Apple Spent Years Designing iPhone for 'Normal People'

[sflomenb]

I think it's fair to say that they taught the world how to use a phone with a touch screen device using skeuomorphism, bulky chrome, and mechanical buttons/switches. Now that we're all familiar with that, let's make use of the extra focus that is gained when peel all of that back and bring forth the information we're actually interested in.

Hit the nail right on the head

 

[Armen]

How about a IOS for the none electronically moronic people ??

Personally I think we all should file a class action lawsuit demanding Apple to make a more advanced IOS, we bought into the contract and with the new IOS upgrades we get CRAP for added features. Why the hell can't we put a folder inside a folder ? Why can't I forward my voicemails in a email yet ? on and on and on, YES I know jailbeaking will give me that, but I don't want to waste even more time looking for add-ons that should already come with the latest upgrade.

WTF are the "normal" people they are talking about ?? My mom and dad who don't even know how to program the microwave clock ??

COME ON APPLE, stop assuming the entire world is STUPID !!!!

First off, You "AGREED" to the iOS licensing terms which pretty much states Apple owns iOS and can do what they want with it and you have no say in matters. So your Class-action lawsuit goes flying out the window.

Secondly, because of Apple's "normal people" vision my older family members are now able to send text messages and use Skype to communicate with relatives over seas.

Not every decision revolves around you. Don't like iOS then jump ship then maybe you can complain about how much bloatware every other phone comes preinstalled with that you can't remove.

 

[C DM]

Awesome post, dude! Thanks for the education.

Seems like Predator did it first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnfDXznMf0E

 

[kdarling]

Seems like Predator did it first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnfDXznMf0E

Good eye. In my personal list of slide-to-unlock / slider histories, Predator is included, because he swipes to enable his self-destruct sequence:



Even Star Trek's LCARS had slider buttons that might inspire someone later on:



And, as already noted, the entire pantheon of finger-friendly switches and sliders existed back in the 1980s with industrial touchscreen GUIs.



Heck, industrial touch GUIs often relied on skeuomorphism so that operators would see familiar indicators and action choices:



So many people think Apple was the first to come up with the idea of touch friendly UI elements, or popup keyboards, or this or that. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[subsonix]

So many people think Apple was the first to come up with the idea of touch friendly UI elements, or popup keyboards, or this or that. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They did not come up with that idea, does "this or that" cover everything else? In that case you have thorough covered the field. I guess what they object is the use of their particular touch friendly UI elements. Even though you now show fictional characters and science fiction examples, all non-working, faux interfaces. There are other ways to protect and lock a lock-screen, I would argue that the best one is probably to use a hardware button, if you actually want to protect against accidental unlock.

 

[kdarling]

They did not come up with that idea, does "this or that" cover everything else? In that case you have thorough covered the field.

Just what do you think Apple did that was unique in the field of touch? I'm truly interested to find out what someone with no background experience believes.

(I've been doing industrial GUIS since the mid 1980s, capacitive touchscreens since 1992, touch handhelds and tablets since 1995.)

I guess what they object is the use of their particular touch friendly UI elements.

For example? The only touch friendly UI element that comes to mind that they have managed to get a patent on, was that slide to unlock.

Even though you now show fictional characters and science fiction examples, all non-working, faux interfaces. There are other ways to protect and lock a lock-screen, I would argue that the best one is probably to use a hardware button, if you actually want to protect against accidental unlock.

Interestingly, even science fiction can be prior art if it fits the details well enough. I like the examples because more people can relate to them.

However, you're ignoring the industrial touchscreen switch elements. Those have been in use for decades before Apple came along, and are why Apple's slide-to-unlock patent was considered trivial and invalid in Holland. The judge recognized that all Apple had implemented was a virtual spring-loaded slide switch.

That patent was also invalidated by courts in Germany and the UK, for being utterly obvious, especially in light of the Neonode a half decade before it.

It has only survived in the US after multiple modifications.

Ironically, not even Apple uses it any more; not since iOS7.

 

[initwithnibname]

Super man, super.

 

[subsonix]

Just what do you think Apple did that was unique in the field of touch? I'm truly interested to find out what someone with no background experience believes.

(I've been doing industrial GUIS since the mid 1980s, capacitive touchscreens since 1992, touch handhelds and tablets since 1995.)

Compare and contrast with what was available before the iPhone, and how that changed how interfaces looked on smart phones.

For example? The only touch friendly UI element that comes to mind that they have managed to get a patent on, was that slide to unlock.

Eh, it's a response to your previous statement, you said: "So many people think Apple was the first to come up with the idea of touch friendly UI elements" as if that is what they are suing for. It's not.

Interestingly, even science fiction can be prior art if it fits the details well enough. I like the examples because more people can relate to them.

I see, but it's also easier to get acceptance for them, even though they may not be accurate. I've seen switch elements before, I don't know how much it matters if you can touch them or click on them with a mouse, though. But I think it's pretty pointless to speculate about this from a legal standpoint, first because most people are not qualified enough to do it, secondly because the outcome is determined in a court room, not on MacRumors forums.

I personally don't care what's legal or not, my opinion doesn't matter for the outcome anyway, so I rather discuss issues of who copied who, regardless if it's illegal or not, or if patents should given to software or not.

 

[kdarling]

Compare and contrast with what was available before the iPhone, and how that changed how interfaces looked on smart phones.

I understand what you mean. And what I'm pointing out, is that the things that some think are novel, like touch friendly elements, flick scrolling, and all that... existed long before Apple.

Eh, it's a response to your previous statement, you said: "So many people think Apple was the first to come up with the idea of touch friendly UI elements" as if that is what they are suing for. It's not.

Thanks, that's exactly my point. Apple's not suing over most of what they did, because Apple did not invent those things.

Instead, they're going after little things that even they stop using after a while, because their first way is not the only way, nor even necessarily the best way. It's just one way.

The only other point in doing it as far as I can see is if your interest is to sway public opinion, either because some personal gain, or because you represent some interest group or PR firm.

You know, I've been posting online under my own name for thirty five years, starting on BBSes, and one thing never fails -- whenever someone has nothing to back themselves up, they resort to slurs and personal attacks.

My interest is that decades of touch history I worked through, does not get lost in internet myths.

I personally don't care what's legal or not, my opinion doesn't matter for the outcome anyway, so I rather discuss issues of who copied who, regardless if it's illegal or not, or if patents should given to software or not.

Okay.

 

[spjonez]

If you get a chance, read Exhibit A in this Scribd document from the USPTO. It goes into detail about the Lira patent that predated the Apple patent. For that matter, Apple itself had a previous patent that anticipated their newer one, and even Apple failed to know about it (!).

The fact is, there is almost never anything new under the sun as far as software goes. Something that seems new to many people, can often be decades old. For example, flick scrolling seems new, but is really old.

Thanks for the link it was an interesting read. I'm a programmer so I have to wonder, since Apple's patent was granted was it a) a mistake at the patent office or b) is their implementation different enough to warrant it's own patent? As far as I understand you can't patent results only implementation. Compression schemes and video codecs are good examples of similar yet unique patents that are all valid in their own right. I don't suppose you have a link for Apple's patent so I can compare?

 

[subsonix]

Thanks, that's exactly my point. Apple's not suing over most of what they did, because Apple did not invent those things.

Instead, they're going after little things that even they stop using after a while, because their first way is not the only way, nor even necessarily the best way. It's just one way.

Well, "touch friendly UI elements" is very broad, it includes all UI elements that are friendly to touch. Apple is not trying to prevent others from using touch friendly elements in general.

You know, I've been posting online under my own name for thirty five years, starting on BBSes, and one thing never fails -- whenever someone has nothing to back themselves up, they resort to slurs and personal attacks.

My interest is that decades of touch history I worked through, does not get lost in internet myths.

I'm sorry, I edited the post before you answered. It is somewhat a legitimate concern in general that is not related to my arguments at all though, wouldn't you also be interested in not having the field covered with patents?

 

[samcraig]

deleted - no need to belabor the point

 

[kdarling]

Thanks for the link it was an interesting read. I'm a programmer so I have to wonder, since Apple's patent was granted was it a) a mistake at the patent office or b) is their implementation different enough to warrant it's own patent?

Some prior art had not been found by the examiner. Apple themselves forgot to mention they already had patented some anticipatory art, which was a factor in re-examining this patent. So that's one reason it was originally granted: info was missing.

The problem is, software patents are often issued with the idea that they can later be invalidated if necessary. It's difficult for examiners these days, since they're given a time limit and an incentive to allow patents (it's now more difficult to deny one).

As far as I understand you can't patent results only implementation. Compression schemes and video codecs are good examples of similar yet unique patents that are all valid in their own right. I don't suppose you have a link for Apple's patent so I can compare?

Sure. http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381

Also, read here for other prior art that didn't make it into the USPTO exam.

I'm sorry, I edited the post before you answered.

It's okay. You're usually a pretty decent fellow Sorry I didn't see your edit in time.

It is somewhat a legitimate concern in general that is not related to my arguments at all though, wouldn't you also be interested in not having the field covered with patents?

Yes, I'm constantly stating that I'm against software patents... even while having to file some myself as protection. That's what they've turned into: a giant mess somewhat along the lines of the old Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine.

It's pretty clear that the USA was swayed by major corporations to allow them. I think all those countries which don't have software patents are smarter than we are.

What do you think of them?

 

[inscrewtable]

I have a hard time taking that statement seriously when it comes from someone with such a retina burning avatar

fixed.