They ruined it by making it better ?!
I have a hard time taking that statement seriously when it comes from someone with such a retina burning avatar
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Spent Years Designing iPhone for 'Normal People'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a hard time taking that statement seriously when it comes from someone with such a retina burning avatar
Correct. No opinions are to be had, except for what the Court rules. Now everyone must line up and eat this healthful green protein substance.
But it does. Apple's product are loved by the tech-unsavvy because of their, among other things, simplicity.
Of course there are a lot tech-savvy* Apple users / customers, but they (we) are in the minority. 2%? 5%?
*: tech-savvy Apple users are customers who could live with the much more complicated Android too, meaning they use Apple for other reasons (e.g., superior 3rd party software support), (mainly) not because of its simplicity. Unlike the tech-unsavvy.
And it was a good thing they did so. Otherwise we'd all be using a stylus and trying to poke at little things on our screen. Not that I didn't enjoy doing that, but you lose the stylus, you have little choice but to get another or try and get the screen to work with the tip of your nails.
Do you really think that Apple invented capacitive screen? They did not. When technology was ready many companies (including Apple) started using it. LG was actually the first one with their Prado phone. Apple's timing was very fortunate as they had a decent mobile OS ready for this particular moment in time.
it's really hard to understand you.
yes, exactly. my parents, who would not have been able to own or operate a complicated smartphone pre-iPhone. that's the bread & butter of apple's millions and millions and millions of sales -- normal, non-techies.
wake up -- not everybody is like you. most aren't.
How about for "NON" normal people.
Well those are Samsung customers.
----------
Well, good thing everybody has an opinion. Good thing your opinion doesn't count in my daily computing life.
While I agree that people like the simplicity of Apple's products, I don't think that's necessarily stems from inability to use technology per se, but by choice, because you may value your time and like to spend your attention on other things for example.
If your a nerd you may like technology as an end in it self, a phone or computer isn't that for most people but a tool to accomplish something else. As such the technology should get out of the way and enhance the ability to do some task. My microwave oven has a tiny computer and OS, yet I have no urge to fiddle with minute settings, change themes or be it's unpaid sysadmin, I want it to have one button, present zero congitive load and just heat my food. If you're a nerd and like to fiddle with technology, get an Arduino or Raspberry-Pi and go crazy. Edit: I'll also add that if we look outside iOS then Macs are certainly very popular among developers and sysadmins for their power and simplicity, it doesn't have to be contradictory goals.
Last edited:
Because iOS 7 isn't ruined. It's just fine in fact. But it's less fine than iOS 6 was. Something can get worse but still be pretty good, you know.
Don't confuse clumsy and bulky with complicated. There's nothing complicated about Android.
Well stated! I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems some are getting hung-up on "word choice", i.e. "normal people". We're intelligent enough to understand the implications of such terminology, we don't need to be "outraged" by assuming they are dumbing down the OS. There is a brilliance between form and function that Apple has always strived to maintain - produce a solution to a need in such a way that is simple, intuitive and functions well. That is a difficult task for any engineer.
Sorry that's a matter of opinion. Personally I think iOS 7 is better than what came before.
Both correct. In fact, the Neonode's swipe-to-unlock back in 2002 was the reason why German courts invalidated Apple's patent.
Btw, a Dutch judge also dismissed Apple's patent, by noting that it was not conceptually different than the slide-to-turn-on virtual power switches used in industrial touch applications for decades:
Of course, the Neonode wasn't the first to allow a general swipe gesture to unlock. (Although they specifically used a left-to-right swipe.) Gesture unlocking dates back years before that. It was quite a popular add-on to touchscreen PDAs during the late 1990s.
As for slide-to-unlock in general, I don't think anyone (even Neonode) should be able to patent a common action taken every day, just because it's copied onto a screen and made prettier:
As for Apple employee claims, I think this poster sums it all up:
So is anything "original"? Not a rhetorical question, or meant as sarcasm, but when one ponders the "idea", when do concepts stop becoming original and simply different interpretations of existing idea's? Digitizing the "slide to unlock" concept could be taken as a skeuomorphic rendition of the [literal] slide to unlock door locks. How do we know who's being truthful and who's making claims to having invented something when in many instances it may be impossible to prove [time wise], even with patents?
The whole thing makes my head hurt lol
But the slide-to-unlock used on screen has nothing to do with the unlocking it self, it's only used to convey the idea that sliding will unlock. There are other ways to convey that idea.
So true. My wife still refuses to install it.
(She is a non-techie, and iPhone and iPad is the only Gadgets she loves and linked with)
So is anything "original"? Not a rhetorical question, or meant as sarcasm, but when one ponders the "idea", when do concepts stop becoming original and simply different interpretations of existing idea's? Digitizing the "slide to unlock" concept could be taken as a skeuomorphic rendition of the [literal] slide to unlock door locks. How do we know who's being truthful and who's making claims to having invented something when in many instances it may be impossible to prove [time wise], even with patents?
The whole thing makes my head hurt lol
From my understanding... you cannot patent an idea.
You can only patent the implementation of an idea. In other words... a specific way to achieve it.
For instance... you cannot patent a padlock.
But if you come up with some cool new way a padlock could operate... you could patent that specific implementation.
There is a reason why some patent applications are 25 pages long for something so simple.
They have to be VERY specific.
Not to deflect your comment, but check out Calculator(TM) Free in the App Store for the iPad. It's a good basic calculator and there is also a paid version for $1.99. I've been using the free version and I like it.
I'm sure there's a good reason but the one thing I don't really understand is how Slide to Unlock is a case against Samsung. Shouldn't they be suing Google? Seems like more of a software concern, not a hardware one, but what do I know.
There is this belief that the average person now understands computers and we should stop assuming the entire world is stupid. Having done support off and on for years, I can assure you people still don't know what a left-click is, a right-click is, "did you mean double-click with the left button or the right-button," etc... I can tell you that the world surely does need things dumbed down.
HOWEVER, it would be nice to have a "pro mode" that can be activated by someone who simply understands how to dig through the menus to turn it on (so it's not turned on by mistake). More so on the iPad, it would be nice to have LIMITED dual-app support, such as a small video window while web surfing or something, as well as file system and SD card (without an attachment).
Ubuntu tried that. Linux for expert users on a mobile phone. Could not even raise just $32M on kickstart to manufacture them, whereas Apple makes $Billions selling simple elegant phones to the "electronically moronic". So there's way too few people like you, to interest anyone to invest in manufacturing stuff.
It would probably be cheaper than a lawsuit for the few like you to put up $32M of your own money, and let Ubuntu try again.