2 ms·

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

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.

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.