3 ms·

>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

>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 ago
And, 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.