Apple Earns Delay on Publishing Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

[Phokus]

Yes, we all know that 'tablets' existed before the iPad

But if you think that tablets as they exist today would still be there without the iPad's existence, that's just plain crazy talk.

No one would be talking about or buying them today, just as hardly anyone talked about or bought them back then.

Get over yourself, Knight Ridder came up with the concept in 1994:

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

 

[Appman2000]

That's actually a pretty amazing video (Phokus, above). But the key to Apple's *innovation* is IOS. They didn't invent the tablet form factor, of course, but they came up with an interface that made it possible to lose the stylus and actually made tablets viable for email, web browsing, gaming, shopping, etc. IOS is probably the greatest *innovation* since Xerox came up with the GUI. (Of course, Steve Jobs, in his audacious youth, took credit for the GUI, and to Apple's credit they did come up with some crucial *innovations* (straight from Wikipedia):

The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype did not feature Menu bars, or pull-down menu, nor the trash.

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's windows could not overlap each other.

 

[samcraig]

Unfortunately - Apple's suit was more about appearance than the OS. And that's the point many are arguing. The patents regarding those are questionable at best, BS at worst.

iOS was innovative. One could argue evolutionary vs revolutionary. But it was innovative. BTW - other tablets didn't NEED the stylus. But some/many actions were easier with the stylus. Just like today, if you want to really do artistic work on the iPad - a 3rd gen stylus makes the experience light years better. Further - the other tablets had email, web browsing, etc - iOS didn't make that viable. It was just a different experience - one that many people prefer.

iOS - in my opinion is still a great OS. But (again in my opinion) Apple hasn't made the same huge leaps forward that it did in earlier years. Both in hardware and software. I really enjoy using the several Apple products I own. And they work just as well as the day I bought them. But when you look at the competitive landscape - they are (depending on the time of year) playing catch up or matching their competition.

I know - unpopular opinion I am sure...

That's actually a pretty amazing video (Phokus, above). But the key to Apple's *innovation* is IOS. They didn't invent the tablet form factor, of course, but they came up with an interface that made it possible to lose the stylus and actually made tablets viable for email, web browsing, gaming, shopping, etc. IOS is probably the greatest *innovation* since Xerox came up with the GUI. (Of course, Steve Jobs, in his audacious youth, took credit for the GUI, and to Apple's credit they did come up with some crucial *innovations* (straight from Wikipedia):

The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype did not feature Menu bars, or pull-down menu, nor the trash.

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's windows could not overlap each other.

 

[DrNeroCF]

Sure they would. The iPad didn't really invent anything. In fact, iPad-like tablets (tablets with limited OSes and locked eco systems) existed before the iPad.

That's because tablets just aren't that convenient. They're awkward to manipulate in most situations IMO, and much less convenient for long typing sessions than laptops.

I'd say a Android/iOS laptop like device would probably work much better on the market than tablets in general. The "Post-PC" era is not about a hardware form factor, it's the software that runs on it.

Except, clearly, LOTS of people ARE buying iPads.

Sure it wasn't anything new, but it WORKS (or, at least, most people believe it does). But every single company wouldn't be jumping on the making a tablet bandwagon if it wasn't for the iPad. No shareholders would agree to all the money being dumped into a 'me too' product. Yeah, I saw lots of tablets before the iPad, they were nothing like it. You claim that there was tons of tablets just like the iPad before the iPad, yet none of them moved units or influenced the entire tech industry like the iPad did. Like admitting it or not, there was something different about the iPad.

And if you try to say that 'Apple made it' is the only difference between those tablets and the iPad...

----------

Get over yourself, Knight Ridder came up with the concept in 1994:

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

A tiny screen that you can hold like a newspaper?

Here's a concept for you: A battery that can last a really long time and charge very quickly. Man, I can't wait until the future when I can claim I came up with that idea and downplay the millions of dollars and man hours that went into producing a product that actually made it to market.

 

[KnightWRX]

Except, clearly, LOTS of people ARE buying iPads.

I never said otherwise and that is my whole point when discussing uptake in the "Post-PC" era. People are buying iPads. Not tablets. The way I see it, people don't really want tablets (frankly, Android, iOS tablets, they all perform the same tasks in the same ways), they want the rich ecosystem and simplified, locked down software that runs on top of it.

Put iOS/Android on a laptop, one that is much more comfortable for typing or general sitting down use and people might flock to that. Something like an iBook Air.

But that is soooooo far off left field compared to what we were talking about : the fact that Apple did not invent anything or brought anything really novel to the marketplace : they used what was out there, packaged it up with their software and marketed it successfully. No one is denying that.

 

[newyorkone]

Moron Judge

How and why is this moron a judge?

 

[Dustman]

Just get it over with apple.

 

[tbrinkma]

You've just put your finger on it. 4.13 inch display is all Nokia could manage in 2005 to get the price point low enough. The problem you're talking about is technology not being at a point that it was affordable to put in a package like Apple wanted to make.

The Nokia 770 was a tablet, no matter its size. It was ARM based. It ran a specialised OS.

Ah, then Android happens to own the tablet market because of all of the 4.3+" tablets sold for use on the Verizon, AT&T, etc. networks. Or Apple has a *huge* lead in tablet sales because you've got to include the iPod Touch as well.

A device with a 4.13" display is not a tablet.

 

[KnightWRX]

Ah, then Android happens to own the tablet market because of all of the 4.3+" tablets sold for use on the Verizon, AT&T, etc. networks. Or Apple has a *huge* lead in tablet sales because you've got to include the iPod Touch as well.

A device with a 4.13" display is not a tablet.

In 2012 ? Agree. But it was in 2005. The fact that what makes a tablet nowadays vs what made one in 2005 can change doesn't change that. Nokia marketed it as a tablet, it met the criteria for a tablet in 2005. Not to mention it lacked telephony equipement, which only showed up in the N900 that became the first Maemo based phone.

It debunks the premise that "Apple were first to introduce a tablet with a specialised OS that ran on ARM". What came before iPad weren't just x86 tablets running Windows, no matter how unpopular or how they don't meet the tablet requirements of 2012. Again goes back to what was available technologically at the time.

Let's not forget the initial premise here. Someone wanted to claim Apple invented ARM tablets with specialised OSes. Heck, the JooJoo pad proves that wrong and so does the myriad of eReaders out there.

 

[DeathChill]

In 2012 ? Agree. But it was in 2005. The fact that what makes a tablet nowadays vs what made one in 2005 can change doesn't change that. Nokia marketed it as a tablet, it met the criteria for a tablet in 2005. Not to mention it lacked telephony equipement, which only showed up in the N900 that became the first Maemo based phone.

It debunks the premise that "Apple were first to introduce a tablet with a specialised OS that ran on ARM". What came before iPad weren't just x86 tablets running Windows, no matter how unpopular or how they don't meet the tablet requirements of 2012. Again goes back to what was available technologically at the time.

Let's not forget the initial premise here. Someone wanted to claim Apple invented ARM tablets with specialised OSes. Heck, the JooJoo pad proves that wrong and so does the myriad of eReaders out there.

I am just curious, but wouldn't the Newton count? In fact, when the Newton project first started they were intent on creating a tablet computer:

Sakoman's end goal for Newton was to create a tablet computer priced about the same as a desktop computer. It would be the size of a folded A4 sheet of paper and would have cursive handwriting recognition and a special user interface.

 

[tbrinkma]

In 2012 ? Agree. But it was in 2005. The fact that what makes a tablet nowadays vs what made one in 2005 can change doesn't change that. Nokia marketed it as a tablet, it met the criteria for a tablet in 2005. Not to mention it lacked telephony equipement, which only showed up in the N900 that became the first Maemo based phone.

It debunks the premise that "Apple were first to introduce a tablet with a specialised OS that ran on ARM". What came before iPad weren't just x86 tablets running Windows, no matter how unpopular or how they don't meet the tablet requirements of 2012. Again goes back to what was available technologically at the time.

Let's not forget the initial premise here. Someone wanted to claim Apple invented ARM tablets with specialised OSes. Heck, the JooJoo pad proves that wrong and so does the myriad of eReaders out there.

Ok, so if the 4.13" device isn't a tablet now, but was then, what changed? I'd argue that either *nothing* changed (in which case it wasn't a tablet then either), or the iPad completely redefined the market (in which case, it would be like claiming a mule-drawn cart is in the same class as a Ford Taurus simply because people, in their respective days, would have referred to both of them as a "car"). Either way, that 4.13" device isn't an example of a tablet in the current context, and is, therefore, irrelevant to the discussion.

If you want to claim that ARM tablets (in the current context) were nothing new when the iPad was released, give an example of one that was actually available to consumers. After all, we already know the iPad was in development *before* the iPhone, so the JooJoo's timeline certainly doesn't speak toward the iPad 'not being anything new'.

 

[KnightWRX]

Ok, so if the 4.13" device isn't a tablet now, but was then, what changed?

Consumer expectations. Argue semantics all you want, the 770 was marketed and brought to market as a tablet.