4 ms·

I expect better from Scientific American, yes technology these days stands on the shoulders of many smaller innovations, but it is the sum of all these small co

by starky 8y ago

I expect better from Scientific American, yes technology these days stands on the shoulders of many smaller innovations, but it is the sum of all these small components and the software that makes a tech product innovative. Also, the article refers to lithium-ion/lithium polymer batteries as lithium batteries. This is wrong, as lithium batteries are what you call primary cells with lithium anodes (e.g. button cells), not secondary cells like are used in a cellphone.

jgtrosh 8y ago
Along the same lines, they're talking about the touch-screen as if that's what they were credited for. There were lots of okay touch-screens widespread before; the iPhone had afaik the first good quality widely available multi-touch screen. There's a classic TED talk from 2004 where a guy introduces the technology and it seemed so amazing, the iPhones made direct use of that. (Albeit not being as amazing as the 2004 demo!)
- panic 8y ago
  Jeff Han: https://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/ https://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/
- dfox 8y ago
  The important distinction of the first iPhone is that the touchscreen was designed to be used with fingers and not with some kind of stylus as was then common for mobile devices. The fact that the screen was multi-touch capable is not that important and mostly an inherent feature of used capacitive technology.
devilshaircut 8y ago
I was searching through the comments for this one. 100%. I would even go further and say that an invention is more than the sum of the parts. There is a specific mixture that makes something cohesive and ring true. Early PDAs had versions of many of these technologies in various combinations. But Apple got it right as a product. The devil is, as they say, in the details. It's distressing that Scientific American's editors think pointing out that the iPhone was built of extant technologies is relevant, especially with respect to the topic of invention.
scabarott 8y ago
The article came across to me like an attempt to talk up British inventions (and claim precedence) by the author, who is also British. It read like some Wikipedia technology articles which also have this bias.
chaostheory 8y ago
> the sum of all these small components and the software that makes a tech product innovative I'm still lacking a ton of data... but anyone is able to capture that history now: https://theymadethat.com/things/svj/taskforce/show_parts https://theymadethat.com/things/svj/taskforce/show_parts It's not limited to just software

by starky 8y ago

jgtrosh 8y ago

Along the same lines, they're talking about the touch-screen as if that's what they were credited for. There were lots of okay touch-screens widespread before; the iPhone had afaik the first good quality widely available multi-touch screen. There's a classic TED talk from 2004 where a guy introduces the technology and it seemed so amazing, the iPhones made direct use of that. (Albeit not being as amazing as the 2004 demo!)

panic 8y ago
Jeff Han: https://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/ https://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/
dfox 8y ago
The important distinction of the first iPhone is that the touchscreen was designed to be used with fingers and not with some kind of stylus as was then common for mobile devices. The fact that the screen was multi-touch capable is not that important and mostly an inherent feature of used capacitive technology.

devilshaircut 8y ago

I was searching through the comments for this one. 100%. I would even go further and say that an invention is more than the sum of the parts. There is a specific mixture that makes something cohesive and ring true. Early PDAs had versions of many of these technologies in various combinations. But Apple got it right as a product. The devil is, as they say, in the details. It's distressing that Scientific American's editors think pointing out that the iPhone was built of extant technologies is relevant, especially with respect to the topic of invention.

scabarott 8y ago

The article came across to me like an attempt to talk up British inventions (and claim precedence) by the author, who is also British. It read like some Wikipedia technology articles which also have this bias.

chaostheory 8y ago

> the sum of all these small components and the software that makes a tech product innovative I'm still lacking a ton of data... but anyone is able to capture that history now: https://theymadethat.com/things/svj/taskforce/show_parts https://theymadethat.com/things/svj/taskforce/show_parts It's not limited to just software