Apple have been 'inventing' again...

[LosOjos]

So, MP3 players with usable scroll wheel interfaces and music stores that were usable as well as and capacitive touch full-touchscreen, actually usable phones and tablets were well implemented prior to the iPod, iPhone and iPad? OK. I'm sure you were referring to other things.

 

Well I didn't name any of those things but it's interesting that you choose those as they are perfect examples I think. Apple didn't 'invent' any one of those products, they took existing products and undeniably gave them a good polish, which is fine. To then claim they invented those products is both false and a huge two fingers up to the many, many developers before them who put in the work to get those early products to market, products which Apple's R&D team could use as a basis to say "this is what's wrong with these, this is how we can improve them." Again, it's the audacity of Apple's marketing that causes such strong reactions from the tech community at large.

 

Most of the time, Apple doesn't bring out something entirely new. They just bring out something that works better than what came before it. Sometimes much better, sometimes only a little. There were plenty of music players before the iPhone and there were even touchscreen phones and PDAs years before the iPhone. It's just that no one had hit upon just the right implementation and interface before Apple brought their products to market. Remember mobile web browsing before the iPhone - wow, it was horrible. Now, very good.

 

Finally, we agree on something! You're quite right, Apple did improve the UI on a lot of early smartphones and tablets. But an improvement is not an invention, and therein lies the problem.

 

But, based on your line of thinking then Microsoft, Google, Blackberry, Sony, and Ericsson are also patent trolls.

 

Yes, that is correct, they've all done their fair share of patent trolling. I never claimed otherwise. This thread started as a reaction to Apple's latest round of patent trolling (potentially) though, hence them being named in the OP.

 

That being the case, is the real problem that Apple (and other companies) are "stealing" ideas; or, is it a messed up patent system? I think it's a messed up patent system and that tech companies have been forced to play this game.

 

Oh yeah the buck definitely stops with the current patent laws, no doubt about that.

 

I think the reason a lot more people get angry when Apple do this as opposed to others, is that Apple have then gone in the past to advertise these 'new' technologies as their own, duping people in to buying in to technology Apple did nothing but polish.

[tmcd35]

It's interesting how eat-up and anti- people become over successful companies. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, IBM. Whatever happened to "the device does what I need it to do and suits my needs". Does it matter if Apple "invented" the touch screen interface or not? Really?

 

The key thing with Apple is that they are a design company, a boutique label, more prosumer than consumer. They've never really been a mass market outfit prior to the iPhone and I don't think they were necessarily aiming for mass market appeal when they developed the iPhone (certainly not at that price any way).

 

What Apple have always been good at is taking good ideas from elsewhere. Maybe improving on them slightly. Combining them with other good ideas and in the process coming up with something evolutionarily better than what had been available before.

 

The iPhone is a good case in point. Not the first MP3 player, not the first Smartphone, not the first touchscreen phone, not the first PDA. Hell, even the UI was largely ripped from PalmOS. But they where the first to bring all the components together in one compelling package with a design flair other companies rarely match.

 

Credit were credit is due.

 

If the original developers of "transparent texting" are that bothered by Apples patenting then they can always (try and) do something about it. I'm buying Android next time because, to my mind, UI and case designs of only caught up with Apple in high end devices in the past 18 months or so - and Android is cheaper.

 

Personally I think all this Apple bashing is just a load of old nonsense based on little more than a total misunderstanding of Apple as a company. It's simple - they're not Android and don't want to be. Same can be said about the silly Internet fanboyism and company bashing that goes on for most of the really successful IT firms.

 

On a related note I think software patents are the scourge of the IT industry and should be banned! Apple, Samsung, Google, Microsoft all seem to be constantly in court these days trying to extract royalties from all sundry based on little more than the contents of a few IF statements.

[SovietRussia]

Hey we all know Android had "Pull down the notification screen" before iOS did.

[seawolf]

Hey we all know Android had "Pull down the notification screen" before iOS did.

 

Yes, but we all know Android also would have looked like the Blackberry if the iPhone had never existed.

[Pottsey]

Just wait till people say Apple invented “ray tracing” just because they will most likely be one of the first to implant it in mobiles.

[featured_spectre]

Yes, but we all know Android also would have looked like the Blackberry if the iPhone had never existed.

 

Can I point out that androids first public release was September 2008 as its own OS from google, but the OS was formed shortly after the Android company was formed (before the google buyout), in 2003, they just couldn't find anyone willing to release a phone with a touchscreen and an untested OS, so developed the OS for digital cameras and had to wait for the phones.

 

Its first phone iteration was then adopted by LG in 2005 (shortly before the google buyout) and frankly bastardised into the LG FlashUI OS which was on the LG Prada in 2006. So how you can say that the OS would have looked like blackberry, when in fact it was its own legit OS for LG, which looked nothing like blackberry, BEFORE the iPhone was announced, I will never know

Edited April 1, 2014 by featured_spectre

[seawolf]

So how you can say that the OS would have looked like blackberry

 

Perhaps because the prototypes of Android before Apple announced the iPhone seemed to strongly copy the Blackberry OS:

 

Android: Before and After the iPhone | TechnoBuffalo

What Android Looked Like Right Before the iPhone Launched

 

...when in fact it was its own legit OS for LG, which looked nothing like blackberry, BEFORE the iPhone was announced, I will never know

 

Settling this iPhone vs. LG Prada Nonsense

 

My bad, back in 2005/2006 Android looked like Palm OS not the Blackberry...back when Palm was making a little traction. Except, then they were mimicking the Blackberry in 2006/2007 when the Blackberry was popular. But, then they decided to mimic the iPhone interface when that was announced. Android is certainly a chameleon I'll give you that.

 

All the while, iOS for all of its changes still strongly resembles that of the original iPhone. For good or bad, Apple has remained pretty steady in its approach to OS development. No one can claim they are like a ship being tossed to and fro as fickle consumer tastes change (so far).

[localzuk]

I think you're missing a slight issue here - no-one wanted to build a touchscreen phone - it was a huge risk, so they went with what people would build. Apple changed that by making other manufacturers want to build a touchscreen device. Android could then do what they actually wanted to do.

[sted]

I think you're missing a slight issue here - no-one wanted to build a touchscreen phone - it was a huge risk, so they went with what people would build. Apple changed that by making other manufacturers want to build a touchscreen device. Android could then do what they actually wanted to do.

 

apart from the windows phone 6 htc i had (first example i could think of) that was pre iphone

[featured_spectre]

So was the LG Prada (iPhone was released in 2007, Prada was released in 2006)

 

*edit*

 

Prada was released to tech review sites in December 2006, and on sale in January 2007

iPhone was released to tech review sites in March 2007, and on sale in June 2007

Edited April 1, 2014 by featured_spectre

[seawolf]

I think you're missing a slight issue here - no-one wanted to build a touchscreen phone - it was a huge risk, so they went with what people would build. Apple changed that by making other manufacturers want to build a touchscreen device. Android could then do what they actually wanted to do.

 

Fortune favours the bold.

[localzuk]

Having a 1 or 2 touchscreen phones on the market doesn't negate the point - they were niche products. They were a risk. Not to mention the difference between resistive and capacitative screens for an end user.

 

Fortune favours the bold.

 

Fortune favours those with lots of money in the bank.

Edited April 1, 2014 by localzuk

[seawolf]

Having a 1 or 2 touchscreen phones on the market doesn't negate the point - they were niche products. They were a risk. Not to mention the difference between resistive and capacitative screens for an end user.

 

Fortune favours those with lots of money in the bank.

 

You do realise Apple did not have "lots of money in the bank" in early 2007 compared to other phone companies. Blackberry had 1.5 times the revenue of Apple, Nokia had over 3 times the revenue of Apple in 2006 - Revenue for Apple (AAPL) 2006 - Wikinvest

 

So, if anything Nokia should have been as bold as a drunken sailor...

[localzuk]

OK. As you still seem to be missing my point.

 

The tiny little company making Android comes along, designing an OS that it thinks is the future. They believe touchscreen phones are the future. They're small and have basically no money.

 

They go to phone manufacturers, who have a traditional phone selling style. They have their own OS implementations and ecosystems. They are risk averse as they don't want to lose their current dominant positions with something new. They tell the little start-up "we're not going to make a touchscreen phone".

 

So, the little company has to adjust and creates an OS that fits with those companies' existing styles and eco-systems.

 

End result, even though Android was innovative and future thinking, they were hamstrung by not having a) money or b) companies wanting to risk their own money.

 

That changed when someone came along called Google, who has bucket loads of money and could work with a manufacturer to get their work out there.

 

The point is this - Apple did not invent the touchscreen phone. They didn't invent the user friendly UI for such devices either. They merely managed to market them well, polish them well and beat the competition by being cool.

Edited April 1, 2014 by localzuk

[Bananas]

and lets be honest Apple always had a following before they were cool and trendy in a way that no company mass producing x86 PCs could ever manage

[edutech4schools]

Perhaps because the prototypes of Android before Apple announced the iPhone seemed to strongly copy the Blackberry OS:

 

Android: Before and After the iPhone | TechnoBuffalo

What Android Looked Like Right Before the iPhone Launched

 

To me it looks like the software on those older phones is still Android, its just they have hardware keyboards and different hardware, which lets face it has, its always been a selling point that you can choose different hardware in your phone if using Android.

[seawolf]

OK. As you still seem to be missing my point.

 

The tiny little company making Android comes along, designing an OS that it thinks is the future. They believe touchscreen phones are the future. They're small and have basically no money.

 

They go to phone manufacturers, who have a traditional phone selling style. They have their own OS implementations and ecosystems. They are risk averse as they don't want to lose their current dominant positions with something new. They tell the little start-up "we're not going to make a touchscreen phone".

 

So, the little company has to adjust and creates an OS that fits with those companies' existing styles and eco-systems.

 

Hmmm. I'm thinking that I had a Handspring "phone" back in the day called 2002 (still have it today and it still works, along with the niftiest little Targus folding keyboard you've ever seen). The Handspring was an offshoot of the Palm devices, which had a touchscreen in the Treo 650 in 2004. So, I'm not sure how innovative or original the company that originally made Android was as they were "standing on the shoulders" of others just like most other people before them.

 

Oh, and there was that Newton thing that Apple started in 1987, which was a pre-cursor to the PDA that came to market a decade later. It's interesting how so many things are forgotten with the passage of time. Or, perhaps it's just selective memory. I don't know, I forget...

 

End result, even though Android was innovative and future thinking, they were hamstrung by not having a) money or b) companies wanting to risk their own money.

 

That changed when someone came along called Google, who has bucket loads of money and could work with a manufacturer to get their work out there.

 

Hmmm. It seems that Google actually played it pretty safe after buying Android in 2005 as in 2006/2007 their prototypes looked for all the world like a Blackberry.

 

The point is this - Apple did not invent the touchscreen phone. They didn't invent the user friendly UI for such devices either. They merely managed to market them well, polish them well and beat the competition by being cool.

 

You are correct, the touch screen was invented in 1971 and I used many variants of touchscreens in defence and retail applications in the 80s, 90s, etc.

 

Apple did however do a great deal toward perfecting the implementation and UI for touchscreens and bring it to mass market. Before the iPhone they were mostly lacking, non-responsive, and sucky. So, when did Apple (or I) ever imply that Apple invented the touchscreen? Interested to know so I can redact that remark.

[localzuk]

The entire thread is about Apple claiming to invent things!!!

[LosOjos]

The entire thread is about Apple claiming to invent things!!!

 

Another good one, in Steve Jobs' key note speech announcing the iPhone back in 2007, he claims that Apple invented multi-touch; completely untrue. The term has been around since the 70s, various proof of concept designs and many different prototypes also existed long before the iPhone. On top of all this, Apple didn't even 'invent' the specific multi-touch screen in the iPhone; it was made by a company called Fingerworks, whom Apple acquired in 2005.

[seawolf]

The entire thread is about Apple claiming to invent things!!!

 

Actually, what Apple most often says is that it "reinvented" or "reimagined" a product or feature.

 

https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/09Apple-Reinvents-the-Phone-with-iPhone.html

 

Not my shirt, BTW.

[seawolf]

Another good one, in Steve Jobs' key note speech announcing the iPhone back in 2007, he claims that Apple invented multi-touch; completely untrue.

 

Is that what he said, or did he claim the first multitouch interface on a phone? I think it was the latter. In any case, the patent office has validated Apple's multitouch patents - FOSS Patents: U.S. patent office confirmed all 20 claims of the Steve Jobs patent: bad for Samsung, Google

 

Like or hate the patent system. These patents were challenged and have been found to be valid after a thorough review.

 

On top of all this, Apple didn't even 'invent' the specific multi-touch screen in the iPhone; it was made by a company called Fingerworks, whom Apple acquired in 2005.

 

This doesn't really work for your argument here. If Apple bought the company that made the multi-touch screens two years before the iPhone then that business and its employees were then absorbed into Apple and; therefore, part of Apple did invent or make that technology.

 

Call it semantics if you want, but if we follow this train of though then nothing Microsoft ever did with QDOS to remake it into MS-DOS and later Windows really matters and their claims to be the owners or "inventors" of Windows is made null and void. I'm trying to show how ludicrous some of these whines about Apple really are.

[featured_spectre]

I'm trying to show how ludicrous some of these whines about Apple really are.

 

And in doing so you are showing yourself to be a massive fanboy who wont hear a bad word against Apple, even when the facts are presented. It smacks of being a douche. Because of your fanboyish behaviour (which is worse than how Sony fans are!) you are the first person in my 5.5 years on this site, that I have blocked.

Edited April 1, 2014 by featured_spectre

[synaesthesia]

The problem with Apple has always been bovine excrement. They're really good at it, but that's just another term for marketing/sales.

 

"The world's thinnest laptop". Nope, it wasn't.

"The world's best mobile phone". Nope, it wasn't, plus that was subjective and they were never allowed to run adverts saying that. But did anyway because they could afford to front the legal costs.

"We did x" "We did y". Yes, you did. Jesus apparently walked on water too. It's all subjective. People often forget how much of a ruthless, arrogant, selfish t*** that Jobs was yet still speak about him like he was The Saviour Himself. A bit like Ayrton Senna, but at least he made an effort to changed before dying.

 

Perhaps we should concentrate on the positives. Apple help drive innovation. Usually not them doing it, but they certainly help drive it. Innovation, competition, it all helps.

[seawolf]

And in doing so you are showing yourself to be a massive fanboy who wont hear a bad word against Apple, even when the facts are presented. It smacks of being a douche. Because of your fanboyish behaviour (which is worse than how Sony fans are!) you are the first person in my 5.5 years on this site, that I have blocked.

 

I'm very proud to be the first person you have blocked Nephilim if you have that much difficulty with rational arguments and enjoy calling people names rather than having a decent, hearty discussion.

 

Also, if you weren't just screaming "fanboy" at me all of the time, you might find out that I:

 

1. Never owned any Apple products before 2006, not even an iPod.

2. Have criticism for Apple and others where it is due.

3. Recommended Office 365 and provide advice on Windows networks

4. Offer advice on Exchange migrations and have positive feelings toward Exchange, although it is far from perfect. I also like the Domino back end and web interface, but the clients is oh, so bad.

5. Would love to see an Ubuntu phone take off. and would be among the first in line to buy one to replace my iPhone.

6. Have loads of Unix experience (Solaris, AUX) from the 90s, and a decade of Windows development and/or infrastructure experience from 2002-present.

7. Have been bringing in Chromebooks and have recommended Chromebooks over PCs, Macs, or iPads in some instances.

 

Definitely all the hallmarks of an Apple Fanboy.

Edited April 1, 2014 by seawolf

[LosOjos]

Is that what he said, or did he claim the first multitouch interface on a phone?

 

No, he said "[Apple] have invented a new technology called multi-touch" -

 

In any case, the patent office has validated Apple's multitouch patents - FOSS Patents: U.S. patent office confirmed all 20 claims of the Steve Jobs patent: bad for Samsung, Google

 

Like or hate the patent system. These patents were challenged and have been found to be valid after a thorough review.

 

As I have already said in this thread, the patent system is massively flawed. Rather than protecting the actual invenotrs, all the patent system does is sell the right to sue to the highest bidder. It's a farce. Not saying (nor have I said) that's Apple's fault, but that doesn't excuse Apple's behaviour. By all means buy the patents to protect your company, but chasing people down to sue them over something you know you didn't invent is a dick movbe. Once again I'll say I am not saying Apple are the only people to do this, but this thread was started because Apple are acting likes dicks again. I do not accept "everyone else does it" as a defence, this is not a playground.

 

This doesn't really work for your argument here. If Apple bought the company that made the multi-touch screens two years before the iPhone then that business and its employees were then absorbed into Apple and; therefore, part of Apple did invent or make that technology.

 

It works perfectly for my argument; Apple didn't invent half the things they claim they did, they just bought up the patents to give them the legal power to make these claims and sue others for using them. Once again, flawed patent system, douchebag lawyers (are you seeing a pattern yet?)

 

Call it semantics if you want, but if we follow this train of though then nothing Microsoft ever did with QDOS to remake it into MS-DOS and later Windows really matters and their claims to be the owners or "inventors" of Windows is made null and void. I'm trying to show how ludicrous some of these whines about Apple really are.

 

I think part of the problem is that you think because I pointed out Apple's dickish behaviour that I'm somehow some other kind of fanboy - I'm not. I'm well aware that Microsoft bought QDOS, did a little tweaking and released it as MSDOS; again, not accepting "they did it so I can" as an argument. Windows is a completely different beast. It may have been built on a DOS core but it added many, many things that DOS wasn't capable of, just as MacOS did with it's nix core.

 

BTW, neither Microsoft nor Apple invented the now universal Windowed desktop interface, Xerox PARC did: PARC (company) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I know Wikipedia isn't the best source of reliable info but it is well documented elsewhere, you only need to Google for more information)