4 ms·

And they showed off a working version of the product, with multi-touch, at the All Things Digital conference before the iPhone released. For the record, commen

And they showed off a working version of the product, with multi-touch, at the All Things Digital conference before the iPhone released. For the record, comments to your posts are almost universally pointing out blatant inaccuracies, so I'm not surprised you don't respond.

nirvana 15y ago
Between the time the iPhone was announced and released, Microsoft did whip up a quick demo... as anyone could have in the 1990s if they'd wanted to. Frankly, your claim about the Microsoft Surface false. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. And actually supports my hypothesis that those who wish to diminish the inventiveness of the iPhone do so out of ideological reasons, not out of an understanding of the underlying technology. The Surface uses a technology whereby an image of the user is captured. It is not a touch screen at all. It does not directly measure touch. If people aren't even addressing the actual technology in question, I find that having a discussion is ... problematic. Plus the preponderance of down votes against my well reasoned points tells me that that a lot of you don't care about accurate or inaccurate, but whether something agrees with your ideology. Which lends credence to my hypothesis that this is ideologically driven.
- thedeuce 15y ago
  Hmm...ironic I thought it was your posts that make intelligent discussion impossible on Hacker News.
- AlisdairO 15y ago
  You're bandying around the term 'multi-touch', and shooting down responses that don't reference multi-touch using a capacitive screen. Multi-touch is a technology-neutral term that simply means a system with the ability to respond to multiple touches at the same time, and the Surface clearly qualifies. MSR did a load of useful UI research on multi-touch devices, and deserve credit for that. Apple released the first commercial device with a capacitive multi-touch screen (that I'm aware of), and it was absolutely a leap forward - the technology the surface used wasn't suitable for mobile devices. Apple deserve a lot credit for making an interesting, accurate, and responsive UI using new screen hardware (which, it should be pointed out, was not created by Apple). Surely this distinction isn't too hard to understand.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    The key problem here is that people are conflating technologies that work on a completely different principle and don't have the same capabilities with the iPhone touch technology, and saying that their existence proves that nothing was invented for the iPhone. However, this is obviously false, as the technologies work using different methods and have different capabilities. Multi-touch is a trademarked term[1] Apple uses to describe its technology for resolving the amorphous blob a finger makes when in contact with a screen into a single pixel. Notice that the surface doesn't do this. It just detects a finger, but it can also detect a stylus or anything else. Its accuracy is that of an object, maybe a finger, not a pixel somewhere under the finger that is much smaller than the finger. I'm not discounting Microsoft's work, it its just not relevant to this discussion. When doing the trademark search just now, I found that some one else used it to talk about a switch based technology, invented around 1990.[2] Again, "touch screens" whereby finger pressure closes a circuit by bending one trace into another has been around since the 1970s. These are almost alway single touch, but even when they can detect two fingers, they are not solving the same problem Apple did. Apple resolved a finger down to a pixel, these things just detect fingers. There's a huge difference. Thus, people bringing up these other technologies that do not even do the same thing, as if they are "prior art" are being dishonest. [1]Word Mark MULTI-TOUCH Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Handheld mobile digital electronic devices with electronic mail, digital data transmission, audio player, video player, handheld computer, personal digital assistant, electronic organizer, electronic notepad, telephone, computer gaming, and camera functions. FIRST USE: 20070109. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20070629 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 77219819 Filing Date June 30, 2007 [2]Word Mark MULTI-TOUCH Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: switches, switch panels, and communication circuits. FIRST USE: 19900202. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900202 Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 74438236 Filing Date September 21, 1993
    - AlisdairO 15y ago
      Apple's trademark application got denied because the term multi-touch is generic ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/66447722/Multi-Touch-Trademark http://www.scribd.com/doc/66447722/Multi-Touch-Trademark ) Additionally, there's a load of research referencing the term 'multi-touch' a long time prior to the iPhone - a quick google scholar search, for example: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=multi-touch&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=multi-touch&hl=en&... Apple did not invent capacitive multi-touch capable screens, and they did not invent the common UI metaphors used in multi-touch screens. Apple's software did make for a very precise capacitive touch screens, but their improvements were incremental. This is not to downplay their achievement in the iPhone - I think it was a marvellous device, and the first truly usable smartphone - I just don't think it's fair to ignore the contributions of those who came before, and the long history of research into multi-touch screens.

nirvana 15y ago

Between the time the iPhone was announced and released, Microsoft did whip up a quick demo... as anyone could have in the 1990s if they'd wanted to. Frankly, your claim about the Microsoft Surface false. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. And actually supports my hypothesis that those who wish to diminish the inventiveness of the iPhone do so out of ideological reasons, not out of an understanding of the underlying technology. The Surface uses a technology whereby an image of the user is captured. It is not a touch screen at all. It does not directly measure touch. If people aren't even addressing the actual technology in question, I find that having a discussion is ... problematic. Plus the preponderance of down votes against my well reasoned points tells me that that a lot of you don't care about accurate or inaccurate, but whether something agrees with your ideology. Which lends credence to my hypothesis that this is ideologically driven.

thedeuce 15y ago
Hmm...ironic I thought it was your posts that make intelligent discussion impossible on Hacker News.
AlisdairO 15y ago
You're bandying around the term 'multi-touch', and shooting down responses that don't reference multi-touch using a capacitive screen. Multi-touch is a technology-neutral term that simply means a system with the ability to respond to multiple touches at the same time, and the Surface clearly qualifies. MSR did a load of useful UI research on multi-touch devices, and deserve credit for that. Apple released the first commercial device with a capacitive multi-touch screen (that I'm aware of), and it was absolutely a leap forward - the technology the surface used wasn't suitable for mobile devices. Apple deserve a lot credit for making an interesting, accurate, and responsive UI using new screen hardware (which, it should be pointed out, was not created by Apple). Surely this distinction isn't too hard to understand.
- nirvana 15y ago
  The key problem here is that people are conflating technologies that work on a completely different principle and don't have the same capabilities with the iPhone touch technology, and saying that their existence proves that nothing was invented for the iPhone. However, this is obviously false, as the technologies work using different methods and have different capabilities. Multi-touch is a trademarked term[1] Apple uses to describe its technology for resolving the amorphous blob a finger makes when in contact with a screen into a single pixel. Notice that the surface doesn't do this. It just detects a finger, but it can also detect a stylus or anything else. Its accuracy is that of an object, maybe a finger, not a pixel somewhere under the finger that is much smaller than the finger. I'm not discounting Microsoft's work, it its just not relevant to this discussion. When doing the trademark search just now, I found that some one else used it to talk about a switch based technology, invented around 1990.[2] Again, "touch screens" whereby finger pressure closes a circuit by bending one trace into another has been around since the 1970s. These are almost alway single touch, but even when they can detect two fingers, they are not solving the same problem Apple did. Apple resolved a finger down to a pixel, these things just detect fingers. There's a huge difference. Thus, people bringing up these other technologies that do not even do the same thing, as if they are "prior art" are being dishonest. [1]Word Mark MULTI-TOUCH Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Handheld mobile digital electronic devices with electronic mail, digital data transmission, audio player, video player, handheld computer, personal digital assistant, electronic organizer, electronic notepad, telephone, computer gaming, and camera functions. FIRST USE: 20070109. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20070629 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 77219819 Filing Date June 30, 2007 [2]Word Mark MULTI-TOUCH Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: switches, switch panels, and communication circuits. FIRST USE: 19900202. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900202 Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 74438236 Filing Date September 21, 1993
  - AlisdairO 15y ago
    Apple's trademark application got denied because the term multi-touch is generic ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/66447722/Multi-Touch-Trademark http://www.scribd.com/doc/66447722/Multi-Touch-Trademark ) Additionally, there's a load of research referencing the term 'multi-touch' a long time prior to the iPhone - a quick google scholar search, for example: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=multi-touch&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=multi-touch&hl=en&... Apple did not invent capacitive multi-touch capable screens, and they did not invent the common UI metaphors used in multi-touch screens. Apple's software did make for a very precise capacitive touch screens, but their improvements were incremental. This is not to downplay their achievement in the iPhone - I think it was a marvellous device, and the first truly usable smartphone - I just don't think it's fair to ignore the contributions of those who came before, and the long history of research into multi-touch screens.