5 ms·

Actually the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. If the idea was so obvious, why was it so widely ridiculed in the industry for having no har

by nicky0 8y ago

Actually the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. If the idea was so obvious, why was it so widely ridiculed in the industry for having no hardware keyboard? It was widely predicted to be a failure.

CamperBob2 8y ago
It was ridiculed only by people like Steve Ballmer who were either whistling past the graveyard or just plain dense. It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. To me, and to most other people I hung out with at the time, it was very obvious that physical keyboards on cell phones were not going to be A Thing for very much longer. Everything else that happened simply followed from that.
- sumedh 8y ago
  > It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. How exactly does this contribute to the discussion, To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the patent in question. It seems very important to the people in this thread to deflect from any discussion of the actual case. I wonder why that might be?
    - sumedh 8y ago
      So if its not relevant why bring it up in the first place?
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        So if its not relevant why bring it up in the first place? To bolster the argument of inevitability, as opposed to divine inspiration worthy of eternal reward (or at least 20 years). The iPhone depended on a single gating technology: touchscreens that didn't suck. Those appeared on the market a couple of years before the iPhone, but none of the major players took advantage of them. Apple did, and the rest is deterministic history. Yes, some people laughed at touchscreen UIs. Yes, they were wrong to do so. Both of these facts are irrelevant to the underlying argument.
        sumedh 8y ago
        > Both of these facts are irrelevant to the underlying argument. Exactly.

by nicky0 8y ago

CamperBob2 8y ago

It was ridiculed only by people like Steve Ballmer who were either whistling past the graveyard or just plain dense. It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. To me, and to most other people I hung out with at the time, it was very obvious that physical keyboards on cell phones were not going to be A Thing for very much longer. Everything else that happened simply followed from that.

sumedh 8y ago
> It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. How exactly does this contribute to the discussion, To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the patent in question. It seems very important to the people in this thread to deflect from any discussion of the actual case. I wonder why that might be?
  - sumedh 8y ago
    So if its not relevant why bring it up in the first place?
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      So if its not relevant why bring it up in the first place? To bolster the argument of inevitability, as opposed to divine inspiration worthy of eternal reward (or at least 20 years). The iPhone depended on a single gating technology: touchscreens that didn't suck. Those appeared on the market a couple of years before the iPhone, but none of the major players took advantage of them. Apple did, and the rest is deterministic history. Yes, some people laughed at touchscreen UIs. Yes, they were wrong to do so. Both of these facts are irrelevant to the underlying argument.
      - sumedh 8y ago
        > Both of these facts are irrelevant to the underlying argument. Exactly.