6 ms·

That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a

by cmelbye 14y ago

That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.

recursive 14y ago
No one's saying they can't implement pinch to zoom.
moskie 14y ago
And them having a patent on this feature comes into play there..... how?
mtgx 14y ago
That's like saying you can't use drop-down menus on the web, because one site did it first. I'm not saying in other cases that it might not have taken longer for the others to figure it out (months, years?). I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to patent something as easy to implement as that for 17 years, or whatever the patent age is. Maybe if the patent system made a bit more sense, we wouldn't be so much against all software patents. It reminds me of the argument that people shouldn't be yelling "SOPA" everytime a slightly dangerous law appears, because in the end the whole protest thing loses its effectiveness. In the same way Apple and others shouldn't file for a "patent" everytime they work for a few hours on something. But the system shouldn't allow these type of patents in the first place, otherwise there will be companies to take advantage of it.
- danilocampos 14y ago
  > I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to patent something as easy to implement as that for 17 years, or whatever the patent age is. If it was so "easy", why wasn't it invented a long time ago?
  - dave_sullivan 14y ago
    Yes, ease of implementation is the wrong way to evaluate patents. However, I don't see the real benefit of apple (or others) having patents like this. If they could not patent it, I think they would have included it in their product anyway. It's a cool feature. They got a head start. That's the value of creating something new--a head start. Things move too fast for there to be any real benefit to the general good by granting monopolies for 17 years. People will still create things because you can make a lot of money with a head start, particularly if you're the type of person/company that can maintain that lead by continuing to build great products without resorting to monopoly tactics. The dropdown menu is a good example where I don't see much difference between a dropdown menu and pinch to zoom.
  - kryptiskt 14y ago
    It was invented long ago, one of the reasons that Apple lost the patent was that there was prior art.
  - jhaglund 14y ago
    IIRC, early touch screens were resistive, rather than capacitive, which didn't support multi-touch. without multitouch, no pinch. the interface has existed in movies for a long time and it just took bringing down the cost of capacitive touch screens. If Apple chooses, their size and market following allow them to bring tech to the consumer faster. That's why they got pinch to zoom first, not because of clever innovation.
    - ars 14y ago
      It's a nice theory, but resistive supports multi-touch just fine. (Although I'm not sure that any shipping products back then actually supported it - but it's certainly possible to do it with resistive.)
      - elpool2 14y ago
        But we're not talking about a patent on multi-touch, we're talking about pinch-to-zoom. I'm sure its very difficult to make a good multi-touch screen, especially one small, efficient, and precise enough to use on a smartphone. But once you have good a good multi-touch screen, it doesn't seem that hard to implement a pinch gesture. Every single demo of a multi-touch interface I've ever seen (even from before 2007) has had some sort of pinch-to-zoom gesture, it seems to be one of the first things everyone thinks of doing once you've got the capability in the hardware.
- cmelbye 14y ago
  You obviously misunderstand patents, as they have absolutely nothing to do with how easy something is to implement. They're awarded to companies that take risks, research, and invent something new. It's a fundamental mistake to write off a "simple" invention as easy to come up with, obvious, a no-brainer, etc. Simplicity is difficult.
  - felipeko 14y ago
    You're the one misunderstanding. A big company don't take any risk to file a patent, it's a few thousand of dollars and a few lawyer hours, and that's chump change for them. And that's a great sum for the small guy. That's why you see companies like IBM, Samsung, Microsft and Apple patenting the hell out of everything[1]. It's actually a great defense move (so, yeah, it's the inverse of risk) and sometimes take no research (just lawyers and money). There are some patents that USPTO keeps rejecting from Apple, and Apple just changes the wording and try again[2] (no small guy can afford that) until they finally get the patent. Such a wonderfully new researched and risky idea shouldn't take more than one try on the USPTO, don't you think? Sources: [1] A Patent Warrior’s Education: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo... [2] The Patent Bureaucracy: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r= http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo...
    - cmelbye 14y ago
      Obviously I'm not referring to the process of handing in a patent application when I talk about risk. I'm referring to the process of inventing the invention that's patented, which presumably takes a lot of time and money in R&D.
      - prodigal_erik 14y ago
        Patents are not rewards for invention. They are compensation for willingly disclosing what would otherwise remain trade secrets. That's why the application has to describe the invention in enough detail for others to implement it (not merely recognize it) and why it must have been kept secret until the examiner's decision.
jallmann 14y ago
Older Android browsers (<= 2.2) had a two-part button, for zooming in and out. One tap, no menus involved. I much prefer this since I can hold the phone and zoom with one hand, using my thumb. Google Maps for Android has something nearly identical with the +/- buttons. I've yet to find another browser that implements this behavior (Android 2.3 removed it for whatever reason). Pinch-to-zoom has always felt gimmicky in comparison. Having to use two hands is annoying.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- cmelbye 14y ago
  I actually never mentioned Android in my comment, I was merely stating that zooming functionality generally worked like that prior to iPhone. For example, on Blackberry, Pocket PC, etc.
- wlesieutre 14y ago
  Google Maps for iOS lets you double tap and drag up/down to zoom. It's a pretty nice implementation, just harder to discover.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    Google Maps does that on Android too.
- untog 14y ago
  Gimmicky might be a stretch, but I genuinely can't think of the last time I used pinch to zoom. When browsing a double-tap zooms to the width of the element you're tapping, which is perfect.
tobyjsullivan 14y ago
And if Apple had their way (and their patent) we would still be tapping that magnifying glass because nobody else could feature pinch-to-zoom. And I'm not convinced Apple would license that IP to Samsung.
- cmelbye 14y ago
  The first part of your comment depends entirely on the unfounded accusation you made in the second part of your comment. ("I'm not convinced Apple would license that IP to Samsung.") Apple has licensed patents to competitors in the past, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't in this case.

by cmelbye 14y ago

recursive 14y ago

No one's saying they can't implement pinch to zoom.

moskie 14y ago

And them having a patent on this feature comes into play there..... how?

mtgx 14y ago

That's like saying you can't use drop-down menus on the web, because one site did it first. I'm not saying in other cases that it might not have taken longer for the others to figure it out (months, years?). I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to patent something as easy to implement as that for 17 years, or whatever the patent age is. Maybe if the patent system made a bit more sense, we wouldn't be so much against all software patents. It reminds me of the argument that people shouldn't be yelling "SOPA" everytime a slightly dangerous law appears, because in the end the whole protest thing loses its effectiveness. In the same way Apple and others shouldn't file for a "patent" everytime they work for a few hours on something. But the system shouldn't allow these type of patents in the first place, otherwise there will be companies to take advantage of it.

danilocampos 14y ago
> I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to patent something as easy to implement as that for 17 years, or whatever the patent age is. If it was so "easy", why wasn't it invented a long time ago?
- dave_sullivan 14y ago
  Yes, ease of implementation is the wrong way to evaluate patents. However, I don't see the real benefit of apple (or others) having patents like this. If they could not patent it, I think they would have included it in their product anyway. It's a cool feature. They got a head start. That's the value of creating something new--a head start. Things move too fast for there to be any real benefit to the general good by granting monopolies for 17 years. People will still create things because you can make a lot of money with a head start, particularly if you're the type of person/company that can maintain that lead by continuing to build great products without resorting to monopoly tactics. The dropdown menu is a good example where I don't see much difference between a dropdown menu and pinch to zoom.
- kryptiskt 14y ago
  It was invented long ago, one of the reasons that Apple lost the patent was that there was prior art.
- jhaglund 14y ago
  IIRC, early touch screens were resistive, rather than capacitive, which didn't support multi-touch. without multitouch, no pinch. the interface has existed in movies for a long time and it just took bringing down the cost of capacitive touch screens. If Apple chooses, their size and market following allow them to bring tech to the consumer faster. That's why they got pinch to zoom first, not because of clever innovation.
  - ars 14y ago
    It's a nice theory, but resistive supports multi-touch just fine. (Although I'm not sure that any shipping products back then actually supported it - but it's certainly possible to do it with resistive.)
    - elpool2 14y ago
      But we're not talking about a patent on multi-touch, we're talking about pinch-to-zoom. I'm sure its very difficult to make a good multi-touch screen, especially one small, efficient, and precise enough to use on a smartphone. But once you have good a good multi-touch screen, it doesn't seem that hard to implement a pinch gesture. Every single demo of a multi-touch interface I've ever seen (even from before 2007) has had some sort of pinch-to-zoom gesture, it seems to be one of the first things everyone thinks of doing once you've got the capability in the hardware.
cmelbye 14y ago
You obviously misunderstand patents, as they have absolutely nothing to do with how easy something is to implement. They're awarded to companies that take risks, research, and invent something new. It's a fundamental mistake to write off a "simple" invention as easy to come up with, obvious, a no-brainer, etc. Simplicity is difficult.
- felipeko 14y ago
  You're the one misunderstanding. A big company don't take any risk to file a patent, it's a few thousand of dollars and a few lawyer hours, and that's chump change for them. And that's a great sum for the small guy. That's why you see companies like IBM, Samsung, Microsft and Apple patenting the hell out of everything[1]. It's actually a great defense move (so, yeah, it's the inverse of risk) and sometimes take no research (just lawyers and money). There are some patents that USPTO keeps rejecting from Apple, and Apple just changes the wording and try again[2] (no small guy can afford that) until they finally get the patent. Such a wonderfully new researched and risky idea shouldn't take more than one try on the USPTO, don't you think? Sources: [1] A Patent Warrior’s Education: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo... [2] The Patent Bureaucracy: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r= http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo...
  - cmelbye 14y ago
    Obviously I'm not referring to the process of handing in a patent application when I talk about risk. I'm referring to the process of inventing the invention that's patented, which presumably takes a lot of time and money in R&D.
    - prodigal_erik 14y ago
      Patents are not rewards for invention. They are compensation for willingly disclosing what would otherwise remain trade secrets. That's why the application has to describe the invention in enough detail for others to implement it (not merely recognize it) and why it must have been kept secret until the examiner's decision.

jallmann 14y ago

Older Android browsers (<= 2.2) had a two-part button, for zooming in and out. One tap, no menus involved. I much prefer this since I can hold the phone and zoom with one hand, using my thumb. Google Maps for Android has something nearly identical with the +/- buttons. I've yet to find another browser that implements this behavior (Android 2.3 removed it for whatever reason). Pinch-to-zoom has always felt gimmicky in comparison. Having to use two hands is annoying.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
cmelbye 14y ago
I actually never mentioned Android in my comment, I was merely stating that zooming functionality generally worked like that prior to iPhone. For example, on Blackberry, Pocket PC, etc.
wlesieutre 14y ago
Google Maps for iOS lets you double tap and drag up/down to zoom. It's a pretty nice implementation, just harder to discover.
- vidarh 14y ago
  Google Maps does that on Android too.
untog 14y ago
Gimmicky might be a stretch, but I genuinely can't think of the last time I used pinch to zoom. When browsing a double-tap zooms to the width of the element you're tapping, which is perfect.

tobyjsullivan 14y ago

And if Apple had their way (and their patent) we would still be tapping that magnifying glass because nobody else could feature pinch-to-zoom. And I'm not convinced Apple would license that IP to Samsung.

cmelbye 14y ago
The first part of your comment depends entirely on the unfounded accusation you made in the second part of your comment. ("I'm not convinced Apple would license that IP to Samsung.") Apple has licensed patents to competitors in the past, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't in this case.