3 ms·

I totally agree with you. You can't say this is a rip off... an OS is an OS. Google, or anybody else, would not have much choices when comes to build a new one.

by lemieux 15y ago

I totally agree with you. You can't say this is a rip off... an OS is an OS. Google, or anybody else, would not have much choices when comes to build a new one. Window, apps, app store, etc. are fundamental to a mobile OS. Maybe Apple made the first one to be massively adopted and recognized, but they are not really inovators, they always took something that alreay existed (excepted first computer) and made it a more appealing product for the mass market. Take iPod, iPhone and the iPad for instance. Mp3 player existed before the iPod. They took the concept, built an appealing product from it and sold it to the mass market. Same thing for the iPhone, took the concept of a mobile phone, put it in their iPod OS. Again, same thing for the iPad. Tablets were there. They were unpopular due to a lot of reasons. Apple took the concept, improved it and sold a better product. Give them credit for make awesome product out of existing ones, but quit saying they invented everything and everything else is a rip off.

zerotype 15y ago
I don't think calling something a ripoff is unfair. Yeah, they didn't invent those devices, but when they come out with their version of it which happens to be the first successful one. Then, after that device comes out every other company decides to be inspired by that it kind of is a ripoff. I'll admit that ripoff is perhaps a bit too strong of language but the sentiment is the same. You can argue that eventually mp3 players would have succeeded, that smart phones would eventually all be flat touch screens, and that tablets would be cheap, not run a desktop os and successful. Truth is, we don't know because apple made those products a success first. To me actually making a product well, easy/fun/enjoyable to use is innovative. I really don't believe that we would see as many android tablets (well, tablets in general) if it were no for the ipad. I also still think the ipad is the best tablet because of the UI/apps and things mentioned in this article. The ipad also manages to be a pretty great price.
- baconner 15y ago
  Wait... so your definition of whether something is "a ripoff" is based upon how commercially successful it is? So then android would by definition not be a ripoff. I must be misunderstanding your point.
  - zerotype 15y ago
    I think I didn't explain myself as well as I could have. What I was saying (mean, whatever) is that when apple comes out with a device that is the first successful one of its kind they do that by doing something different. After they do that then other companies ripoff the now successful product. Sure, tablets had existed before the ipad, but not like the ipad. After the ipad came out tablets changed and the cries of everyone at first was "it is just a big ipod touch" and things of that nature. Then, the people that just don't want apple devices despite never trying them became excited about android tablets that most likely wouldn't exist with out the ipad. I know that tablets came before the ipad, but they changed that entire market. Even though they didn't make the first tablet I don't think they ripped off previous ones since they were typically bulky, used a stylus, etc...
    - lemieux 15y ago
      So basicaly, when someone is successful with a product, others should not do the same thing because they were not first? Way to go to stimulate competition and innovation.

by lemieux 15y ago

zerotype 15y ago

I don't think calling something a ripoff is unfair. Yeah, they didn't invent those devices, but when they come out with their version of it which happens to be the first successful one. Then, after that device comes out every other company decides to be inspired by that it kind of is a ripoff. I'll admit that ripoff is perhaps a bit too strong of language but the sentiment is the same. You can argue that eventually mp3 players would have succeeded, that smart phones would eventually all be flat touch screens, and that tablets would be cheap, not run a desktop os and successful. Truth is, we don't know because apple made those products a success first. To me actually making a product well, easy/fun/enjoyable to use is innovative. I really don't believe that we would see as many android tablets (well, tablets in general) if it were no for the ipad. I also still think the ipad is the best tablet because of the UI/apps and things mentioned in this article. The ipad also manages to be a pretty great price.

baconner 15y ago
Wait... so your definition of whether something is "a ripoff" is based upon how commercially successful it is? So then android would by definition not be a ripoff. I must be misunderstanding your point.
- zerotype 15y ago
  I think I didn't explain myself as well as I could have. What I was saying (mean, whatever) is that when apple comes out with a device that is the first successful one of its kind they do that by doing something different. After they do that then other companies ripoff the now successful product. Sure, tablets had existed before the ipad, but not like the ipad. After the ipad came out tablets changed and the cries of everyone at first was "it is just a big ipod touch" and things of that nature. Then, the people that just don't want apple devices despite never trying them became excited about android tablets that most likely wouldn't exist with out the ipad. I know that tablets came before the ipad, but they changed that entire market. Even though they didn't make the first tablet I don't think they ripped off previous ones since they were typically bulky, used a stylus, etc...
  - lemieux 15y ago
    So basicaly, when someone is successful with a product, others should not do the same thing because they were not first? Way to go to stimulate competition and innovation.