nirvana

22 ms·

241.
by nirvana 14y ago
And yet, repeatedly in its history, Apple has come out with major new inventions, while its competitors seem to just ship the same old stuff. The primary improvement for most PCs has always been the work of Microsoft or Intel, not Dell, HP,
242.
by nirvana 14y ago
This is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of Apple, despite all the misguided gruff they get here. Apple always ships free (or near free) development tools with their systems. In the Apple II days it was built in to the ROMS. Nowadays on
243.
by nirvana 14y ago
You didn't call someone biased, you made a conclusion about the meaning of the word bias, that reflects something we've seen here on HN very often. I was showing you how people on your side of the patent debate use the word, since you were
244.
by nirvana 14y ago
So you're claiming that Apple licensed Palm OS for iOS? Or did you misunderstand what I was claiming?
245.
by nirvana 14y ago
Apple did not license iOS from someone else who invented multi-touch. I was rebutting the claim that they just assembled the iPhone from off the shelf parts, like legos. You're so focused on your ideology that you're making an argument aga
246.
by nirvana 14y ago
So, Apple licensed iOS from another manufacturer? Really? Who was it?[1] That's the only way I could be "wrong about this topic". You didn't even notice that you weren't responding to what I said, but instead knocking down a strawman! And
247.
by nirvana 14y ago
My comment was in reference to iOS which was not hardware and was not off the shelf. Looking at the hardware, much of the hardware in Apple devices is invented or at least designed by Apple. It is custom, not off the shelf. From the A5
248.
by nirvana 14y ago
You're claiming the LG Prada runs an OS that Apple licensed from LG for the iPhone? Do tell. Apple didn't invent iOS? Really? By the way, the LG is not multitouch, it isn't even a smartphone. IF Apple had licensed it -- necessary for t
249.
by nirvana 14y ago
So, you're claiming that Apple licensed their touch UI from a koisk manufacturer? Do tell? Because if you're not saying that you're not being honest about what I said.
250.
by nirvana 14y ago
You're now claiming that Apple licensed the Nintendo DS OS and put it in the iPhone, which is so false I don't believe you believe it, and I suspect you've simply become confused about what the discussion is about. I never said there was ne
251.
by nirvana 14y ago
It is, it is not an off the shelf component that apple just bought and assembled as other people were claiming. I think its funny that people are responding to what I said, pretending I said something else, and then others are attacking me
252.
by nirvana 14y ago
Whether something is obvious or not is irrelevant to this discussion.... the fact of the matter is, Apple created iOS, they didn't license it. The point I made was that Apple created that component, it didn't exist before. It was not off t
253.
by nirvana 14y ago
You misunderstood what I was claiming. I was rebutting the claim that Apple just assembled the iPhone from off the shelf pieces. Some restaurants do have iOS devices in them. For you to claim that Apple didn't invent a touch UI, you would
254.
by nirvana 14y ago
Your third sentence proves the first in the general sense. Prior to the iPhone no such Apple-style multi-touch interface existed. My claim was merely that Apple invented the first Touch UI of that style. Not all touch UIs.
255.
by nirvana 14y ago
>A poster previously in the thread has said that touch screens did not exist before Apple used them; This is a flat out lie. >said that touch must only be fingers. This is also a lie. >Minority Report - 2004 (design ideas, not w
256.
by nirvana 14y ago
Your response is non-responsive. None of these features were stolen in the original Mac UI from 1984 from windows because Windows did not exist in 1984. My point was people were claiming someone "stole" from something that came out later.
257.
by nirvana 14y ago
>"Apple was neither the first to create a multi-touch user interface (the first consumer multitouch device I know of was the Lemur, but I'm sure that was predated) nor the first to put it in a handheld PDA-ish device or a phone (LG beat
258.
by nirvana 14y ago
No good deed goes unpunished. I responded to your insults in a civil manner. But you cannot be civil. I'm not surprised.
259.
by nirvana 14y ago
And thus it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're making the "graham invented the telephone so there was nothing invented to make the cellphone" error.
260.
by nirvana 14y ago
Instructions are advisory. They are meant to help jurors who are unclear of what the law says. However, they are not shackles on the jurors. Jurors are free to ignore them, and should ignore them when justice requires it. For example, Ju
261.
by nirvana 14y ago
> I remember correctly LG beat them to it with the Prada? You remember incorrectly. Regarding the Palm as well. In fact, your claim is a lie. It doesn't rebut the point I am making, and instead is making a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fa
262.
by nirvana 14y ago
The idea that the palm was a touch based UI is simply false. You needed a stylus and the UI was designed for a stylus. You could do some things with fingers and some apps were designed for finger use, where it was appropriate. The reason
263.
by nirvana 14y ago
Funny how anyone posting on here who doesn't take a stridently anti-Apple position is accused of being "biased" (even when making ideologically neutral comments, I saw the other day)... yet pointing out that an agenda driven site, which has
264.
by nirvana 14y ago
Yes, and the telephone existed before cellphones, but that doesn't mean the cellphone wasn't innovative. Your argument doesn't address the point, and is a bullshit rationalization for a claim you can't support. I refuse to believe you are
265.
by nirvana 14y ago
Right and Graham invented the telephone so there was no inventions going into making the cellphone.
266.
by nirvana 14y ago
Right, given the flammability of wood, fire was an obvious next step. This is nonsense. It is just rejecting innovation out of hand by claiming that it was obvious. Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
267.
by nirvana 14y ago
>"Microsoft developed the "old" Surface .. at the same time Apple was working on the iPhone. Both were released in very early 2007... had multitouch UIs of the type you seem to think are so innovative. " >"Both arrived at these sol
268.
by nirvana 14y ago
The device you linked to has a touchscreen and a UI, but it is simply a desktop widgets and metaphors with the minimal adaptations necessary to make it work with a touch screen. None of the key metaphors or widgets Apple developed for iOS a
269.
by nirvana 14y ago
None of those have a touch based UI. Touch means finger touches. Very different from a stylus which is only touching one or two pixels at a time. This is very easy to sense because the stylus pushes two layers together physically and eff
270.
by nirvana 14y ago
You're confusing utility and design patents. They are different things and have different purposes and requirements. Really, you're not the only one, but it is shameful that at this point in time so many people still don't know what patents

More ›