6 ms·

Apple’s war on Android gets major blow in the form of 1994 “future tablet” video

41 points by bond 15y ago

vyrotek 15y ago
When watching those old videos does anyone else wonder which futuristic demonstrations today are going to be used in court in 30 years?
- Retric 15y ago
  <devils advocate > A faked teck demo's basically count as fiction which does not count as prior art for a normal patent case, but it does for a design patent. Unfortunately for Samsung while elements of the iPad design shows up the Galaxy pad is a lot closer to the iPad than any of the other designs. For design patents to be meaningful they must prevent such overt imitation and force competitors to do more than copy good design.</devils advocate> Realistically, I suspect Apple would drop the case if they did not think the minimal costs of perusing it was not worth it and their return is not limited to this case. What I think most people miss is by taking it to this level the force other companies to consider how much close they can get before Apple makes an example of them.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    Agreed - if Samsung cloned this grey, bulbous plastic tablet along with its screen printed label, I don't think Apple would care at all. It's the fact that they're copying the exact combination of flat glass front, curved metal back, black plastic buttons, visible camera, etc. etc. that they think is a problem. There's no prior art for an industrial design like the iPhone 4 or the iPad, and other manufacturers than Samsung, e.g. Motorola, HTC & Nokia, seem to have no problem creating alternative designs. It's easy to mistake Samsung phones and tablets in public for their Apple equivalents, and that's what Apple thinks is wrong. Whether we think outright cloning of designs should be wrong or right is a separate question from judging whether or not that's what Samsung are doing.
    - bstar77 15y ago
      I think you need to take into context the difference in 20 years here. Back then there was no concept of digital photography or gps or bluetooth, etc. As technology evolves, then many of those improvements naturally contribute to enhancements in other products. I believe that if a small, commercially viable camera existed at the time that video was made, it would have been featured. You can't say that the features/technology that we have taken for granted for the past 10 years are not natural upgrades all existing products in this category. In other words, I think the details you mentioned are trivial. The overall concept is pretty much the same, with some varying details.
      - rbarooah 15y ago
        If I hadn't mentioned a camera it wouldn't have changed my point at all. What this tablet (and the non-clone tablets) actually show is that there is no need for Samsung to have copied Apple's trade dress of not using a bezel, having an all glass front, an aluminum back, black buttons etc. If, as you concede the details are trivial, then Samsung should be able to easily vary them and produce a tablet that doesn't look like a cloned iPad.
        dpark 15y ago
        > not using a bezel The black (or white) border around the iPad screen is effectively a bezel. > having an all glass front The all-glass front is neither unique to Apple nor truly optional. Edge-to-edge touch capability requires that the glass extend far enough past the edge of the screen to allow touch gestures to work across the full screen. A "bump" going from the screen to the bezel makes it nearly impossible to effectively touch at the edges. If you extend the glass past the screen but then also introduce a "bump" to transition to plastic or some other material, you either make the device bulkier, make it uncomfortable to hold, or both. > an aluminum back Meh. This a functional element, because it dissipates heat better. But it is optional. However, it hardly constitutes a clone by itself. > black buttons The buttons on the tab are completely different, in that there are multiple and also in that they are just capacitive buttons. The color of the buttons in both Apple's and Samsung's designs are chosen to match the bezel. Note that Apple does not put a black button on the white iPad, because it would look stupid. Even the original Kindle had color-matched buttons (ugly as it was).
  - meow 15y ago
    "Unfortunately for Samsung while elements of the iPad design shows up the Galaxy pad is a lot closer to the iPad than any of the other designs. For design patents to be meaningful they must prevent such overt imitation and force competitors to do more than copy good design." I don't think that would matter if the design it self is generic - not an innovation (as in this case) and hence the patent it self can be considered as invalid.
  - dpark 15y ago
    > A faked teck demo's basically count as fiction which does not count as prior art for a normal patent case Why would it not count as prior art if it demonstrates the patented method? Supposedly the original patent on the modern waterbed could not be defended because such a similar device had been described by Heinlein in SciFi books.
    - Retric 15y ago
      Generally it's a description of a function missing a lot of details that make it useful. Consider, a waterbed needs to be close to persons body temperature and not room temperature to be comfortable. So if you actually built and patented a 'modern' waterbed for sale you would patent a temperature control system + plastic bag filled with water. So a description of a comfortable bed filled with water that allowed people to float to reduce the risk of bedsores would not include such issues. However, Heinlein was not starting from scratch, people had been building them for 60 years and he actually described a lot of the details normally left out. Temperature control, safety, leaks, water level, floor load etc. So when someone tried to patent improvements their was prior art for both waterbeds and the obvious improvements to them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbed#Heinlein_descriptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbed#Heinlein_descriptions
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    >A faked teck demo's basically count as fiction which does not count as prior art for a normal patent case // At least in Europe you're wrong; I can't recall anything in USA patent law that rules out this sort of disclosure either. The tech demo is only citable as far as the detail disclosed however. For example a patent application claiming a touchscreen tablet device with multi-touch would be novel WRT the device shown here. They do say "just touch the screen" so arguably a touchscreen is disclosed in the narrative. But they don't give any details as to how that touchscreen would work so such a disclosure wouldn't prevent a claim that included such detail. As you suggest, most of IP cases between the large corps is apparently about posturing or "negotiation" rather than the case itself. To me the cited video preempts the form factor entirely. The video's version of a newspaper rendered on tablet is also rather good IMO.
ryanhuff 15y ago
The writer positions the video as a sort of smoking gun, but then hedges with "as today’s legal system is more complicated than some of us can understand, the legal heads at Apple really had a shot at proving they had invented the whole ... concept". I feel a bit pandered to. How about some more legal substance, even for us dumb tech readers?
- DougBTX 15y ago
  I think he's talking about himself, not dumb readers.
tomelders 15y ago
I'm having some serious Déjà vu on HN recently. This came up a while back I'm sure. http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/ http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridder-tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knigh... I can't find an article, but I'm sure this had already been in court. Or maybe I'm going senile at 32. Also, I have a niggling feeling that Apple had a part in this video. But I could just be making that up.
- Anechoic 15y ago
  This came up a while back I'm sure. Yep: http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=tablet+video+1994 http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=tablet+vide... http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=knight+ridder&start=0 http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=knight+ridd...
bstar77 15y ago
I'm surprised that it took this long for that video to show up as evidence. The only thing it does not demonstrate is the use of gestures which is integral to the usefulness of this generation's tablets. I've always felt that the basic form factor patents Apple has would not ultimately hold up, and it would be insane for them to try and enforce them. But it still does not excuse the fact that Samsung tries to confuse the public that their product is pretty much an iPad/iPhone. They do this through marketing, packaging, peripherals, software and UI design. I don't like the patent system the way it exists, and I think most of Apple's 'key' mobile patents are ridiculous, but I equally can't stand a company like Samsung that comes in and says we're just going to commoditize a great product by cloning it and selling it for cheap. I think this is where Apple's emotion comes in and the 'sue everyone' mentality takes over.
- pavanky 15y ago
  I don't really buy the cheap argument. The galaxy Tab 10.1 is $448 on Amazon, while the ipad 2 is $449.99. The galaxy tab's in the other form factors may be cheaper, but those are the markets that Apple is not trying to, and may never, compete in. So please, before saying Android products are knock-offs or cheap clones, do some research.
- ajross 15y ago
  Samsung really tries to confuse the public? Really? Where can you go, intending to buy an iPad and get a Galaxy Tab instead? I mean, that's just silly. Being a flat panel with rounded corners, it indeed looks very similar to an iPad (I'll skip the argument as to whether rounded corners and black and white color choices constitute a protectable "design language" or not -- that's been done to death). But trying to argue that they're deliberately trying to steal sales from Apple via fraud seems ridiculous on its face. edit: two replies now have argued with this, apparently equating mere "copying", which is legal and pervasive, with deliberate confusion of the buyer, which is FRAUD, and a crime. If you want to condemn Samsung for the former, go right ahead. Personally I find that boring and silly, but whatever. It's a personal aeshetic or moral call, and yours to make. But accusing them of fraud is not remotely the same thing, so stop it.
neovive 15y ago
Some very interesting perspectives in the video -- particularly the references to touch interaction. If you watch at 11:58, he also makes references to how the newspaper industry can avoid obsolescence by leveraging these new mobile technologies.
FiddlerClamp 15y ago
Also see this edited version of the Starfire video from Sun in 1993, which shows touch interactions. I've only seen the full-length version, so I'm not sure if it's in this truncated clip, but there's an amusing bit where she leaves her sandwich on the 'desk' part of the monitor and the computer scans it. When she picks the sandwich up and notices there's an image of it on the screen, she 'sweeps away' the image with her hand - another gesture.
valgaze 15y ago
Wow Knight Ridder was on the ball in the 1990s, it's a shame they didn't own the space. I wonder what happened. These days they are still an excellent "hard news"
- wmf 15y ago
  IIRC it's wasn't Knight Ridder per se; it was a one-person skunkworks inside Knight Ridder that the execs didn't listen to.
postfuturist 15y ago
Nothing radical here, even for 1994. Not long ago I was watching an old episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (around the same year) in which the commander's son is doing homework on a slightly smaller tablet with a color display. IIRC, he was using a stylus.
jlian 15y ago
I think the point Apple is trying to make is a little different than how this article described it. I don't think anybody would disagree that the tablet form shown in the 1994 video is the natural form a functional tablet would take on: thin, large screen, rectangular, etc. Including Apple. However, Apple is not happy because, to Apple, it is the first to figure out how to deliver this "natural" form factor in a tablet, and Samsung (and subsequent Android manufacturers), ripped Apple off in the delivery process. I imagine Apple's logic is that no other companies were able to engineer the "optimal" tablet until the iPad came out and they disassembled it and, through imitation, engineered their own. The Android tablets exist because of the iPad. Which is not unreasonable, honestly. If the thin, rectangular, and large screen form factor is the final product of natural evolution of tablets, how come nothing even came close to it until the iPad came out? How would one explain the the sudden shift in tablet design if the iPad never existed? If I came up with a way of actually making a hover car (envisioned through countless medias) that works and everyone copied the way I did it, I'd be pretty pissed too. I'm not good with words as English is not my first language. I hope I got my point across. EDIT: spelling.
snowwrestler 15y ago
This might not be as big a blow as folks might assume, because design patents are very specific. For instance the tablet in this video has a raised, seemingly plastic bezel framing the screen, while the iPad design patent specifies that the screen is covered with an edge-to-edge glass surface. It is that edge-to-edge glass that is a big part of Apple's suit. I won't claim I've done an exhaustive review, but I've glanced back at some older tablet concepts like the Apple "navigator" video, the Star Trek TNG PADD, and even the Newton and Palm and Windows Tablet designs, and every single one I've seen had a raised bezel framing the screen. The Samsung Galaxy tab has an edge-to-edge glass surface, not a raised bezel. Stupidly pedantic? Yes. That's pretty a good description of design "patents" in general IMO.
Fando 15y ago
It's unfortunate that Apple, while being so innovative and prominent of a tech company, never the less so feverishly attempts to hold on to the outdated, dying principles of old, "traditional" business models. Of course I realize the good intentions that patents claim to stem from, but looking at the real world, the principles of this loosely defined and ambigious copyright model are much easier to exploit than use for good. What social value is there? Anyway, the point of course is that seeing a company cling to patenting general ideas and then inforcing those patents is a cowardly and unintegrous. It's an cheap way out made available by a loophole-clad system and should impact negatively on Apple's, or any company's image more so than it does now. However, I think fortunatelly, although slowly, these old school "business" mentalities are being bred out as new, more superior organizational structures, ideologies and principles, are ushered in by much more creative and insightful intelects than those currently in power. Those who bring about change are resisted because they threaten to overtake those in power. Instead of welcoming and aiding that forward movement, the mentality is to oppose it with great force and incredible tunnel vision. Someday the world will make sense but until then companies like Apple will continue to restrict change. It's at times like these that I find not being able to wish things into being most inconvenient lol.

41 points by bond 15y ago

When watching those old videos does anyone else wonder which futuristic demonstrations today are going to be used in court in 30 years?

Retric 15y ago
<devils advocate > A faked teck demo's basically count as fiction which does not count as prior art for a normal patent case, but it does for a design patent. Unfortunately for Samsung while elements of the iPad design shows up the Galaxy pad is a lot closer to the iPad than any of the other designs. For design patents to be meaningful they must prevent such overt imitation and force competitors to do more than copy good design.</devils advocate> Realistically, I suspect Apple would drop the case if they did not think the minimal costs of perusing it was not worth it and their return is not limited to this case. What I think most people miss is by taking it to this level the force other companies to consider how much close they can get before Apple makes an example of them.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  Agreed - if Samsung cloned this grey, bulbous plastic tablet along with its screen printed label, I don't think Apple would care at all. It's the fact that they're copying the exact combination of flat glass front, curved metal back, black plastic buttons, visible camera, etc. etc. that they think is a problem. There's no prior art for an industrial design like the iPhone 4 or the iPad, and other manufacturers than Samsung, e.g. Motorola, HTC & Nokia, seem to have no problem creating alternative designs. It's easy to mistake Samsung phones and tablets in public for their Apple equivalents, and that's what Apple thinks is wrong. Whether we think outright cloning of designs should be wrong or right is a separate question from judging whether or not that's what Samsung are doing.
  - bstar77 15y ago
    I think you need to take into context the difference in 20 years here. Back then there was no concept of digital photography or gps or bluetooth, etc. As technology evolves, then many of those improvements naturally contribute to enhancements in other products. I believe that if a small, commercially viable camera existed at the time that video was made, it would have been featured. You can't say that the features/technology that we have taken for granted for the past 10 years are not natural upgrades all existing products in this category. In other words, I think the details you mentioned are trivial. The overall concept is pretty much the same, with some varying details.
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      If I hadn't mentioned a camera it wouldn't have changed my point at all. What this tablet (and the non-clone tablets) actually show is that there is no need for Samsung to have copied Apple's trade dress of not using a bezel, having an all glass front, an aluminum back, black buttons etc. If, as you concede the details are trivial, then Samsung should be able to easily vary them and produce a tablet that doesn't look like a cloned iPad.
      - dpark 15y ago
        > not using a bezel The black (or white) border around the iPad screen is effectively a bezel. > having an all glass front The all-glass front is neither unique to Apple nor truly optional. Edge-to-edge touch capability requires that the glass extend far enough past the edge of the screen to allow touch gestures to work across the full screen. A "bump" going from the screen to the bezel makes it nearly impossible to effectively touch at the edges. If you extend the glass past the screen but then also introduce a "bump" to transition to plastic or some other material, you either make the device bulkier, make it uncomfortable to hold, or both. > an aluminum back Meh. This a functional element, because it dissipates heat better. But it is optional. However, it hardly constitutes a clone by itself. > black buttons The buttons on the tab are completely different, in that there are multiple and also in that they are just capacitive buttons. The color of the buttons in both Apple's and Samsung's designs are chosen to match the bezel. Note that Apple does not put a black button on the white iPad, because it would look stupid. Even the original Kindle had color-matched buttons (ugly as it was).
- meow 15y ago
  "Unfortunately for Samsung while elements of the iPad design shows up the Galaxy pad is a lot closer to the iPad than any of the other designs. For design patents to be meaningful they must prevent such overt imitation and force competitors to do more than copy good design." I don't think that would matter if the design it self is generic - not an innovation (as in this case) and hence the patent it self can be considered as invalid.
- dpark 15y ago
  > A faked teck demo's basically count as fiction which does not count as prior art for a normal patent case Why would it not count as prior art if it demonstrates the patented method? Supposedly the original patent on the modern waterbed could not be defended because such a similar device had been described by Heinlein in SciFi books.
  - Retric 15y ago
    Generally it's a description of a function missing a lot of details that make it useful. Consider, a waterbed needs to be close to persons body temperature and not room temperature to be comfortable. So if you actually built and patented a 'modern' waterbed for sale you would patent a temperature control system + plastic bag filled with water. So a description of a comfortable bed filled with water that allowed people to float to reduce the risk of bedsores would not include such issues. However, Heinlein was not starting from scratch, people had been building them for 60 years and he actually described a lot of the details normally left out. Temperature control, safety, leaks, water level, floor load etc. So when someone tried to patent improvements their was prior art for both waterbeds and the obvious improvements to them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbed#Heinlein_descriptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbed#Heinlein_descriptions
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >A faked teck demo's basically count as fiction which does not count as prior art for a normal patent case // At least in Europe you're wrong; I can't recall anything in USA patent law that rules out this sort of disclosure either. The tech demo is only citable as far as the detail disclosed however. For example a patent application claiming a touchscreen tablet device with multi-touch would be novel WRT the device shown here. They do say "just touch the screen" so arguably a touchscreen is disclosed in the narrative. But they don't give any details as to how that touchscreen would work so such a disclosure wouldn't prevent a claim that included such detail. As you suggest, most of IP cases between the large corps is apparently about posturing or "negotiation" rather than the case itself. To me the cited video preempts the form factor entirely. The video's version of a newspaper rendered on tablet is also rather good IMO.

ryanhuff 15y ago

The writer positions the video as a sort of smoking gun, but then hedges with "as today’s legal system is more complicated than some of us can understand, the legal heads at Apple really had a shot at proving they had invented the whole ... concept". I feel a bit pandered to. How about some more legal substance, even for us dumb tech readers?

DougBTX 15y ago
I think he's talking about himself, not dumb readers.

tomelders 15y ago

I'm having some serious Déjà vu on HN recently. This came up a while back I'm sure. http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/ http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridder-tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knigh... I can't find an article, but I'm sure this had already been in court. Or maybe I'm going senile at 32. Also, I have a niggling feeling that Apple had a part in this video. But I could just be making that up.

Anechoic 15y ago
This came up a while back I'm sure. Yep: http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=tablet+video+1994 http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=tablet+vide... http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=knight+ridder&start=0 http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=knight+ridd...

bstar77 15y ago

I'm surprised that it took this long for that video to show up as evidence. The only thing it does not demonstrate is the use of gestures which is integral to the usefulness of this generation's tablets. I've always felt that the basic form factor patents Apple has would not ultimately hold up, and it would be insane for them to try and enforce them. But it still does not excuse the fact that Samsung tries to confuse the public that their product is pretty much an iPad/iPhone. They do this through marketing, packaging, peripherals, software and UI design. I don't like the patent system the way it exists, and I think most of Apple's 'key' mobile patents are ridiculous, but I equally can't stand a company like Samsung that comes in and says we're just going to commoditize a great product by cloning it and selling it for cheap. I think this is where Apple's emotion comes in and the 'sue everyone' mentality takes over.

pavanky 15y ago
I don't really buy the cheap argument. The galaxy Tab 10.1 is $448 on Amazon, while the ipad 2 is $449.99. The galaxy tab's in the other form factors may be cheaper, but those are the markets that Apple is not trying to, and may never, compete in. So please, before saying Android products are knock-offs or cheap clones, do some research.
ajross 15y ago
Samsung really tries to confuse the public? Really? Where can you go, intending to buy an iPad and get a Galaxy Tab instead? I mean, that's just silly. Being a flat panel with rounded corners, it indeed looks very similar to an iPad (I'll skip the argument as to whether rounded corners and black and white color choices constitute a protectable "design language" or not -- that's been done to death). But trying to argue that they're deliberately trying to steal sales from Apple via fraud seems ridiculous on its face. edit: two replies now have argued with this, apparently equating mere "copying", which is legal and pervasive, with deliberate confusion of the buyer, which is FRAUD, and a crime. If you want to condemn Samsung for the former, go right ahead. Personally I find that boring and silly, but whatever. It's a personal aeshetic or moral call, and yours to make. But accusing them of fraud is not remotely the same thing, so stop it.

neovive 15y ago

Some very interesting perspectives in the video -- particularly the references to touch interaction. If you watch at 11:58, he also makes references to how the newspaper industry can avoid obsolescence by leveraging these new mobile technologies.

FiddlerClamp 15y ago

Also see this edited version of the Starfire video from Sun in 1993, which shows touch interactions. I've only seen the full-length version, so I'm not sure if it's in this truncated clip, but there's an amusing bit where she leaves her sandwich on the 'desk' part of the monitor and the computer scans it. When she picks the sandwich up and notices there's an image of it on the screen, she 'sweeps away' the image with her hand - another gesture.

valgaze 15y ago

Wow Knight Ridder was on the ball in the 1990s, it's a shame they didn't own the space. I wonder what happened. These days they are still an excellent "hard news"

wmf 15y ago
IIRC it's wasn't Knight Ridder per se; it was a one-person skunkworks inside Knight Ridder that the execs didn't listen to.

postfuturist 15y ago

Nothing radical here, even for 1994. Not long ago I was watching an old episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (around the same year) in which the commander's son is doing homework on a slightly smaller tablet with a color display. IIRC, he was using a stylus.

jlian 15y ago

I think the point Apple is trying to make is a little different than how this article described it. I don't think anybody would disagree that the tablet form shown in the 1994 video is the natural form a functional tablet would take on: thin, large screen, rectangular, etc. Including Apple. However, Apple is not happy because, to Apple, it is the first to figure out how to deliver this "natural" form factor in a tablet, and Samsung (and subsequent Android manufacturers), ripped Apple off in the delivery process. I imagine Apple's logic is that no other companies were able to engineer the "optimal" tablet until the iPad came out and they disassembled it and, through imitation, engineered their own. The Android tablets exist because of the iPad. Which is not unreasonable, honestly. If the thin, rectangular, and large screen form factor is the final product of natural evolution of tablets, how come nothing even came close to it until the iPad came out? How would one explain the the sudden shift in tablet design if the iPad never existed? If I came up with a way of actually making a hover car (envisioned through countless medias) that works and everyone copied the way I did it, I'd be pretty pissed too. I'm not good with words as English is not my first language. I hope I got my point across. EDIT: spelling.

snowwrestler 15y ago

This might not be as big a blow as folks might assume, because design patents are very specific. For instance the tablet in this video has a raised, seemingly plastic bezel framing the screen, while the iPad design patent specifies that the screen is covered with an edge-to-edge glass surface. It is that edge-to-edge glass that is a big part of Apple's suit. I won't claim I've done an exhaustive review, but I've glanced back at some older tablet concepts like the Apple "navigator" video, the Star Trek TNG PADD, and even the Newton and Palm and Windows Tablet designs, and every single one I've seen had a raised bezel framing the screen. The Samsung Galaxy tab has an edge-to-edge glass surface, not a raised bezel. Stupidly pedantic? Yes. That's pretty a good description of design "patents" in general IMO.

Fando 15y ago

It's unfortunate that Apple, while being so innovative and prominent of a tech company, never the less so feverishly attempts to hold on to the outdated, dying principles of old, "traditional" business models. Of course I realize the good intentions that patents claim to stem from, but looking at the real world, the principles of this loosely defined and ambigious copyright model are much easier to exploit than use for good. What social value is there? Anyway, the point of course is that seeing a company cling to patenting general ideas and then inforcing those patents is a cowardly and unintegrous. It's an cheap way out made available by a loophole-clad system and should impact negatively on Apple's, or any company's image more so than it does now. However, I think fortunatelly, although slowly, these old school "business" mentalities are being bred out as new, more superior organizational structures, ideologies and principles, are ushered in by much more creative and insightful intelects than those currently in power. Those who bring about change are resisted because they threaten to overtake those in power. Instead of welcoming and aiding that forward movement, the mentality is to oppose it with great force and incredible tunnel vision. Someday the world will make sense but until then companies like Apple will continue to restrict change. It's at times like these that I find not being able to wish things into being most inconvenient lol.