5.html http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/72B08E9A-D46...

bbatsell 17y ago
LG Prada was announced on Dec. 12, 2006, and the design leaked on Dec. 15, 2006. The iPhone was presented on Jan. 9, 2007. Honestly, timewise, they're pretty much a wash. The iPhone could have been revealed first if Apple wasn't so good at leak control (at least at that time).

mechanical_fish 17y ago

revealed about a month prior to the iPhone... shipped a few weeks before the iPhone... If only the cause-and-effect were so clear. The iPhone was rumored for years before it was released; it was surely in manufacturing prototype for many months before it was announced, and then it was announced months before it actually shipped. Apple is legendary for keeping its secrets well. But even major government agencies can't keep secrets perfectly. Espionage works. And I'm sure that lots of people in China were in a position to figure out Apple's plans in advance. (Note how poorly the iPad's secrets were kept relative to the iPhone. The biggest advantage Apple had with the iPod and iPhone was the element of surprise: Nobody thought of Apple as a music-player company, or a telephony company, so nobody was focusing too hard on Apple product espionage. They're focused now, though.) So the argument that these various contemporaneous iPhone-like devices would have happened without the iPhone is pretty weak. For example, just because Google and Microsoft announced iPad knockoffs within days of the iPad announcement [1] doesn't mean that those products [2] were going to happen with or without Apple. --- [1] Microsoft's pad was announced earlier! Of course, I'm told it also didn't look much like an iPad. In demo-theatre, as in curling, it pays to move last. [2] If products they are. Demos are at least one order of magnitude easier to cough out than shipping products are. Of course you can build a demo of a pad. That's a couple weeks of work or less.

martythemaniak 17y ago
It's people like Grubber and you that want a clear cause-and-effect. To them, the iPhone was the genesis and everything that's mobile and touch derives from it. To me, this is a lot like people claiming Nirvana invented Grunge. No, there was a scene/movement, they were a part of it and they were the ones that hit it big and influenced it. But to claim anything more is a big mistake. In order to defend your absurd "there would be no touch without Apple" stance, you're going to great lengths here - accusing multiple companies of successful espionage against Apple for years in a row. Instead, you could face that fact that there were many companies with touchscreen devices, that there was much research in the area (both by companies such as the MS with the Surface and various independent researchers) and technology like high-res capacitative (vs the older, cheaper, crappier resistive) screens were becoming more available.
- TimothyFitz 17y ago
  I'm not sure where the "there would be no touch without Apple" quote comes from (parent's parent may have edited) but I agree it's false. Trivially provable, since Apple did not invent multitouch, they purchased the company/guy who did, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks
  - martythemaniak 17y ago
    "So the argument that these various contemporaneous iPhone-like devices would have happened without the iPhone is pretty weak" How many ways can one interpret that? Clearly, he thinks large-screened touch-based phones would not have existed without the iPhone.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  your absurd "there would be no touch without Apple" stance Who are you quoting?
  - halo 17y ago
    They're using scare quotes to indicate a paraphrase.

GHFigs 17y ago

Does the LG Prada (or any other phone prior to the iPhone) contain any of the things that Apple has patented?

halostatue 17y ago

Is not the popularizing of something revolutionary in and of itself? If touchscreen phones were unpopular before the iPhone, doesn't Apple deserve some credit for opening the market? I'm really not trying to be an Apple apologist, here. They may not have invented the technology, but they sure as hell humanized it.

ytinas 17y ago

I disagree. Touch screen has been "in the wild" for quite some time in various forms. Pre-iPhone the most used one was the stylus approach. And it was awful. All the different things that come together in the iPhone made people see this as finally being the right path to moving the computer from the desktop into the hand. It might have happened without them, but judging on how all previous attempts turned out I wouldn't be surprised if they saved us decades.