TRUE innovation...

[Nashton]

Not rehashing old tech and piggybacking on past success.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8lScHO2mM0

[Sandman]

In article <kmdeqk$lrb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.com>
wrote:

> Not rehashing old tech and piggybacking on past success.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8lScHO2mM0

Yeah, Google Glass is some really true innovation. No one thought about
this before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flvd5gVT7fg


Get ready to have "gl" prepended to your normal "nickname" a lot.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Gary]

On 2013-05-08 12:01:26 +0000, Nashton said:

> Not rehashing old tech and piggybacking on past success.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8lScHO2mM0

Did you link this sarcastically Nashton.


Google said they had the new email for the future "google wave" and
that failed before it came out.

This is another terrible idea and i'll explain my thoughts behind saying this:

1. $1500 for a pair of glasses that do nothing by themselves?

2. $40 dollars for tethering which you need to use with your phone in
order for the glasses to be functional.

3. cant slip them in your pocket, have to use a special bag.

4. Anyone wearing them looks like a complete dick.

5. These are not for everyday use as you cant use while driving, riding
a bike, jogging for instance. If im jogging down the street and trying
to read an email then im not looking where im going and BANG, lamp post
hits you in the face.

If i dont have bad eyesight then i dont want to have to wear glasses.
There are easier ways to read an email like on the phone you have to
have in your pocket.

Google are trying something and i applaud them for it but i think this
is an experiment for them rather than a mass market product.

[Alan Baker]

In article <518aaf44$0$31382$c3e8da3$ff95...@news.astraweb.com>,

What's more, even if Niklas understands that this is an experiment (and
experimentation is often innovative) what he doesn't get is that Apple
does its experimentation internally and quietly.

Fact is: the iPhone and iOS are very innovative. The proof is in the sea
change that they brought to the smartphone market. Whether the trolls
like to admit it or not, the smartphones that we have now all look a LOT
like iPhones running iOS.

:-)

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Flint]

It's rather hard NOT to look like a flat rectangle with rounded
corners and a embedded panel displaying icons. Real innovative stuff
there...

--
MFB

[KDT]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:01:26 AM UTC-4, Nashton wrote:
> Not rehashing old tech and piggybacking on past success.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8lScHO2mM0

Hypocrite

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/foxconn-soars-on-google-s-motorola-deal.html

[Nashton]

bakr the liar par excellence, is implying that Apple has even more
innovative goodies up its sleeve, which can be possible, but since
Apple's inspirational muse and leader is gone, chances are there is not
much going on for the exception of improving on what has already been
produced under the hermit company's previous leadership.

>>
>> Fact is: the iPhone and iOS are very innovative. The proof is in the sea
>> change that they brought to the smartphone market. Whether the trolls
>> like to admit it or not, the smartphones that we have now all look a LOT
>> like iPhones running iOS.

The smartphone market was already nascent and in full effervescence when
Apple came up with its products.
If anything, it took a lead in mind share because some other companies
rested on their laurels, just as Apple is doing now.

Stick with waving pom poms, liar.

>>
>> :-)
>>
>
> It's rather hard NOT to look like a flat rectangle with rounded corners
> and a embedded panel displaying icons. Real innovative stuff there...

haha.

>

[Nashton]

Can you be more irrelevant?

[Alan Baker]

In article <kmel3g$985$1...@dont-email.me>,

Then why did so few look like that prior to the iPhone, Flint? In fact,
what phones looked liked that prior to the iPhone?

[Alan Baker]

In article <kmf2dd$nn0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.com>
wrote:

Give some examples....

[Alan Baker]

In article <kmf2m4$nn0$3...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.com>
wrote:

You seem to think it a terrible thing that Apple has it's electronics
manufactured by Foxconn...

...but not that anyone else does. Could there be anything MORE
hypocritical?

What are your devices, Niklas, and who makes them?

[ed]

Lg prada

[Flint]

"So few"? So there WERE some that were generic form factor designs,
then?

Or how about Aopen's miniPC(Pandora)? Why didn't Apple go after them?
Answer: because they didn't have a leg to stand on since the Mac
mini was >too< generic and plain jane as mandated by Apple's austere
industrial design ethos. The iPhone was no 'revolutionary' device,
but an >evolutionary< device. Any 'revolutionary' aspect of the
iphone was more of a borrowed idea from RIM's Blackberry. They took
RIM's BBM concept and fleshed it out as an entire ecosystem based on
iOS. It wasn't particularly novel, just feature enhanced over what
was then currently available. Now to Apple's credit, their ecosystem
is very well implemented and supported - better than the world has
ever seen, even over Android or Windows Phone currently is. But for
Apple to have obtained some of the design patents they have in the
iphone/ipad/iOS ecosystem is just beyond the pale and is little more
than anticompetitive, period. Apple doesn't 'own' any generic form
factor they may have popularized, because much of the key technologies
going into their product is based on existing technologies as it is,
and the rest of the tech industry is moving in parallel towards the
same design goal targets, even if a tad more slowly.

--
MFB

[Sandman]

In article <kmel3g$985$1...@dont-email.me>,
Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> > Fact is: the iPhone and iOS are very innovative. The proof is in the sea
> > change that they brought to the smartphone market. Whether the trolls
> > like to admit it or not, the smartphones that we have now all look a LOT
> > like iPhones running iOS.
>

> It's rather hard NOT to look like a flat rectangle with rounded
> corners

How so? Why is that so hard?

A pre-iPhone smartphone:

<http://www.simplysellular.com/phoneimages/motorola_A1000-big.jpg>

I had one of those!

Another pre-iPhone smartphone:

<http://www.fusiongamez.co.uk/images/Nokia_N95.jpg>

Yep, had that one too!

And before that one, I had this one:

Never had a Communicator, but they were the creme de la creme when it
came to smartphones in Europe at the time:

<http://pdadb.net/img/nokia_9300.jpg>

Now, I'm sure you're just about to say that all of the above is very
very similar to this:

<http://isource.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/iphone-original.jpg>

Not saying that there weren't similar products preceding the phone, but
any fanboy trying to claim that the iPhone didn't influence phone design
worldwide is just incredibly stupid.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <kmfam7$2bf$1...@dont-email.me>,

Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> > Then why did so few look like that prior to the iPhone, Flint? In fact,
> > what phones looked liked that prior to the iPhone?
>
> "So few"? So there WERE some that were generic form factor designs,
> then?

Were they few or were it generic?



--
Sandman[.net]

[Flint]

Oh, I would never make such a claim. The iPhone's influence is quite
obvious, that wasn't in dispute. Alan asked me a question after I
said it is hard to go to ever smaller form factors w/o a real keyboard
using a touchscreen/touchUI and >not< end up with some similar generic
form factor, that's all. That in itself is not 'copying'. The term
'copying' carries a legal connotation as well as a common layman's
meaning. To ask "what phone before the iphone looked like it" is not
an entirely accurate question in the first place. It's function is
besides the point. Touchscreens/touchUI's existed long before the
iPhone. Apple's packaging was indeed innovative, but not
'revolutionary' because it provided no real new technological
underpinnings that weren't already in use elsewhere.
It was a repackaging of existing technologies into a form factor with
functions already provided in other forms of mobile computing.

Evolutionary, yes - revolutionary, no.

--
MFB

[Sandman]

In article <kmhq6a$mi1$1...@dont-email.me>, Flint wrote:

> > > > Alan Baker:

> > > > the iPhone and iOS are very innovative. The proof is in the
> > > > sea change that they brought to the smartphone market. Whether
> > > > the trolls like to admit it or not, the smartphones that we
> > > > have now all look a LOT like iPhones running iOS.

> > > Flint:

> > > It's rather hard NOT to look like a flat rectangle with rounded
> > > corners

> > Sandman:

> > Not saying that there weren't similar products preceding the
> > phone, but any fanboy trying to claim that the iPhone didn't
> > influence phone design worldwide is just incredibly stupid.

> Flint:

> Oh, I would never make such a claim. The iPhone's influence is quite
> obvious, that wasn't in dispute.

So your comment about it being hard not to look like a flat rectangle
with rounded corner is in your mind not at all disputing the claim
that the iPhone design influenced the market? Hmmm, then perhaps you
have an odd way to phrase your claims? Sure looks like a counter point
to me.

> Alan asked me a question after I said it is hard to go to ever
> smaller form factors w/o a real keyboard using a
> touchscreen/touchUI and >not< end up with some similar generic form
> factor, that's all.

I can't seem to find that question in the quoted material from Alan
above, nor in the post to which you replied to here:

<alangbaker-C6EFA...@news.datemas.de>

> That in itself is not 'copying'. The term 'copying' carries a
> legal connotation as well as a common layman's meaning.

If you're talking about "legal sense" then you're talking about
*copyright* (trade mark) and *patents*, which ironically Apple do hold
for their hardware design. So in a strictly legal sense, others were
most definitely *copying* Apple. Now, I think patent laws are stupid,
so I don't care about that very much.

The "layman's" meaning of copy is "influenced by" or "inspired by" if
we ignore flat out 1:1 copy (like chinese knock offs of famous
brands), and you have already agreed that the industry was heavily
influenced by the iPhone.

> To ask "what phone before the iphone looked like it" is not an
> entirely accurate question in the first place. It's function is
> besides the point. Touchscreens/touchUI's existed long before the
> iPhone. Apple's packaging was indeed innovative, but not
> 'revolutionary' because it provided no real new technological
> underpinnings that weren't already in use elsewhere.

The word in question is "innovative", though. Not "revolutionary". The
iPhone was a revolutionary phone - no doubt, but not only because of
its design, but because it was the first product that actually
combined many devices into one. Prior to the iPhone, surfing the web
from the palm of your hand was not a pleasant experience. There were
no mobile web browsers that actually worked good. Mobile Safari was a
revolution in every sense of the word.

Before the iPhone, we had Nokia N800 for an "internet device", we had
iPods for music, we had Palm pilots for organizing, we had Playstation
Portable for gaming and Tom Tom units for navigation. While not all
were replaced from day one (GPS and gaming came with the 3G and the
App Store), the iPhone brought that to the table. No one used Windows
mobiles for everything-devices, no one used Nokias for
everything-devices. The iPhone was the first. And that was
revolutionary.

> It was a repackaging of existing technologies into a form factor
> with functions already provided in other forms of mobile computing.
>
> Evolutionary, yes - revolutionary, no.

Then you're using the word incorrectly. Something being
"revolutionary" means that it is involved with or causing a complete
or dramatic change. The original Mac did that. The iPod did that. The
iTunes store did that. The iPad did that. And the iPhone most
certainly did that.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 09.05.2013 09:09, Alan Baker wrote:
>> It's rather hard NOT to look like a flat rectangle with rounded
>> >corners and a embedded panel displaying icons. Real innovative stuff
>> >there...
> Then why did so few look like that prior to the iPhone, Flint? In fact,
> what phones looked liked that prior to the iPhone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon
... in 1994!

But I would not dispute that the iPhone was innovative. Not through the
look, but mainly through the deliberate choice of the capacitive glass
display, whereas all others had the resistive display with a soft,
scratch sensitive, surface.
I required chutzpah to make that imprecise capacitive technology
user-friendly.


--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)

[Flint]

On 5/10/2013 1:06 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <kmhq6a$mi1$1...@dont-email.me>, Flint wrote:
>
>>>>> Alan Baker:
>>>>> the iPhone and iOS are very innovative. The proof is in the
>>>>> sea change that they brought to the smartphone market. Whether
>>>>> the trolls like to admit it or not, the smartphones that we
>>>>> have now all look a LOT like iPhones running iOS.
>
>>>> Flint:
>>>> It's rather hard NOT to look like a flat rectangle with rounded
>>>> corners
>
>>> Sandman:
>>> Not saying that there weren't similar products preceding the
>>> phone, but any fanboy trying to claim that the iPhone didn't
>>> influence phone design worldwide is just incredibly stupid.
>
>> Flint:
>> Oh, I would never make such a claim. The iPhone's influence is quite
>> obvious, that wasn't in dispute.
>
> So your comment about it being hard not to look like a flat rectangle
> with rounded corner is in your mind not at all disputing the claim
> that the iPhone design influenced the market? Hmmm, then perhaps you
> have an odd way to phrase your claims? Sure looks like a counter point
> to me.

I suppose I can understand why it might seem that way to you, but in
reality, it was more of a pre-erection of a defense towards an
argument I was anticipating from Alan based on a debate he and I had a
while back as to just what is illegal 'copying'

>
>> Alan asked me a question after I said it is hard to go to ever
>> smaller form factors w/o a real keyboard using a
>> touchscreen/touchUI and >not< end up with some similar generic form
>> factor, that's all.
>
> I can't seem to find that question in the quoted material from Alan
> above, nor in the post to which you replied to here:
>
> <alangbaker-C6EFA...@news.datemas.de>
>
>> That in itself is not 'copying'. The term 'copying' carries a
>> legal connotation as well as a common layman's meaning.
>
> If you're talking about "legal sense" then you're talking about
> *copyright* (trade mark) and *patents*, which ironically Apple do hold
> for their hardware design. So in a strictly legal sense, others were
> most definitely *copying* Apple. Now, I think patent laws are stupid,
> so I don't care about that very much.

I don't think patent laws are stupid, but stupidly applied. For
example, patents should never be granted for things of predominately
aesthetic value. As a believer in the old 'form follows function'
adage, I feel copyright law is better suited and more applicable
to/for design protections. But patents? No way...

The iPhone didn't do that by itself, however. It has the support of a
software ecosystem, the other side of the 'coin'. Without it, the
iPhone is little more than a shiny playtoy thingie. Any real, true
innovation lies behind/underneath in support of the iphone, and not
quite so much just the iphone itself. The innovation lies in a mobile
OS/iTunes/app store that supports it as well as iPads, and if things
keep going the way they seem to be heading, quite possibly Macs as
well eventually.



--
MFB

[Sandman]

In article <kmi85f$c9q$1...@dont-email.me>,

Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:

> > So your comment about it being hard not to look like a flat rectangle
> > with rounded corner is in your mind not at all disputing the claim
> > that the iPhone design influenced the market? Hmmm, then perhaps you
> > have an odd way to phrase your claims? Sure looks like a counter point
> > to me.
>
> I suppose I can understand why it might seem that way to you, but in
> reality, it was more of a pre-erection of a defense towards an
> argument I was anticipating from Alan based on a debate he and I had a
> while back as to just what is illegal 'copying'

Ah, so you didn't mean it then.

> >> Alan asked me a question after I said it is hard to go to ever
> >> smaller form factors w/o a real keyboard using a
> >> touchscreen/touchUI and >not< end up with some similar generic form
> >> factor, that's all.
> >
> > I can't seem to find that question in the quoted material from Alan
> > above, nor in the post to which you replied to here:
> >
> > <alangbaker-C6EFA...@news.datemas.de>

No help finding that supposed question?

> > If you're talking about "legal sense" then you're talking about
> > *copyright* (trade mark) and *patents*, which ironically Apple do hold
> > for their hardware design. So in a strictly legal sense, others were
> > most definitely *copying* Apple. Now, I think patent laws are stupid,
> > so I don't care about that very much.
>
> I don't think patent laws are stupid, but stupidly applied.

Or rather, stupidly enforced.

> For example, patents should never be granted for things of
> predominately aesthetic value. As a believer in the old 'form
> follows function' adage, I feel copyright law is better suited and
> more applicable to/for design protections. But patents? No way...

Agreed.

> > Then you're using the word incorrectly. Something being
> > "revolutionary" means that it is involved with or causing a complete
> > or dramatic change. The original Mac did that. The iPod did that. The
> > iTunes store did that. The iPad did that. And the iPhone most
> > certainly did that.
>
> The iPhone didn't do that by itself, however. It has the support of a
> software ecosystem, the other side of the 'coin'.

Huh? The software ecosystem of the original iPhone was most certainly
part of the iPhone. The App Store came a year later and wasn't really
a revolution until several months after that.

> Without it, the iPhone is little more than a shiny playtoy thingie.

You mean that without software, any software at all, the iPhone isn't
much? Well, that's true, but what does that have to do with anything?
The original iPhone, with its software, was revolutionary though.

> Any real, true innovation lies behind/underneath in support of the
> iphone, and not quite so much just the iphone itself.

Not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make here to
counter the fact that the iPhone was revolutionary when it was
released.

> The innovation lies in a mobile OS/iTunes/app store that supports
> it as well as iPads

The iPhone was revolutionary before the App Store, though. The App
Store in itself was revolutionary as well as we all know.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 10.05.2013 09:42, Flint wrote:
> I suppose I can understand why it might seem that way to you, but in

> reality, it was more of a pre-erection...

;-)

[Gary]

You like to believe this Nashton and im sure every company was just
about to release their big 'rock the world handsets ' when , the day
before they were going to Apple released theirs and these other
companies forgot to release their efforts untill over a year later.


How are Apple resting on their laurels?

Are you expecting weekly product releases Nashton or are you just
moaning cause you cant wait to see Apple's next big selling device?

[jay birdsong]

"Gary" wrote in message
news:518eb39f$0$37953$c3e8da3$c8fb...@news.astraweb.com...

What? WTF are you babbling about?!

A year behind and they pulled past Apple.

>How are Apple resting on their laurels?

They is doing it all rights.

>Are you expecting weekly product releases Nashton or are you just
>moaning cause you cant wait to see Apple's next big selling device?

We can't wait. It should be hugely comical to see the big coming
flop.

[Gary]

Apple is owning every company, get used to it.

>
>
>> How are Apple resting on their laurels?
>
> They is doing it all rights.

great, good things come to those who wait.

>
>
>> Are you expecting weekly product releases Nashton or are you just
>> moaning cause you cant wait to see Apple's next big selling device?
>
>
> We can't wait. It should be hugely comical to see the big coming flop.

wont be long now, keep calm

[Gary]

what?

were going from iphone to mac mini?

The mac mini does not have to be more than what it is.

It's simplicity is the key, plain and simple. Just the way Apple do it.

Rims OS was ok when BB was all the rage but they died a death when they
did not move forward. No point in mentioning Rim anymore, they are at
the bottom now.

[Gary]

On 2013-05-09 07:11:18 +0000, Alan Baker said:

> In article <kmf2m4$nn0$3...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-08 8:47 PM, KDT wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:01:26 AM UTC-4, Nashton wrote:
>>>> Not rehashing old tech and piggybacking on past success.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8lScHO2mM0
>>>
>>> Hypocrite
>>>
>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/foxconn-soars-on-google-s-motorola-
>>> deal.html
>>>
>>
>> Can you be more irrelevant?
>
> You seem to think it a terrible thing that Apple has it's electronics
> manufactured by Foxconn...
>
> ...but not that anyone else does. Could there be anything MORE
> hypocritical?
>
> What are your devices, Niklas, and who makes them?

LOL, i think i said this before Alan, nothing is said about the other
manufacturers who use foxconn.

Even if Apple made all their products themselves in the US they would
still moan.

[Alan Baker]

In article <64f7152a-eebf-4d67...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> > > It's rather hard NOT to look like a flat rectangle with rounded
> > > corners and a embedded panel displaying icons. Real innovative stuff
> > > there...
> >
> > Then why did so few look like that prior to the iPhone, Flint? In fact,
> > what phones looked liked that prior to the iPhone?

> Lg prada

It was announced before the iPhone, but the first images of it were not
seen until AFTER the iPhone was shown.

" An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on
January 18, 2007.[1]"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada>

Who's to say what it was going to like before the iPhone was announced?

And this is the image they showed:

<http://web.archive.org/web/20070618091552/http://www.lge.com/about/press
/photo_popup.jsp?path=/download/general/press/front%20flat1_2007011810424
0.jpg>

Can you even be certain that at that time--a little more than a week
after Jobs first showed an actual iPhone--the image was of an actual
phone?

[Alan Baker]

In article <kmhvaf$8ar$1...@tota-refugium.de>,

Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> On 09.05.2013 09:09, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> It's rather hard NOT to look like a flat rectangle with rounded
> >> >corners and a embedded panel displaying icons. Real innovative stuff
> >> >there...
> > Then why did so few look like that prior to the iPhone, Flint? In fact,
> > what phones looked liked that prior to the iPhone?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon
> ... in 1994!

LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLLOLOLL

>
> But I would not dispute that the iPhone was innovative. Not through the
> look, but mainly through the deliberate choice of the capacitive glass
> display, whereas all others had the resistive display with a soft,
> scratch sensitive, surface.
> I required chutzpah to make that imprecise capacitive technology
> user-friendly.

--

[ed]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:31:20 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <64f7152a-eebf-4d67...@googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > It's rather hard NOT to look like a flat rectangle with rounded
> > > > corners and a embedded panel displaying icons. Real innovative stuff
> > > > there...
>
> > > Then why did so few look like that prior to the iPhone, Flint? In fact,
> > > what phones looked liked that prior to the iPhone?
>
> > Lg prada
>
> It was announced before the iPhone, but the first images of it were not
> seen until AFTER the iPhone was shown.

incorrect. engadget announced it winning the International Forum Design Product Design Award for 2007 on dec 15 2006, and the announcement included a picture (and obviously the awarders had seen it before then).

> " An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on
> January 18, 2007.[1]"
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada>

did you ignore the part of rhat that same article that said "Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006."

> Who's to say what it was going to like before the iPhone was announced?

engadget showed this device on dec 15, announcing it had won the International Forum Design Product Design Award for 2007, so it was clear that this was a design that was seen by others already and not changed to look like the iphone after the iphone announcement.

http://www.engadget.com/topics/mobile/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocolate/

> And this is the image they showed:
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20070618091552/http://www.lge.com/about/press
> /photo_popup.jsp?path=/download/general/press/front%20flat1_2007011810424
> 0.jpg>
>
> Can you even be certain that at that time--a little more than a week
> after Jobs first showed an actual iPhone--the image was of an actual
> phone?

nope, but it's clear that the design was shown before the iphone.

[John Slade]

On 5/8/2013 5:01 AM, Nashton wrote:
> Not rehashing old tech and piggybacking on past success.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8lScHO2mM0

Apple is being left in the dust when it comes to innovation.
Samsung is the real innovator now. I look at their SmartTV
technology that has voice, motion and remote control. Touch
screen remotes. Basically their TVs are now computers with apps.
This is why Apple is not going to come out with a TV, everything
has been done by other companies.

John