#360: Some comments

[Karsten Silz]

Tor: "Android didn't copy the iPhone"
If we can believe Gizmodo, then the first Android prototypes looked
like Blackberries before Android started following the iPhone (http://
random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-before-and-
after-the-launch-of-iphone). To me, there's nothing wrong with being a
"fast follower" as Google is - and Apple certainly copies from other
sources, too (iOS 5 is full of this). Bonus point: Tablets didn't all
look like that certain tablet either (http://twitpic.com/67ykpa).

Dick: "How many different ways are there to present icons and buttons
and pixels on a screen"
Look no further than Microsoft Zune music player / Windows Phone 7:
That does look unlike anything else on smartphones (http://
www.riagenic.com/archives/487). Of all companies, Microsoft with a
innovative UI - the irony!

Dick: "Apple started the smartphone patent wars"
Nokia started it - they sued Apple in October 2009 (http://
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/22/telecoms-nokia). Apple "only"
sued HTC in March 2010 (http://technologizer.com/2010/03/02/apple-sues-
htc/).

Logitech Revue
More Revue units were returned by customers than being sold in the
last quarter (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?
item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTAxNTAzfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1, top of page 7).
So lowering the price seems like a firesale to me to clear out
inventory.

[hlovatt]

I agree with Carl (Posse) and Karsten (forum), the iPhone was
revolutionary when it came out and the other phones have copied far
more from the iPhone than Apple have copied from other phones. There
are plenty of ways people could make a phone that isn't like an
iPhone; so the obvious question is why don't they? The answer is that
finding something that is different and is at least as good takes
time, talent, and energy and hence copying is cheaper. Therefore I
think Apple are perfectly entitled to defend their investment in all
that design and engineering talent they have.

You may not like the current Patent/Copyright laws, but that is
irrelevant, these laws are all anyone, Apple included, have to work
with and hence they use them as best they can. I think the laws need
updating, Apple may well also think the laws needed updating, but the
law is the law and everyone has to abide by them. This isn't a case of
Goliath Apple crushing the little guy, it is a far fight with both
sides well resourced and therefore the court is the proper place for
the dispute to be settled.

I should disclose that I have a number of patents and two of these
have earned my employer a few, 2 or 3, million dollars over the years,
therefore I am an indirect beneficiary of patents since they have
added to the financial stability of the company I work for and I have
used the licence fees obtained from these patents as a point in favour
of promotions I have applied for and received. I have not received any
direct benefit, i.e. I have not received a cut of the fees
(unfortunately :( ).

On Aug 22, 7:03 am, Karsten Silz <karsten.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tor: "Android didn't copy the iPhone"
> If we can believe Gizmodo, then the first Android prototypes looked
> like Blackberries before Android started following the iPhone (http://
> random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-before-and-
> after-the-launch-of-iphone). To me, there's nothing wrong with being a
> "fast follower" as Google is - and Apple certainly copies from other
> sources, too (iOS 5 is full of this). Bonus point: Tablets didn't all
> look like that certain tablet either (http://twitpic.com/67ykpa).
>
> Dick: "How many different ways are there to present icons and buttons
> and pixels on a screen"
> Look no further than Microsoft Zune music player / Windows Phone 7:

> That does look unlike anything else on smartphones (http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487). Of all companies, Microsoft with a

> innovative UI - the irony!
>
> Dick: "Apple started the smartphone patent wars"

> Nokia started it - they sued Apple in October 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/22/telecoms-nokia). Apple "only"

[Vince O'Sullivan]

On Aug 21, 10:03 pm, Karsten Silz <karsten.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tor: "Android didn't copy the iPhone"
> If we can believe Gizmodo, then the first Android prototypes looked
> like Blackberries before Android started following the iPhone (http://
> random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-before-and-
> after-the-launch-of-iphone). To me, there's nothing wrong with being a
> "fast follower" as Google is - and Apple certainly copies from other
> sources, too (iOS 5 is full of this). Bonus point: Tablets didn't all
> look like that certain tablet either (http://twitpic.com/67ykpa).

Very little technology is "invented". Most of it evolves from ideas
inspired by or derived from existing stuff that is already out there.
The idea that there is a group of people out there in the mobile/smart
phone market who are above this reality is fantasy.

> Dick: "How many different ways are there to present icons and buttons
> and pixels on a screen"

There are certainly a lot of ways to do it badly.

> Dick: "Apple started the smartphone patent wars"

> Nokia started it...

I assume you're being ironic here (Karsten). If we treat smart phones
as just another form format of personal computing then I don't think
that there has been any kind of recent halcyon period where none of
the big boys refrained from suing any of the others.
http://www.cultofmac.com/infographic-whos-suing-whom-in-mobile-as-re-imagined-by-a-competent-designer/61951

> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTAxNTAzfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1

(I can't get to this link. Does it have restricted access?)

[Kirk]

My question is, what is new and innovative about touch screens. I seem to recall using them prior to the iPhone's existance. OH. I see, someone married and already existing technology with an already existing technology. So un-obvious !!!!

Regards,
Kirk Pepperdine

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>

[Kevin Wright]

On 22 August 2011 08:52, Kirk <kirk.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:

My question is, what is new and innovative about touch screens. I seem to recall using them prior to the iPhone's existance. OH. I see, someone married and already existing technology with an already existing technology. So un-obvious !!!!

Regards,
Kirk Pepperdine

Quite! The LG Prada[1] predates the original iPhone[2] by a good year.

Apple is frequently held up as the company that everyone else copies, but they're really not as unique and innovative as seems to be claimed in such discussions.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850) 

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(original)

--
Kevin Wright
mail: kevin....@scalatechnology.com
gtalk / msn : kev.lee...@gmail.com

quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright

google+: http://gplus.to/thecoda

twitter: @thecoda

vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright

steam: kev_lee_wright

"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra

[Kirk]

And while we're at it.. an iPad is a portable computer with a design that well.. already existed on the desktop for quite some time.. so they just made it small enough to easily cart about and well, that touch screen thing again. Something we had in Newton, Palm and a number of other devices pre-iPad. It suggests an evolutionary advancement has taken place that Apple has been the beneficiary of yet now they want to just trim that evolutionary branch but poisoning it with patents (from a broken patent system). Like I mentioned before the Google Oracle evidence suggests that more than 75% of all patents probably shouldn't have been issued in the first place. The problem is, once issued, it's difficult for a large company to have them struck down and almost impossible for a small one or an individual to do so.

As for trolling, my final comment is, I doubt that it was the intention of those that setup the patent system that companies would or could create a business model out of awards from the courts for damages for patent violations. I have to admit it's a brilliant business model in that awards for damages are not taxable as it's not income.. it's compensation for damages.. so even better. And face it, the real reason everyone here is annoyed is because we're not able to troll ourselves. No?????

Unless groups (like this one) start taking action, demanding the system be fixed, this is just whining and quite frankly it's kind of boring.

Regards,

Kirk

[Kevin Wright]

Somebody had to do this...

Tablet computer in Star Trek: http://img.trekmovie.com/images/links/ipadd-tos.jpg

Touch computing in Tron: http://img.trekmovie.com/images/links/ipadd-tos.jpg

As for icons?  They came out of Xerox PARC as part or their work on WIMP interfaces[1], a paradigm that proved to be so powerful that they subsequently had to create the Smalltalk language as a way of dealing with it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_(computing)

So wheres our prior art defence, already?

[Casper Bang]

> If we can believe Gizmodo, then the first Android prototypes looked
> like Blackberries before Android started following the iPhone (http://
> random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-before-and-
> after-the-launch-of-iphone).

Well that was indeed how the emulator of the SDK looked, however let
me point out that there isn't one look for an Android device. There's
a contract revolving around 3-4 hardware buttons, a touch screen and
an IME. Some devices will inherently look more like an iPhone than
others (large touch screen, no physical keyboard, no joystick) but
OTOH try to expand the metaphor to TV's, how many ways are there
really to do such a hardware device?

> That does look unlike anything else on smartphones (http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487). Of all companies, Microsoft with a

> innovative UI - the irony!

If you compare an iPhone and an Android device side to side, you
actually will notice some fairly essential differences, most
noticeably the Android widgets, the notification bar, lack of iPhone
"breadcrumb navigation" etc.

> Nokia started it - they sued Apple in October 2009

The truth is a bit more nuanced than that. Nokia fired a bullet out of
frustration over Apple refusing to pay FRAND patent royalties covering
GSM etc. which is a fairly normal practice, and has nothing to do with
smartphones although it's similar to the case where Microsoft
negotiated royalties with HTC for Android devices. What sets Apple
apart is their double-standards. While they were small, Steve Job's
had no quarrel with the mantra "Good Artists Copy, Great Artists
Steal" while now his words are "We think competition is healthy, but
competitors should create their own original technology, not steal
ours.".

I believe Apple currently persues cases against Phystar, DOPi, Amazon,
Think Secret, Franklin, Microsoft, HP, eMachines, HTC and Samsung.
Their recent investments and rumors suggests they're trying to become
self-sufficient such as to not rely on any other (i.e. Samsung for
their IPS displays and NAND memory) which again suggests they see
partners as competitors more than suppliers. In other words, the
"walled garden" is starting to manifest itself within the company's
supply chain as well. I wonder if that's a healthy strategy in the
long term.

[Chris Adamson]

Some of Karsten's points remind me of episode #350 repeating the bogus
(and quickly debunked) claim that the original iPhone was a ripoff of
the Samsung F700… something that should have been screened out by
Occam's Razor: with all the hype attending the iPhone launch in 2007,
how could its plagiarism of a well-known competitor's phone have
escaped notice then, and only been uncovered in 2011?

Regarding the iOS-Android rivalry, as well as the various patent wars
(Apple vs. Android manufacturers, Oracle vs. Google, Intellectual
Ventures vs. Everyone), I'm resigned to the idea that we have probably
entered the Land Of Everyone Is Entitled To Their Own Facts. Which,
in turn, means we've left the Realm Of Rational Conversation.

Speaking of factual accuracy, though, Karsten's bit about Logitech
Review returns by customers being greater than sales to customers has
also been debunked. It was returns from distributors and retailers to
Logitech: http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/31/logitech-drops-revue-price-to-99/
. Which means it's selling very poorly, but doesn't mean it's a piece
of junk that doesn't work, as some claimed.

--Chris

On Aug 21, 5:03 pm, Karsten Silz <karsten.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tor: "Android didn't copy the iPhone"
> If we can believe Gizmodo, then the first Android prototypes looked
> like Blackberries before Android started following the iPhone (http://
> random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-before-and-
> after-the-launch-of-iphone). To me, there's nothing wrong with being a
> "fast follower" as Google is - and Apple certainly copies from other
> sources, too (iOS 5 is full of this). Bonus point: Tablets didn't all
> look like that certain tablet either (http://twitpic.com/67ykpa).
>
> Dick: "How many different ways are there to present icons and buttons
> and pixels on a screen"
> Look no further than Microsoft Zune music player / Windows Phone 7:

> That does look unlike anything else on smartphones (http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487). Of all companies, Microsoft with a

> innovative UI - the irony!
>
> Dick: "Apple started the smartphone patent wars"

> Nokia started it - they sued Apple in October 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/22/telecoms-nokia). Apple "only"

[hlovatt]

When you file a patent the patent office only does the most basic of
checks, this is primarily a patent search looking for key words
selected from your patent in other patents. They then ask you to
justify why your patent is different than the other patents that they
found. There role is not to do an extensive background check or to
check if the patent is plausible; people regularly file patents for
perpetual motion machines for example. The reason that the office only
does minimal checks is to keep the costs down. This seems at least
half reasonable since the vast majority of patents are never
disputed.

The real action happens in the court and there how original the patent
is is assessed and in particular the test of "was the innovation
claimed obvious to someone skilled in the art" is applied. This test
does indeed throw out many patents or parts thereof.

However you are unlikely to win a patent case if you are a large
company working in the area by claiming the innovation is obvious if a
new product hits the market and is very successful, since the obvious
repost is that if it was so obvious why didn't you do and make all the
money. Particularly if your product incorporating the innovation
follows a number of years later. the court might well rule that the
innovation is only obvious in hindsight. Also note that a patent can
be a combination of existing ideas applied to a new application; hard
to argue that this innovative since if it was obvious people would
have joined the ideas already. It is also possible that the court
decides that there was simultaneous invention even if one party has
patents and the other doesn't provided that the 2nd party can document
that they were working in the same area.

With regard to Google and patents I don't see them offering to make
page rank available free of charge. If their position really was that
you should have patents then surely they would make this patent and
all their others available (actually page rank is held by Stanford, I
think, but you get the idea). Similarly if they thought intellectual
property, IP, should be free they wouldn't have employee
confidentiality agreements and would make all their code open source
under a public licence. You really can't have it both ways and I am
sure Apple lawyers won't be shy about pointing this out!




On Aug 22, 6:25 pm, Kirk <kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And while we're at it.. an iPad is a portable computer with a design that well.. already existed on the desktop for quite some time.. so they just made it small enough to easily cart about and well, that touch screen thing again. Something we had in Newton, Palm and a number of other devices pre-iPad. It suggests an evolutionary advancement has taken place that Apple has been the beneficiary of yet now they want to just trim that evolutionary branch but poisoning it with patents (from a broken patent system). Like I mentioned and before the Google Oracle evidence suggests that more than 75% of all patents probably shouldn't have been issued in the first place. The problem is, once issued, it's difficult for a large company to have them struck down and almost impossible for a small one or an individual to do so.

> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > Kevin Wright
> > mail: kevin.wri...@scalatechnology.com
> > gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com

[Josh Berry]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Kirk <kirk.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And while we're at it.. an iPad is a portable computer with a design that
> well.. already existed on the desktop for quite some time.. so they just
> made it small enough to easily cart about and well, that touch screen thing
> again.

I think it is more apt to compare the iPad to the iPod, as it really
is just a larger version. Which is both what annoys me about it and
what makes it such a genius marketable device. I wanted the Lenovo X
Tablet to be cheaper. Still would, actually. Most folks just want a
larger browsing device for as cheap as possible. (Of course, the
cynic in me thinks most folks are just highly susceptible to well done
marketing and haven't given much thought as to what they want until
told what they want.)

[Oscar Hsieh]

Errr, how does LG Prada predates original iphone by a good year?

From the links in your email

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone
The first iPhone was unveiled by Apple CEO Steve Jobs on January 9, 2007,^[1] and released on June 29, 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
It was first announced on December 12, 2006.^[2] Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.^[3] An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on January 18, 2007.^[1

From Engadget.com
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/18/lgs-ke850-prada-official-iphone-says-wha/
KE850 will hit select mobile shops and PRADA stores in the UK, France, Germany and Italy at the end of February and parts of Asia before March is through

My math says the gap is about 4-6 months max. 

Not that it matters, just want to get the fact right.

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 22, 9:18 am, "Vince O'Sullivan" <vjosulli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very little technology is "invented".  Most of it evolves from ideas
> inspired by or derived from existing stuff that is already out there.
> The idea that there is a group of people out there in the mobile/smart
> phone market who are above this reality is fantasy.

Agreed. The thing that Apple gets right more often than others - at
least recently - is grabbing into the same bin part as anybody else,
but making the whole thing work and especially leaving things out (at
least early on). iPod, iPhone, iPad - two times a niche market, once a
somewhat bigger market, but all turned upside down by Apple.

> > Dick: "Apple started the smartphone patent wars"
> > Nokia started it...
>
> I assume you're being ironic here (Karsten).  If we treat smart phones
> as just another form format of personal computing then I don't think
> that there has been any kind of recent halcyon period where none of

> the big boys refrained from suing any of the others.http://www.cultofmac.com/infographic-whos-suing-whom-in-mobile-as-re-...

Triple negation in one sentence - I'm giving up. So, can we at least
agree that Apple wasn't the first mobile phone provider to sue another
one?

> >http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTAxNTAzfE...

>
> (I can't get to this link.  Does it have restricted access?)

First source link on
http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/28/google-tv-update-logitech-revue-boxes-returned-sold-q1-price-dropping-99/.

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 22, 9:52 am, Kirk <kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My question is, what is new and innovative about touch screens. I seem to recall using them prior to the iPhone's existance. OH. I see, someone married and already existing technology with an already existing technology. So un-obvious !!!!

If it's so obvious how it all fit together, how come Apple built the
iPod, iPhone and iPad? Why is Apple the first to (at least mass-
market) very thin and light notebooks like the MacBook Air where they
solder the RAM directly on the motherboard and replace the hard disk
with a tiny SSD module?

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 22, 10:09 am, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quite! The LG Prada[1] predates the original iPhone[2] by a good year.
>
> Apple is frequently held up as the company that everyone else copies, but
> they're really not as unique and innovative as seems to be claimed in such
> discussions.
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
> [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(original)

Doesn't become more true by repeating a debunked story:
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/20/in-the-apple-samsung-lawsuit-the-android-team-has-it-wrong/

iPhone first married a portable computer, a music player, a decent web
browser and a phone - the Prada was just a phone with a touchscreen:
http://gizmodo.com/261172/settling-this-iphone-vs-lg-prada-nonsense

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 22, 11:10 am, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well that was indeed how the emulator of the SDK looked, however let
> me point out that there isn't one look for an Android device. There's
> a contract revolving around 3-4 hardware buttons, a touch screen and
> an IME. Some devices will inherently look more like an iPhone than
> others (large touch screen, no physical keyboard, no joystick) but
> OTOH try to expand the metaphor to TV's, how many ways are there
> really to do such a hardware device?

Your points are well-taken. But if you look at the Nexus phones and
the Xoom, the "Android reference devices", you can see the how the
Blackberry-ness fading away: First you lose the "joystick with you got
mail light" (Nexus One => Nexus S), then you lose the "evil menu key"
and the hardware keys (Xoom). Of course, hardware keys make a lot less
sense on a tablet than a phone, but we'll see if the next Nexus phone
sticks with hardware keys.

> > Nokia started it - they sued Apple in October 2009
>
> The truth is a bit more nuanced than that. Nokia fired a bullet out of
> frustration over Apple refusing to pay FRAND patent royalties covering
> GSM etc. which is a fairly normal practice, and has nothing to do with
> smartphones although it's similar to the case where Microsoft
> negotiated royalties with HTC for Android devices. What sets Apple
> apart is their double-standards. While they were small, Steve Job's
> had no quarrel with the mantra "Good Artists Copy, Great Artists
> Steal" while now his words are "We think competition is healthy, but
> competitors should create their own original technology, not steal
> ours.".

I agree that it's wrong for Apple to sue the Android guys based on
patents, trademarks and copyrights. But when Steve's angry, he's
angry. :-(

> Their recent investments and rumors suggests they're trying to become
> self-sufficient such as to not rely on any other (i.e. Samsung for
> their IPS displays and NAND memory) which again suggests they see
> partners as competitors more than suppliers. In other words, the
> "walled garden" is starting to manifest itself within the company's
> supply chain as well. I wonder if that's a healthy strategy in the
> long term.

This is not a rumor, that's the "Cook doctrine" (after a Tim Cook
monologue in an analyst call from 2009, Apple's COO; see
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/01/22/the-cook-doctrine-at-apple):
"We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies
behind the products that we make" So far, it seems to work out great
for Apple, because even if you hate Apple (or iTunes, as I
recall ;-), they're raking in more dough than anybody else.

Common wisdom is that originally this started because Steve Jobs never
wanted to depend on an outside party again the way Apple depended for
its survival first on Next (to save their OS strategy) and then on
Microsoft (which infused Apple with cash, promised to develop Office
for the Mac and ported IE to the Mac). I guess these days, Apple sees
building their own batteries, CPU and graphics chip as a competitive
advantage because they design the hardware and the software hand-in-
hand, and they stated as much.

Look at it the A4 (iPad / iPhone / iPod touch / Apple TV) last year
and the A5 (iPad and probably everything else this year), the CPU /
graphics chip: The A4 was very similar to other designs, whereas the
A5 reserves most of the die space for other functions beside that
(http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4215094/A5--All-Apple--part-
mystery?pageNumber=4). The Android tablets, on the other hand, mostly
use the Nvidia Tegra 2 chip which didn't fare too well in early
benchmarks (though the results are hard to compare, since the Xoom has
more pixels and Android has less mature OpenGL drivers:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4216/apple-ipad-2-gpu-performance-explored-powervr-sgx543mp2-benchmarked)
and leaves no room for differentiation here.

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 22, 1:18 pm, Chris Adamson <invalidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking of factual accuracy, though, Karsten's bit about Logitech
> Review returns by customers being greater than sales to customers has
> also been debunked.  It was returns from distributors and retailers to
> Logitech:http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/31/logitech-drops-revue-price-to-99/
> . Which means it's selling very poorly, but doesn't mean it's a piece
> of junk that doesn't work, as some claimed.

I stand corrected - I used this story:
http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/28/google-tv-update-logitech-revue-boxes-returned-sold-q1-price-dropping-99/

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 22, 3:48 pm, Josh Berry <tae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Of course, the
> cynic in me thinks most folks are just highly susceptible to well done
> marketing and haven't given much thought as to what they want until
> told what they want.)

"If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a
faster horse."
Henry Ford, possibly (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/28/ford-
faster-horse/)

"A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to
them."
Steve Jobs (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38339.html)


:-)

[Josh Berry]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Karsten Silz <karste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's so obvious how it all fit together, how come Apple built the
> iPod, iPhone and iPad? Why is Apple the first to (at least mass-
> market) very thin and light notebooks like the MacBook Air where they
> solder the RAM directly on the motherboard and replace the hard disk
> with a tiny SSD module?

Some of that has to do with marketing swagger. Apple consumers are
not exactly price shy on the latest machines. Nor do they hesitate to
upgrade quite often. Some of it has to do with not being crippled by
integration with other common software. Take the smaller Sony
computers as an example. They have "out sexied" Apple computers for a
while, but they are too expensive and are often crippled by horrible
software integration. A tech savvy user can get around that quickly,
but can also find cheaper machines that fit the bill well enough.

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 22, 9:03 pm, Karsten Silz <karsten.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not a rumor, that's the "Cook doctrine" (after a Tim Cook

> monologue in an analyst call from 2009, Apple's COO; seehttp://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/01/22/the-cook-doctrine-at...

> "We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies
> behind the products that we make"

"I've always wanted to own and control the primary technology in
everything we do."
Steve Jobs,2004 (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38337.html)

[Josh Berry]

Yeah, but the cynic in me isn't that people don't realize they want
something they have never seen before, but that they just flat out
believe someone saying they need something if the person saying it
does so persuasively enough. Consider the folks that upgrade to the
latest bloody iPod even though they already own one less than 3
generations old. The odds that the new one honestly does something
the old one did not are vanishingly slim.

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 22, 9:13 pm, Josh Berry <tae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but the cynic in me isn't that people don't realize they want
> something they have never seen before, but that they just flat out
> believe someone saying they need something if the person saying it
> does so persuasively enough.

You've just designed advertising: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising

:-)

[Kirk]

I think I saw a Toshiba or IBM laptop prior to the air. But I wouldn't bet on it.. at any rate, they came out so close together that they would have had to have been developed simultaneously.

Think Palm Pilot and Apple Newton as prior art.. there are more examples but those are the most famous.

Regards,
Kirk

[work only]

http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/08/apple-their-tablet-computer-history/

. Bonus point: Tablets didn't all
look like that certain tablet either (http://twitpic.com/67ykpa).

Plus knowing Apple the first iPhone was in devlopment years before Jan 7 2007 :)

[work only]

Palm Pilot was after Newton was the first PDA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 22, 11:49 pm, Kirk <kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Think Palm Pilot and Apple Newton as prior art.. there are more examples but those are the most famous.

Exactly my point - there were years of prior art with music player,
smartphones and tablets, but none of them were as successful and as
category-defining as the iPod, iPhone or iPad.

[Roland Tepp]

I would actually agree .. sort of - Apple did innovate but not by virtue of coming up with something new but by the virtue of making a better product out of earlier ideas.

Patents are supposed to be granted for technical innovation, not for better marketing and product quality's sake.

It is not so much that the products were somehow revolutionary in the technical sense - they were for all fits and purposes just successful compilations of existing technologies.

The thing that sets Apple apart is that they dare to go that extra mile that makes an interesting technical widget into an actually useful consumer product.

In this sense, the iPod was simply a well consumerized evolution in the already growing but still marginal market of mp3 players. They completely slaughtered the competition of that market by making a product that was just so many miles ahead of any competition that it did not only wipe out the pm3 player market but it also ended up killing off and redefining the entire markets of portable music players.

iPhone was yet another case of taking what's already there and improving on it so much that all the competition just pales in comparison. But if you take a look at what was actually technically that they brought to table: Probably the most innovative and controversial step they made was to do away with physical keyboard - a thought that, I am sure has sprung up before (I know I had wondered why no phone manufacturer had done this) but that was most likely just crushed by the "usability studies" and other misgivings about such a radical move. The various sensors they put into the iPhone were all known and used in other types of products. Apple simply had guts and smarts and most of all cojones to pull this off and offer a well thought through consumer product.

iPad - How do we even start. In te early 2000's there was a brief time where almost every laptop manufacturer out there tried to come up with their variation of Tablet PC ... and failed. Not so much because the device was inferior, but because they failed to go that extra step and do away with the desktop computing paradigm. Apple did what needed to be done and combined the existing pieces the right way never listening to "experts" prophesizing gloom and doom for this new device. Apple made a consumer device, that has proven to be a very successful product.

They innovate by making a better product. Not so much by making a technical breakthroughs. Maybe there is something patentable in that as well, but I doubt tat patents have made Apple succesful. It is still superior product lines that have earned them their profits.

Now when a successful competitor comes along and makes the life ... umm ... difficult for them, it is all good for us, consumers, because healthy competition is exactly what we need - to be able to pick between good products based on their merits and to see competing products improve upon eachother.

esmaspäev, 22. august 2011 21:33.37 UTC+3 kirjutas Karsten Silz: