4 ms·
Because, for decades, Apple haters have been curiously following the strategy of claiming that Apple is not innovative at all, and thus, by "stealing" from Xero
by nirvana 15y ago
Because, for decades, Apple haters have been curiously following the strategy of claiming that Apple is not innovative at all, and thus, by "stealing" from Xerox, it justifies Microsoft's theft of the UI.
The fact that Apple compensated Xerox with pre-IPO stock, and more importantly, had a license agreement from Xerox, and even more importantly, Xerox didn't' have the GUI to steal (that being an invention of Apple made based on being awakened to the possibility by Xerox) is still ignored or claimed to be false, even here on hacker news.
In fact, it was only a couple months ago, on this very site, where a bunch of fandroids were attacking Apple on this same issue, and despite responding, with a citation to the real story, showing that Apple had licensed the technology, I was down voted to oblivion and repeatedly people asserted I was wrong (yep, just asserted.) I remember one, memorable response: "Just stop, its been widely accepted by us that Apple stole the GUI from Xerox". Its rare that someone uses the popularity of a myth as justification for its truth, but there it was.)
Already, the same people are claiming that multi-touch has existed for years before the iPhone, and pointing to single-touch panels of the crossed wired style, or stylus driven interfaces as "proof".
From this I conclude that most people who oppose patents and innovation do not understand technology well enough, or do not have any engineering background, and thus cannot tell the difference between two sheets of plastic with a grid of intersecting wires where pressure causes the wires to connect, and a capacitive touch panel, that maps out the shape of each picture, uses an accelerometer to determine the orientation of the device and then figures out which finger of the hand is touching it and thus from that, which pixel in the amorphous blob of contact the user is intending to touch.
To them, they're both the same, and thus Apple's not innovative because its all been done before, and we should shut down the patent system.
I just wouldn't expect that kind of ignorance on a site dedicated to High Tech Startups where, you pretty much have to have at least one founder who knows how to write software.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago>The fact that Apple compensated Xerox with pre-IPO stock, and more importantly, had a license agreement from Xerox, and even more importantly, Xerox didn't' have the GUI to steal (that being an invention of Apple made based on being awakened to the possibility by Xerox) is still ignored or claimed to be false, even here on hacker news. kenjackson's comment is pretty insightful in this regard. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3206454 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3206454
- afterburner 15y agoSo, it was because Xerox PARC was using a mouse + GUI interface that Apple went in that direction. In other words, what everyone thought before.
- cooldeal 15y agoFandroids? Wow, had to check if I was on Reddit. >From this I conclude that most people who oppose patents and innovation do not understand technology well enough, or do not have any engineering background, and thus cannot tell the difference between two sheets of plastic with a grid of intersecting wires where pressure causes the wires to connect, and a capacitive touch panel, that maps out the shape of each picture, uses an accelerometer to determine the orientation of the device and then figures out which finger of the hand is touching it and thus from that, which pixel in the amorphous blob of contact the user is intending to touch. Are you claiming that Apple invented capacitative touch? > Xerox didn't' have the GUI to steal (that being an invention of Apple made based on being awakened to the possibility by Xerox) is still ignored or claimed to be false, even here on hacker news. Are you for real?
- wmf 15y agoThe history of multitouch isn't easily summarized, but I see capacitive multitouch in 1985 and then again in 1998: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
- agumonkey 15y agoFunny note aside, Apple GUI Regions were added by Atkinson based on what Jobs thought he saw on the PARC system. Turns out this was kinda imaginary (IIRC) .. it's all a wonderful mistake build on faith, passion and Atkinson insights.
- smackfu 15y ago"that being an invention of Apple made based on being awakened to the possibility by Xerox" I'm so curious what you mean by this, unless you have redefined what GUI means.
- Someone 15y agoI would guess http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s... describes what he means. Also note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_i..., which states "There is still some controversy over the amount of influence that Xerox's PARC work, as opposed to previous academic research, had on the GUIs of Apple's Lisa and Macintosh, but it is clear that the influence was extensive, because first versions of Lisa GUIs even lacked icons" That seems to imply that the Xerox machines did not have icons. I do not know whether the folklore.org description is accurate, but believe it to be essentially correct. If it is, the Xerox UIs looked were very different from the Macintosh that shipped in 1984 (no icons, no menu bar, no object-verb metaphor, no dragging of objects)