3 ms·

Not entirely new. See the Danger Hiptop / Sidekick (and its download catalog) from 2002, among other examples. Did Apple do much better with a more powerful de

by fpgeek 14y ago

Not entirely new. See the Danger Hiptop / Sidekick (and its download catalog) from 2002, among other examples. Did Apple do much better with a more powerful device and a large user population used to buying music and other media from them? Absolutely. But that's still doing it better, not doing something entirely new.

theorique 14y ago
That's fair. I have heard of that device but did not realize that it had an app store. I think Apple's (correctly) viewed as the company who "makes it work" with the right combination of technology that is cutting edge enough, but integrated superbly. When they are really out on the leading edge, the results are mixed (e.g. Newton), although that may have changed with greater vertical integration and supply logistics in recent years. On that level, though, how "entirely new" does something have to be before it gets that stamp. If a given company invents something but doesn't bring it out of beta, and another company becomes known for commercializing it and bringing it to millions, who gets / deserves the most credit?
- fpgeek 14y ago
  I don't think there's an objective way to divide the credit - different people are going to assign different weights to different parts of the process because they have different values. That being said, it is clear many Apple fans (and Apple themselves, frankly) have gone way past a reasonable division of credit. Considering the last decade-plus of smartphone history, the idea that Apple should be suing HTC (among others) over products they developed with Andy Rubin's ex-Danger team is laughable. If either (or both) had spent a bit more time and money on patent lawyers in the early 2000s, they could have sued the iPhone out of existence. At least at HTC (at Google is a more complicated question), I'm sure there are a few people who regret that they didn't.

by fpgeek 14y ago

theorique 14y ago

That's fair. I have heard of that device but did not realize that it had an app store. I think Apple's (correctly) viewed as the company who "makes it work" with the right combination of technology that is cutting edge enough, but integrated superbly. When they are really out on the leading edge, the results are mixed (e.g. Newton), although that may have changed with greater vertical integration and supply logistics in recent years. On that level, though, how "entirely new" does something have to be before it gets that stamp. If a given company invents something but doesn't bring it out of beta, and another company becomes known for commercializing it and bringing it to millions, who gets / deserves the most credit?

fpgeek 14y ago
I don't think there's an objective way to divide the credit - different people are going to assign different weights to different parts of the process because they have different values. That being said, it is clear many Apple fans (and Apple themselves, frankly) have gone way past a reasonable division of credit. Considering the last decade-plus of smartphone history, the idea that Apple should be suing HTC (among others) over products they developed with Andy Rubin's ex-Danger team is laughable. If either (or both) had spent a bit more time and money on patent lawyers in the early 2000s, they could have sued the iPhone out of existence. At least at HTC (at Google is a more complicated question), I'm sure there are a few people who regret that they didn't.