U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by faroZ06

They invented a certain type of touchscreen smartphone. Before the iPhone, did you ever hear about downloading smartphone apps? Were smartphones mainstream? Did people use their smartphones as music players?

The answer is yes. Before the iPhone, I had a WinMo Professional (touch) phone. It had:

• unlimited 3G,
• Google Maps,
• Slingplayer,
• tap-to-zoom Picsel web/doc browser,
• video and music player with stereo speakers and 3D SurroundSound,
• weather / alarm / calendar widgets,
• medical apps and some pretty good games.
• I could write apps for it in C++ or Java... or I could
• chose from thousands of WinMo or J2ME apps from online stores.

In comparison, the first iPhone was a crippled feature phone.

By the time the iPhone came out, there were over 100 million smartphone users in the world. Not a large number by today's standards, but considering the cost and that 3G wasn't everywhere, it was pretty good.

Even if most people didn't own a smartphone themselves, they knew what one was. There was even a 2004 movie ("Little Black Book") starring Holly Hunter, Kathy Bates and the late Brittany Murphy, that was based around her finding old girlfriend photos on her boyfriend's Palm phone. It even had two girls beaming an application from one phone to another.

Originally Posted by faroZ06

There were app stores out there. My friends' flip phones had app stores. So did iPods. But nowhere did anyone ever say anything like "get this app" or "there's an app that does that" until the iPhone had an app store.

Sure, you'd tell your friends / coworkers about an app. There were lots of smartphone magazines with app reviews. Granted, most people called them "programs" or "applications", but "app" was used as well:

[jctevere]

Originally Posted by kdarling

The answer is yes. Before the iPhone, I had a WinMo Professional (touch) phone. It had:

• unlimited 3G,
• Google Maps,
• Slingplayer,
• tap-to-zoom Picsel web/doc browser,
• video and music player with stereo speakers and 3D SurroundSound,
• weather / alarm / calendar widgets,
• medical apps and some pretty good games.
• I could write apps for it in C++ or Java... or I could
• chose from thousands of WinMo or J2ME apps from online stores.

In comparison, the first iPhone was a crippled feature phone.

By the time the iPhone came out, there were over 100 million smartphone users in the world. Not a large number by today's standards, but considering the cost and that 3G wasn't everywhere, it was pretty good.

Even if most people didn't own a smartphone themselves, they knew what one was. There was even a 2004 movie ("Little Black Book") starring Holly Hunter, Kathy Bates and the late Brittany Murphy, that was based around her finding old girlfriend photos on her boyfriend's Palm phone. It even had two girls beaming an application from one phone to another.



Sure, you'd tell your friends / coworkers about an app. There were lots of smartphone magazines with app reviews. Granted, most people called them "programs" or "applications", but "app" was used as well:

Attachment 382475

Attachment 382476

Attachment 382478

Attachment 382477

You, sir, have way too much time on your hands...

I'll put it to you simply. No phone prior to the iPhone had integrated a phone, music player, and computer like capabilities (such as safari web browsing, etc) nearly as well or as simplistic and refined as the iPhone.

That is the marvel. Everyone else who tried before had a crappy product and failed. The UI on the windows phones or existing smart phones at that time were complete garbage.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by jctevere

You, sir, have way too much time on your hands...

I'll put it to you simply. No phone prior to the iPhone had integrated a phone, music player, and computer like capabilities (such as safari web browsing, etc) nearly as well or as simplistic and refined as the iPhone.

That is the marvel. Everyone else who tried before had a crappy product and failed. The UI on the windows phones or existing smart phones at that time were complete garbage.

I can vouch for this. I was the driving force behind originally deploying smartphones at our company. Our Windows Mobile phones, while in theory very capable were in practice quite a struggle to use. You were lucky to get 1/2 a day of battery life from them, certainly couldn't reliably leave them unplugged overnight. The stock ROM's locked up completely multiple times per day, and the touch screen was inaccurate even with a tiny stylus.

We moved quickly to the iPhone when released because even though it was technically less capable, it was SO much better at what it could do that it made a smartphone really useful for the first time.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by jctevere

I'll put it to you simply. No phone prior to the iPhone had integrated a phone, music player, and computer like capabilities (such as safari web browsing, etc) nearly as well or as simplistic and refined as the iPhone.

So what your admitting, is that the average consumer was not intelligent enough to operate a smart phone before the iPhone?

The 1st iPhone was complete crap, not refined, slow, useless, and VERY expensive. So expensive, that they had to lower the price when sales ground to a halt.

The 3G was the 1st " real " iphone in my opinion. The 1st iPone had next to no storage, almost no features, no 3G, no Appls, no web browser plug ins, SLOWWWWW, Couldn't use after market headphones, and had lots and lots of issues.

And, my HP IPAQ had an built in MP3 player, web browser ( which was more capable than safari at the time ), better camera, better battery life, full 3G data, GPS, and apps.

That is the marvel. Everyone else who tried before had a crappy product and failed. The UI on the windows phones or existing smart phones at that time were complete garbage.

What made my ipaq so crappy? It blew the 1st iphone out of the water.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by G51989

So what your admitting, is that the average consumer was not intelligent enough to operate a smart phone before the iPhone?

The 1st iPhone was complete crap, not refined, slow, useless, and VERY expensive. So expensive, that they had to lower the price when sales ground to a halt.

The 3G was the 1st " real " iphone in my opinion. The 1st iPone had next to no storage, almost no features, no 3G, no Appls, no web browser plug ins, SLOWWWWW, Couldn't use after market headphones, and had lots and lots of issues.

And, my HP IPAQ had an built in MP3 player, web browser ( which was more capable than safari at the time ), better camera, better battery life, full 3G data, GPS, and apps.



What made my ipaq so crappy? It blew the 1st iphone out of the water.

There is a huge difference between outright capability and the ability to do things smoothly, quickly and reliably enough that its actually practical to do so regularly. Sure, prior phones had lots of capability, but they lacked any sort of polish. Maps apps were awful. Built-in MP3 players were terrible. I truly doubt your Ipaq had any sort of decent camera. Every phone camera I saw from that era was borderline useless. What was the battery life?

Yes, the first iPhone was missing a lot, but that was EXACTLY what the industry needed. Someone to cut through all the garbage and distill a smart phone down to the best of what was technologically capable for the moment rather than sticking every possible feature that anyone had ever dreamt up with no regard for usability.

Not to mention that Apple was the first company that had the guts to stand up to the phone companies and turn the tables in a way that still benefits consumers today.

[SeanR1]

Originally Posted by Oletros

That you didn't talk about apps doesn't mean that people didn't talked about them

And also.......because he had never heard of tablets doesn't mean they didn't exist either.

[jack99]

Originally Posted by faroZ06

They invented a certain type of touchscreen smartphone. Before the iPhone, did you ever hear about downloading smartphone apps? Were smartphones mainstream? Did people use their smartphones as music players?

First off, Apple never tried to patent a "certain type of touchscreen smartphone." Either admit they're patenting concepts that pre-existed the iPhone and were authored by someone else, or be a little more direct and just make a claim to Apple's right to patent the invention of the smartphone.

The same goes for downloading apps and using smartphones as mp3 players. You can't patent any of that. And FYI--I actually did both on my Compaq Ipaq. Used flash memory even when it was super expensive for a 32mb compact flash card to listen to good ole' 90s tunes back in 2001.


Rhetorical question: Why do I get the impression the Apple fans can't come up with a single idea, concept, or thingamabobber that could justify upholding junk patents like this one? They all speak in generalities and argue from vaguely dressed up principles which're really just cock and bull when you remove the decorations.


Apple's accomplishments are laudable, but not all accomplishments fall under the protections of the patent system.


I know we're (or at least most) of us aren't patent experts. But let's not try to make up how it actually goes. The brightline rule you're trying to argue is "If I never heard of it, it never existed, so Apple can patent it." I can assure you the patent attorneys I've met in the past who were billing hundreds of dollars an hour were being paid to make arguments MUCH more grounded in reality and law than that.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by jctevere

You, sir, have way too much time on your hands...

Wait until I retire Actually, I just have 30+ years of online debate and have collected a LOT of files and info along the way.

I'll put it to you simply. No phone prior to the iPhone had integrated a phone, music player, and computer like capabilities (such as safari web browsing, etc) nearly as well or as simplistic and refined as the iPhone.

I mostly agree. The key word being "simplistic". No one today would want to use the original iPhone, though. It'd be way too "simplistic".

That is the marvel. Everyone else who tried before had a crappy product and failed. The UI on the windows phones or existing smart phones at that time were complete garbage.

There I have to mildly disagree. You could, for example, do a lot of things using just the cursor pad, which makes today's claims of "one-handed use" with thumbs swiping all the place look downright difficult in comparison. We also had pretty good voice control. Best of all, you could program extra buttons to call up any app directly without even looking, which was darned handy.

Originally Posted by zhenya

Maps apps were awful. Built-in MP3 players were terrible. I truly doubt your Ipaq had any sort of decent camera. Every phone camera I saw from that era was borderline useless. What was the battery life?

Compared to today, the first iPhone's camera wasn't decent. Not even video capability, for goodness' sake. But hardware marches on. Don't confuse hardware advances with the UI.

As for maps, Google Maps was actually okay on smartphones before the iPhone came along. IIRC, they were using NavTeq data in the US, which is excellent. And Apple owes every previous Maps user a great deal, as it was all those non-Apple GPS equipped phones in 2006 and 2007 that were mapping out the cell sites... which allowed Google to later give the GPS-less iPhone cell-based location services.

Yes, the first iPhone was missing a lot, but that was EXACTLY what the industry needed. Someone to cut through all the garbage and distill a smart phone down to the best of what was technologically capable for the moment rather than sticking every possible feature that anyone had ever dreamt up with no regard for usability.

Okay, sure, tearing it down and rebuilding. Sounds good.

Not to mention that Apple was the first company that had the guts to stand up to the phone companies and turn the tables in a way that still benefits consumers today.

Oooo. You lost me a bit on that one

• Apple tried to steal everyone's subsidy for themselves. Fortunately, that scheme only lasted one year.
  
  
• Apple claimed walled gardens were evil, then turned around and built a much higher one, with only one sanctioned app store that Apple profited from.
  
  
• Prior to Apple, smartphone owners could download apps without censorship.
  
  
• Apple withheld network access from whatever apps AT&T asked them to, even if it didn't make sense in the rest of the world which actually had 3G.
  
  
• Internet access went to heck for a long time because of all the new iPhone users.
  
  
• ETFs skyrocketed, in part because of the huge iPhone subsidies.
  
  
• Prior to Apple's entry, you could use a smartphone with just WiFi if you wished. Nowadays nobody lets you use one without paying for a data plan.

[jctevere]

Originally Posted by G51989

So what your admitting, is that the average consumer was not intelligent enough to operate a smart phone before the iPhone?

The 1st iPhone was complete crap, not refined, slow, useless, and VERY expensive. So expensive, that they had to lower the price when sales ground to a halt.

The 3G was the 1st " real " iphone in my opinion. The 1st iPone had next to no storage, almost no features, no 3G, no Appls, no web browser plug ins, SLOWWWWW, Couldn't use after market headphones, and had lots and lots of issues.

And, my HP IPAQ had an built in MP3 player, web browser ( which was more capable than safari at the time ), better camera, better battery life, full 3G data, GPS, and apps.



What made my ipaq so crappy? It blew the 1st iphone out of the water.

You mean this piece of crap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsDq-9YhM4Y

You must be joking right... It's not even a PHONE! Not to mention it was $400 when released, which you were comparing it to a iPhone 3G which was only $200 which came out around the same time.

The iPhone 3G's processor was slightly slower (450Mhz vs 510Mhz) but the code is definitely MUCH more efficient on iPhone and it ran much faster. Just look at the video review, you could see it having trouble even run a video.

It had 500MB of storage (albeit also an SD card), but the iPhone 3G could be had in 8 or 16GB.

This PDA didn't even have 3G, only wifi B, not even G... The camera was not better, MP count was the same, and I'm sure it had a MUCH worse sensor than the iPhone.

The web browsing used crappy mobile sites and looked like absolute garbage - definitely not on par with the iPhone 3G. I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue with someone as jaded as you...

If you think that what you had was better, than you should have kept it.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by jctevere

-snip-

You do realizes iPaqs came in dozens of models? Some of them where indeed phones. And they've been in production for about 10 years now, its an entire line. Not just one device.

The fact is, you don't even realize what a pocket PC is, nor do you realize there were tons of iPaqs. Nor do you even seem remotely aware of the cell phone industry during that time period.

And why the hell would I keep a phone from 2007 in 2012?

And the 1st iPhone was 600 dollars.

The web browsing used crappy mobile sites and looked like absolute garbage - definitely not on par with the iPhone 3G. I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue with someone as jaded as you...

I clearly was comparing my iPaq to the ORIGINAL iPhone, not the 3G. i actually BOUGHT a 3GS back in the day to replace the iPaq.

Why am I bothering arguing with someone who clearly can't read? And clearly doesn't understand the cellular industry in 2007.

----------

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

I used my w810i as my MP3 player, back in 2006. Device consolidation was already all the rage as people were consolidating PMPs, PDAs and phones into a single device. This came about before the iPhone. .

Agreed, I don't understand why people think the iPhone was the " 1st " at things like this, because it was not.

----------

Originally Posted by faroZ06

They invented a certain type of touchscreen smartphone. Before the iPhone, did you ever hear about downloading smartphone apps? Were smartphones mainstream? Did people use their smartphones as music players?

Yes, they were mainstream, for those who could afford them, they weren't subsided like they are today.

Apps? Sure! I could download any Windows Mobile Apps I wanted on the go.

Did people use Smartphones as music players? You bet! People were already using dumbphones as music players by the mid 2000s

[jack99]

Originally Posted by jctevere

If you think that what you had was better, than you should have kept it.

Ummmm.....that's a straw man if I ever saw one on AI.

I don't think anyone's saying a company had it down better than Apple. Take a quick glance at the forum thread title and please note our thesis is that None of these concepts or ideas are Apple's to claim.

[jctevere]

Originally Posted by G51989

You do realizes iPaqs came in dozens of models? Some of them where indeed phones. And they've been in production for about 10 years now, its an entire line. Not just one device.

The fact is, you don't even realize what a pocket PC is, nor do you realize there were tons of iPaqs. Nor do you even seem remotely aware of the cell phone industry during that time period.

And why the hell would I keep a phone from 2007 in 2012?

And the 1st iPhone was 600 dollars.



I clearly was comparing my iPaq to the ORIGINAL iPhone, not the 3G. i actually BOUGHT a 3GS back in the day to replace the iPaq.

Why am I bothering arguing with someone who clearly can't read? And clearly doesn't understand the cellular industry in 2007.[COLOR="#808080"]

So if that piece of junk in 2009 was $400 and nowhere near as good as an iPhone 3G... How much was one that you were comparing it to? The original iPhone was indeed $600 for the 8GB model that I got. My brother bought one later on at the cheaper price later in the year - I was definitely jealous.

Exactly where do I fail to convey that I have no knowledge of what a pocket pc is - For that matter, what awareness of the cellphone industry am I missing...?

I have a very good understanding of said subjects. You are GREATLY overstating the usability and practicality of the iPaq's and other phones/PDA's/Pocket PC's you are talking about.

Apple did to the cell phone industry what they did to the MP3 industry. They destroyed all existing competitors by coming out with an integrated, high quality, simple and intuitive to use device, that did what it was meant to do effortlessly.

I'm not saying that the iPhone had the best or latest technology, but everything it aimed to do it did very well - and better than any others. It was also greatly future-proof as Apple kept rolling in outstanding features with iOS updates.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by jctevere

So if that piece of junk in 2009 was $400 and nowhere near as good as an iPhone 3G... How much was one that you were comparing it to? The original iPhone was indeed $600 for the 8GB model that I got. My brother bought one later on at the cheaper price later in the year - I was definitely jealous. .

That iPaq, from what I can see, came out a few years before, and they were clearing them out by charging bottom rock prices for it, all companies do it.

The web browsing used crappy mobile sites and looked like absolute garbage - definitely not on par with the iPhone 3G. I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue with someone as jaded as you...

Can not read? I am 100% serious. Really.

I am in no way shape or form comparing my iPaq of the time to an iPhone 3G, Didn't I also say the iPhone 3G was were Apple really stepped it up and did something great? Oh yeah, I did say it was where they stepped it up, you clearly enjoy cherry picking, straw man arguments, or you just can't read and someone else is reading for you.

I have a very good understanding of said subjects. You are GREATLY overstating the usability and practicality of the iPaq's and other phones/PDA's/Pocket PC's you are talking about.

Hmmmm my Pocket PC had ....3G Unlimited Data....a web browser that was capable of displaying the majority of websites in their fullness, and yes admittedly it was stuck on mobile versions of sites a good amount of time.

Which would have been GOOD on the 1st iPhone because it didn't support mobile broadband, at all, AT ALL.

So, it had 3G data, video capable camera, which was the same MP, and looked about the same, but could do video which made it better.

It had Applications for download, the first iPhone did not have that, nor did it have intergation with web applications on any level.

You love to cherry pick. PocketPC's which I used for almost a decade, were very usable, they did their job very well. So, I know more about their usability than you do.

So, back in the day, my ipaq had, High speed 3G data, GPS, applications, voice activation, video capture, swappable batteries, talk to type, better support, I remeber the battery life being very good, it was easy to use, and got its job done. The ONLY difference being that it needed a stylus, or I just chewed off all my thumbnail so it was pointy, was Windows Mobile as pretty as iOS? No, but it performed just as well.

And the MP3 integration was a simple program with music controls, exactly like iTunes on the 1st iPhone was.

Apple did to the cell phone industry what they did to the MP3 industry. They destroyed all existing competitors by coming out with an integrated, high quality, simple and intuitive to use device, that did what it was meant to do effortlessly.

Yes they did, but they didn't do it with the 1st iPhone, they did it with the iPhone 3G and 3GS. The 1st iPhone sold slightly under RIM numbers, and sales actually ground to a halt until they gave in and lowered the price.

I'm not saying that the iPhone had the best or latest technology, but everything it aimed to do it did very well - and better than any others. It was also greatly future-proof as Apple kept rolling in outstanding features with iOS updates.

Yeah, the 1st iPhone was great, so great. That they had to bring out the 3G to make ANY progress.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by jctevere

You, sir, have way too much time on your hands...

I'll put it to you simply.

No. I'll put it simply. You didn't like it when kdarling illustrated how posters were wrong with there assertions.

You want to bury your head in the sand and ignore evidence -that's your right, of course. But don't turn this into some sort of adolescent debate with the whole "you have too much time on your hands"

Perhaps you don't have enough. You know - time to read and learn.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by samcraig

No. I'll put it simply. You didn't like it when kdarling illustrated how posters were wrong with there assertions.

You want to bury your head in the sand and ignore evidence -that's you're right, of course. But don't turn this into some sort of adolescent debate with the whole "you have too much time on your hands"

Perhaps you don't have enough. You know - time to read and learn.

The point was that he made it sound like those Windows mobile phones were great and the iPhone had nothing to offer. I used and administered those phones. They were all we had at the time, but they were buggy pieces of garbage in comparison to what we have today, which was directly sparked by the simplicity that the iPhone injected into the market. Yes, they could technically do all of those things, but the user experience was so bad that if you had any alternative, you took it. The industry badly needed someone like Apple to come in and say enough is enough. I work in an office of intelligent engineers and software developers. Most of them rebelled against the iPhone initially for the very reasons discussed here. When they saw that their peers were able to do so much more faster with 'less' from Apple they eventually all came on board. That is starting to reverse again now that the competition is again producing good products, but they are all in the footprints that Apple tread.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by zhenya

The point was that he made it sound like those Windows mobile phones were great and the iPhone had nothing to offer.

No, the point was that the iPhone wasn't bringing anything new to the market, it was refining what was already there. My w810i was a splendid Phone/MP3 player, it had removable storage, the Sony Walkman software worked great, it had some limited data access, downloadable games and was fully programmable. It was also just some dumbphone. Released in 2006.

The iPhone refined a lot of things on the Web browser front, that it did. But it did not bring anything really new to the table. It was amongst the first phones to use capacitative technology for its touch screen, but it lacked what a lot of other phones already had at the time like downloadable apps, 3G access, MMS/Copy/Paste and even just something simple like customizing the wallpaper (something I could do in 2003 on my T610).

[MacFoodPoisoner]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

I used my w810i as my MP3 player, back in 2006. Device consolidation was already all the rage as people were consolidating PMPs, PDAs and phones into a single device. This came about before the iPhone.

For apps, I had the SDK for my T610 in 2003. You could develop J2ME apps for it, there was a full-on emulator and my carrier sold the apps through its App store. My w810i also had a Symbian runtime, so it had 2 SDKs, full on emulators, you could write games compiled to native machine code for them in C using the Symbian SDK.

Guess why people were disappointed when Steve Jobs said the iPhone was a platform for Web apps only ? Guess why the JB community started making apps with an unofficial SDK until Apple caved, saw the potential and rolled their own ?

Because it was already happening on others phones and people wanted to replicate the experience on the iPhone.

Stop making stuff up, you're only showing you don't really know or have a grasp of the industry prior to 2007, which indicates either tech illiteracy at that time or that you are very young don't remember it.



So tablet was already in use for electronic devices. Notice Apple never uses tablet, only iPad. Guess why ?

There were other tablets. Guess why everyone wanted Apple to make one ? Because others were making tablets and we're making a very good job at it.

excellent post. Kudos.

[jack99]

A lot of these posts are visibly emotionally charged. People here are puffing up and exaggerating the extent of Apple's achievements, often with factual inaccuracies. by

I could see someone getting worked up over someone else's work if either (a) they equated those achievements to being their own or (b) their identity and significance is so inextricably attached to the brand.

I'm confused. Don't normal people take pride in their own accomplishments?

[Myarin]

Originally Posted by jack99

A lot of these posts are visibly emotionally charged. People here are puffing up and exaggerating the extent of Apple's achievements, often with factual inaccuracies. by

I could see someone getting worked up over someone else's work if either (a) they equated those achievements to being their own or (b) their identity and significance is so inextricably attached to the brand.

I'm confused. Don't normal people take pride in their own accomplishments?

Nice attempt at being smart on the internet (honestly, I'm kinda wondering if it was just flat-out trolling), but it can all be easily explained away with the concept of "allegory".

Could this be a symbol that in the current world legal/political situation, people can't sit back and feel safe with their accomplishments? Could it be a sign that anyone can have anything suddenly taken from them at any time?

Nothing in life is ever certain, but being reminded of that when you don't feel like thinking about it can cause an intense emotional reaction. Pretty much any unpleasant, unannounced thought can cause that reaction for a lot of people.


If anything, I'd say the inverse of your statement is true. Anyone who takes pride in their accomplishments might be wondering what the heck is going on, for the sake of safeguarding their own accomplishments as well. Evaluate and compare the experiences of others, so that you know what to expect in your own endeavors.

BTW, plain simple compassion exists too. All the time, people help strangers who drop their wallets and such, for no reason except that human beings are communal creatures and helping each other is instinctive (despite the impression some bad eggs might give of our species). I'm pretty sure that instinct extends to companies too, especially one as personal as Apple where the users really do get to feel like they know the creators as fellow human beings. How many companies let you e-mail the CEO and get a non-prefabricated response?

If you can only see people getting worked up for a couple of narrow reasons, then maybe you're just not the social butterfly I am. Some of us care about pretty much anything you throw in front of us, haha. Both personality types are perfectly normal and common, so no worries either way.

[vladi]

Originally Posted by slffl

And then every other design in any other product. Everyone should be able to copy everyone. Sounds like a great idea!

Welcome to the world of art! Music, painting, graphic design, etc. everybody copies everybody that is the whole point. Progression.

[jctevere]

Originally Posted by samcraig

No. I'll put it simply. You didn't like it when kdarling illustrated how posters were wrong with there assertions.

You want to bury your head in the sand and ignore evidence -that's your right, of course. But don't turn this into some sort of adolescent debate with the whole "you have too much time on your hands"

Perhaps you don't have enough. You know - time to read and learn.

I didn't like it when? Stop putting words in my mouth. I actually found it quite comical for him to correct and make those who say ridiculous things look silly.

I did however, think it was a bit extreme in searching and highlighting 4 or more different web articles from that time period which mentioned said words, throughout the entire article.

Your condescending tone is not appreciated, perhaps I shouldn't waste my time reading the pointless and garbage filled content you post - then I could actually LEARN something.

[jack99]

Originally Posted by Myarin

Nothing in life is ever certain, but being reminded of that when you don't feel like thinking about it can cause an intense emotional reaction. Pretty much any unpleasant, unannounced thought can cause that reaction for a lot of people.

Yes, and there are limited parameters for reasonableness. Making stuff up and accusing Obama and Google of being in the cahoots is NOT reasonable, but free entertainment for many of us.

If anything, I'd say the inverse of your statement is true. Anyone who takes pride in their accomplishments might be wondering what the heck is going on, for the sake of safeguarding their own accomplishments as well. Evaluate and compare the experiences of others, so that you know what to expect in your own endeavors.

Except this paragraph has nothing to do with what I was discussing. A small child can take pride in having learned how to ride a two-wheeler. A scientist can take pride in a new discovery. Sure, some bother to compare to others, but really--that has nothing to do with anything here. Unless a good majority of AI posters are employees who were instrumental in concepts covered under these patents, the relevance of taking pride in one's own accomplishments is nil.

BTW, plain simple compassion exists too. All the time, people help strangers who drop their wallets and such, for no reason except that human beings are communal creatures and helping each other is instinctive (despite the impression some bad eggs might give of our species). I'm pretty sure that instinct extends to companies too, especially one as personal as Apple where the users really do get to feel like they know the creators as fellow human beings. How many companies let you e-mail the CEO and get a non-prefabricated response?

You're making a pretty large leap and a questionable comparison between real charitable actions and the sentiments that accompany it and any sort of emotional connection that one feels toward a brand. In other words, you're trying to shoehorn an elephant through a needle head.

If you can only see people getting worked up for a couple of narrow reasons, then maybe you're just not the social butterfly I am. Some of us care about pretty much anything you throw in front of us, haha. Both personality types are perfectly normal and common, so no worries either way.

Social butterfly? LOL!!!



The topic of concern at the moment is patent protection. A lengthy discussion commenced as to originality of concepts, ownership of them, and whether prior art backs the ownership of said concepts by one company over the other.

Instead, you expanded the scope of my comment as though I'd said "Gee, can people get pissed off over something for only two reasons?" when really, that's not what I said. At all. I was hoping someone could provide at least a halfway coherent reply, but your comment was just a convoluted and confused rant about "compassion" and what really just boiled down to a matter of people having emotional connections to a brand eliciting irrational responses.



If you saw my post as an "attempt at being smart on the internet," I apologize, but that's not what it was. You may have seen it that way, but I was just asking an honest, sincere question. I even offered two plausible explanations. To have laid out such a childish accusation against me, you must've been offended for some odd reason. You can't blame me for your thin skin.

Protip: Oh, and if you want to appear "smart on the internet," try using analogies and comparisons that actually work. Structure your assertions so they're concise and not discombobulated.

[jack99]

Originally Posted by jctevere

You, sir, have way too much time on your hands...

Sorry, but accusing someone of having "too much time" when you yourself have been an active poster in this discussion is hypocritical and reflects poorly on your ability to rebut facts. It's a cheap copout. Either show us how the proof doesn't support he says, or just pipe down.

I'll put it to you simply. No phone prior to the iPhone had integrated a phone, music player, and computer like capabilities (such as safari web browsing, etc) nearly as well or as simplistic and refined as the iPhone.

That is the marvel. Everyone else who tried before had a crappy product and failed. The UI on the windows phones or existing smart phones at that time were complete garbage.

I think others have already responded to this line of thinking more than twice. The iPhone helped lead such a trend toward smooth and slick smartphones, but as it stands, Apple invented none of the above. But their legal counsel have resorted to claiming ownership rights to concepts that fall outside the realm of being nonobvious and novel. That's what worries many of us.

[jctevere]

Originally Posted by G51989

That iPaq, from what I can see, came out a few years before, and they were clearing them out by charging bottom rock prices for it, all companies do it.



Can not read? I am 100% serious. Really.

I am in no way shape or form comparing my iPaq of the time to an iPhone 3G, Didn't I also say the iPhone 3G was were Apple really stepped it up and did something great? Oh yeah, I did say it was where they stepped it up, you clearly enjoy cherry picking, straw man arguments, or you just can't read and someone else is reading for you.



Hmmmm my Pocket PC had ....3G Unlimited Data....a web browser that was capable of displaying the majority of websites in their fullness, and yes admittedly it was stuck on mobile versions of sites a good amount of time.

Which would have been GOOD on the 1st iPhone because it didn't support mobile broadband, at all, AT ALL.

So, it had 3G data, video capable camera, which was the same MP, and looked about the same, but could do video which made it better.

It had Applications for download, the first iPhone did not have that, nor did it have intergation with web applications on any level.

You love to cherry pick. PocketPC's which I used for almost a decade, were very usable, they did their job very well. So, I know more about their usability than you do.

So, back in the day, my ipaq had, High speed 3G data, GPS, applications, voice activation, video capture, swappable batteries, talk to type, better support, I remeber the battery life being very good, it was easy to use, and got its job done. The ONLY difference being that it needed a stylus, or I just chewed off all my thumbnail so it was pointy, was Windows Mobile as pretty as iOS? No, but it performed just as well.

And the MP3 integration was a simple program with music controls, exactly like iTunes on the 1st iPhone was.



Yes they did, but they didn't do it with the 1st iPhone, they did it with the iPhone 3G and 3GS. The 1st iPhone sold slightly under RIM numbers, and sales actually ground to a halt until they gave in and lowered the price.


Yeah, the 1st iPhone was great, so great. That they had to bring out the 3G to make ANY progress.

You say I cherry pick and make straw man arguments - but I showed the product I was talking about and was factual and highlighted pros and cons about it. You talk about some model without giving all the information of it. If this was sold at $400 on a "fire sale" to liquidate old inventory, I am scared to ask how much it sold for when new for such garbage... And how much your "much better" model cost when new vs iPhone.

Either way, I'm not going to get into it. I don't really care too much about any pre-iPhone "smartphone". They were extremely ugly, hard to operate, and I think nearly every sensible person would agree with me when I say that you are clearly overstating how "good" they really were.

The "sales grounding to a halt" statement is 100% entirely untrue... Original iPhone sales were higher month over month (pre subsidy). After the subsidy demand grew even more, and then slowed after the iPhone 3G was announced.

You can deny that the original iPhone wasn't groundbreaking and market changing - but nearly everyone else would disagree with you... Including RIM, Microsoft and others - who thought the original iPhone must have been a hoax or have incredibly terrible battery life after it had been introduced:
http://www.electronista.com/articles...phone.in.2007/

The reason why the sales of the original iPhone didn't stack up so much compared to iPhone 3G wasn't because it was any less "revolutionary" but rather that people were still locked into 2 year contracts, and many didn't want to pony up the cash for an unsubsidized model. Not to mention the iPhone 3G was announced shortly after iPhone 2G was offered with subsidy.

So please, next time you come at me, come at me correct.

----------

Originally Posted by jack99

Sorry, but accusing someone of having "too much time" when you yourself have been an active poster in this discussion is hypocritical and reflects poorly on your ability to rebut facts. It's a cheap copout. Either show us how the proof doesn't support he says, or just pipe down.




I think others have already responded to this line of thinking more than twice. The iPhone helped lead such a trend toward smooth and slick smartphones, but as it stands, Apple invented none of the above. But their legal counsel have resorted to claiming ownership rights to concepts that fall outside the realm of being nonobvious and novel. That's what worries many of us.

You clearly missed the part where I showcased he "crossed the line" of being just a common poster to having too much time on his hands when he researched not just one web article from YEARS ago and circled every single spot where said word or idea was mentioned and uploaded as attachments, but FOUR different articles.

Your second paragraph has absolutely no relevance to anything that I have claimed in my statement. I never mentioned their legal counsel, nor claimed that they "invented" anything. In fact, I implied that everything prior was existing - but rather, that they were the only ones to integrate said existing technologies so successfully, tastefully and simply.

[jack99]

Originally Posted by jctevere

You clearly missed the part where I showcased he "crossed the line" of being just a common poster to having too much time on his hands when he researched not just one web article from YEARS ago and circled every single spot where said word or idea was mentioned and uploaded as attachments, but FOUR different articles.

I didn't miss anything. You're basically telling us yet again that he has too much time. I don't mean to sound petty, but do we seriously have a rule out there stating when someone's spending "too much time" on the forum? Do we HAVE to be "just a common poster" to have anything we say here given some credence? Because otherwise, that was just a cheap insult. A cheap substitute for a proper rebuttal.

Again, I ask, why not show us how that doesn't prove what he's been saying? Accusing someone of "having too much time" as a way of discrediting what he said is just a red herring. Don't use it.