3 ms·
Previous tablets were a completely different beast. Microsoft spent 10 years trying to graft a touch-layer on top of a traditional operating system. The iPad'
by roc 15y ago
Previous tablets were a completely different beast. Microsoft spent 10 years trying to graft a touch-layer on top of a traditional operating system.
The iPad's non-obvious innovation was essentially to roll back PC innovations: they massively pared down the operating system, stripped out the legacy overhead and focused applications on small, tightly controlled and limited, optimized binaries, so they could scale back the hardware to the point where the battery could last more than 20 minutes.
Truly, innovations in hardware allowed them to put more horsepower with a longer running time in the case than MS could have ever achieved in the 90s. But as of 2008, Microsoft was still following the "full PC+touch" strategy. (For that matter they seem intent on continuing to flog that horse even today.)
And let's not forget that what looks obvious now, looked like a failure to most industry observers in 2009. Even the more optimistic observers forecast merely a solid niche product.
Now I'm not arguing that what Apple did should necessarily be protectable under the various forms of IP law, but implying that it was "obvious" seems deeply unfair.
Particularly if the story of the birth of the iPhone was accurate. That is: that the iPad was not born of a project to scale up the iPhone, but that iPhone was born from the idea to shrink an already-under-development iPad. Pushing the iPad concept and strategy back to at least 2005/2006.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago>The iPad's non-obvious innovation was essentially to roll back PC innovations: they massively pared down the operating system, stripped out the legacy overhead and focused applications on small, tightly controlled and limited, optimized binaries, so they could scale back the hardware to the point where the battery could last more than 20 minutes. >And let's not forget that what looks obvious now, looked like a failure to most industry observers in 2009. All well and good, but what does that make the Crunchpad? Chopped liver? Imagine if they had the backing of a multibillion dollar company or weren't ripped off by their partner with the JooJoo. http://www.crunchbase.com/assets/images/original/0004/6593/46593v1.jpg http://www.crunchbase.com/assets/images/original/0004/6593/4... Is it just me or is there some selective amnesia bordering on revisionist history going on all the iPad stories and comments? http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-t...
- roc 15y agoAnd, IIRC, the Crunchpad concept was widely met with doubt and derision as well. A niche within the core geek niche was on board with the idea. But by and large, netbooks were expected to win out. Arrington's publicizing the concept may speak to whether the invention ought to be legally protectable (depending on whether the iPad did precede the iPhone). But given that no tablet producers were on board, it certainly doesn't somehow invalidate the non-obviousness of the concept. Certainly, I grant all credit due to Arrington and the FusionGarage folks for recognizing the innovation. I just don't see how their experience is any sort of counterpoint.