Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do so, that would only prove that you don't understand what the quote means!

That quote has two parts, why do ignorant people always ignore half of it, mix words up and conclude that Apple copies other companies?

Two parts:
1. Good artists copy
2. great artists steal

Copying and stealing are two completely different things in the context of the quote, this is so obvious, because without this, the quote wouldn't even make sense.

In this context, to "copy" means just that, copying something, making something that is identical to something.
As this quote comes originally from Pablo Picasso, it is of course not only meant to describe technology, but art.

A good artist - this means someone who is at least able to produce something of a good quality - better than someone who is unable to do so but not as good as someone that can create something great - copies, like with only a single year of art school, one will be able paint a copy of a painting, he just has to know how to apply colour to a canvas and has to follow the instruction that is the original painting.

This also applies to writing, with young and inexperienced writers often copying the style of well known writers, because they are not good enough to create their own style.


Good artists are able to create only something that has existed before, but they are not able to create something completely new, that is beyond the normal bounds of what they perceive as possible.

The second part of this quote is a bit harder to explain, because you can't just use semantics to explain the obvious meaning of a word, because stealing is usually used to describe someone taking a physical thing from someone else.

But actually it is meant in a very similar way.

Great artists have a much better sense of what is possible than a merely good artist and they are able to think outside the bounds.

Stealing in this context means taking something and transforming it so much, that it has stopped being what it once was and that it now doesn't belong to the original creator anymore.
This requires the ability to see not what something is now, but what it could become with a lot of work.

In music, the first part, the copying, applies to the countless numbers of people who for example created a metal/rock cover of the song Hurt from Nine Inch Nails, they all sound alike, adding nothing to the original song.
The stealing of something on the other hand would be like Johnny Cash's cover of that song, that was from a totally different genre of music, added even more emotion and was so flawlessly executed that even Trent Reznor, the guy who created the song, said that the song now didn't belong to him anymore, because it was transformed by Johnny Cash and was now a different song.

In technology, the most obvious example for a product stolen by Apple in the way that is meant by the quote is the iPad.

Apple didn't invent the concept of a tablet computer, Microsoft did that ten years earlier (and science fiction did it even earlier), but they didn't just copy the way Microsoft did tablets running Windows XP in 2001, but they transformed it competely, using an OS that was born for a tablet instead of one that was forced to run on tablets.

A copy in this context would habe been a tablet running regular OS X, thick, heavy, short battery life...
If you want to see what a copy would have looked like, search for the "ModBook Pro", a MacBook Pro that is converted by a third-party to a touchscreen tablet running OS X.

Now what we think of a tablet is transformed and no longer means something that is heavy, has short battery life, a stylus and few apps than can be used with touch controls - now we think "iPad".

With the stolen thing not belonging to the original creator anymore, that is also true - see Windows RT that is modeled on the iPad, not Windows 7.

The artists that only copy?
The countless numbers of Android tablet that look and WORK the same way as the iPad, adding absolutely nothing new.


So if you're saying that the quote "Good artists copy, great artists steal" shows how Apple is a company that copies other companies inventions, that only shows you lack basic reading skills, ignoring one half of the quote and mixing words up, making it "Apple thinks they are great and they say great artists copy - see, they are confessing it!" in your mind.

It also shows you're a troll.

You have got to be kidding me my friend,did you not every once watch the interview with jobs? right after he says good artist copy and great artist steal he says we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.He even had a pirate flag on the flag post at apple in cali man.

You have to be kidding me thinking Jobs was not straight up ripping xero off and stealing there whole idea and coding when they handed over there xero ui to them.

here he is again because in your twisted reality you somehow think apple is a saint and never stole anything from anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

watch this video about Jobs stealing xero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrKWArr3XY

here is 1983 picture of inside apple

pirate_flag.jpg


flag outside apple headquarters

Apple%20pirate%20flag.JPG


so we have jobs saying they have been shameless in stealing great ideas and he has a pirate flag all over his company,so what exactly did jobs mean with his flag? does pirating not mean stealing?
 
Last edited:
You have got to be kidding me my friend,did you not every once watch the interview with jobs? right after he says good artist copy and great artist steal he says we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.He even had a pirate flag on the flag post at apple in cali man.

You have to be kidding me thinking Jobs was not straight up ripping xero off and stealing there whole idea and coding when they handed over there xero ui to them.

here he is again because in your twisted reality you somehow think apple is a saint and never stole anything from anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

watch this video about Jobs stealing xero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrKWArr3XY

here is 1983 picture of inside apple

Image

flag outside apple headquarters

Image

Case in point. He just spent all that time explaining what picasso (not jobs) meant by the quote and you ignored it completely.
 
Case in point. He just spent all that time explaining what picasso (not jobs) meant by the quote and you ignored it completely.

and you completely missed what jobs says right after he quotes Picasso as he clearly says WE ARE SHAMELESS IN STEALING GREAT IDEAS
 
and you completely missed what jobs says right after he quotes Picasso as he clearly says WE HAVE NEVER BEEN SHAMELESS IN STEALING GREAT IDEAS

:confused::confused:

So he quotes Picasso and you understood what he meant but then his next sentence he's taking about actual stealing?

Like I said, educating you guys is a futile endeavor

What's funny is Apple has never been found guilty of stealing...samsung has though, but of course in that case it's that darned broken patent system, right?
 
:confused::confused:

So he quotes Picasso and you understood what he meant but then his next sentence he's taking about actual stealing?

Like I said, educating you guys is a futile endeavor

What's funny is Apple has never been found guilty of stealing...samsung has though, but of course in that case it's that darned broken patent system, right?

That whole interview is about how apple stole the GUI from Xerox and amits it throughout the whole interview on how they ripped off Xerox and even had freaking pirate flags all over apple headquarters when they were doing it.

Bill Gates did the same exact thing to apple that apple did to Xerox

Look at that picture with the pirate flag and Bill Gates next to it,the whole time Bill Gates was there was to only steal the mac gui off apple
 
That whole interview is about how apple stole the GUI from Xerox and amits it throughout the whole interview on how they ripped off Xerox and even had freaking pirate flags all over apple headquarters when they were doing it.

Bill Gates did the same exact thing to apple that apple did to xerox

If by stealing then you mean both Microsoft and apple licensed the technology then yes they are all thieves!!!

Stop the dramatics.
 
If by stealing then you mean both Microsoft and apple licensed the technology then yes they are all thieves!!!

Stop the dramatics.

Im trying to prove that by what jobs said by his quote was that they intended to steal anything that they thought was great and worth stealing.

Hence the pirate flags all over his company

and for the record they didn't license **** to erox,xerox was stupid enough to just give it to them.They didn't get a single penny from licesning the gui
 
and you completely missed what jobs says right after he quotes Picasso as he clearly says WE ARE SHAMELESS IN STEALING GREAT IDEAS

IDEAS, you trolling troll troll!!!!

For the iPad, they stole the idea of a tablet computer, for the iPod, they stole the idea of a hard disk based MP3 player.

But they used only the idea, they didn't copy the way some other company implemented this idea in they past, they implemented them in a completely different way.

The Lisa and Macintosh GUIs aren't just clones of the Xerox GUI, they have been greatly improved with many features the the STAR didn't have.


If you want to know the difference of stealing an idea and copying a product, compare both the iPad and the ModBook Pro to a Windows XP tablet.
(The ModBook is probably a great product, but it is nothing transforming, nothing new)
 
You don't understand the quote, or more likely you are ignoring what it means

You also have a very, VERY limited knowledge on apple and what happened with xerox at PARC.

Talking points are always fun though.
 
You don't understand the quote, or more likely you are ignoring what it means

You also have a very, VERY limited knowledge on apple and what happened with xerox at PARC.

Talking points are always fun though.

then by all means please explain to us what apple meant by putting pirate flags all over the place.
 
then by all means please explain to us what apple meant by putting pirate flags all over the place.

I don't know what they meant but I'm definitely not going to misconstrue a quote to try to explain what they meant like you're doing.

If jobs was actually talking about stealing then your assumption about the pirate flag would be correct. But you yourself say you understand the quote, and THEN you misconstrue it to explain the flag. So like I said you don't understand the quote at all and trying to educate you on it is futile.
 
IDEAS, you trolling troll troll!!!!

For the iPad, they stole the idea of a tablet computer, for the iPod, they stole the idea of a hard disk based MP3 player.

Apple invented the tablet computer? No. What they did was make it sleek and simple. Same with the iPod. It wasn't anywhere near the first MP3 player made, but it was stylish, easy to use, and marketed so well it eventually became synonymous with the idea of a portable music machine.

And to combat your copy vs. improve argument, the Zune was actually better than the iPod in a few interesting ways. It didn't sell nearly as well, though.

But they used only the idea, they didn't copy the way some other company implemented this idea in they past, they implemented them in a completely different way.

The Lisa and Macintosh GUIs aren't just clones of the Xerox GUI, they have been greatly improved with many features the the STAR didn't have.

Yeah, they did improve upon the Star GUI by quite a bit, but it's still not as extensive as some people think. The biggest thing Apple added to the GUI was drag and drop, and maybe possibly the universal toolbar. Nice additions. Excellent ones, even. But hardly a complete reinvention. More an improvement upon an existing design.

And an interesting tidbit for you. Apple did license the GUI from Xerox, but only for the Lisa. They weren't allowed to use it for the Macintosh, but they did it anyway...and were sued for it. The only reason Xerox didn't win the case was because they waited too long to do something about it. Their statute of limitations had run out.

This is a problem I see with a lot of arguments around here. If Apple does something first, even improvements or different implementations done elsewhere are seen as theft. If Apple does it, well...it's seen as taking someone's idea and "making it better". It's very one sided.
 
Apple invented the tablet computer? No. What they did was make it sleek and simple. Same with the iPod. It wasn't anywhere near the first MP3 player made, but it was stylish, easy to use, and marketed so well it eventually became synonymous with the idea of a portable music machine.

Great, that was EXACTLY what I said...
 
Yeah, sure. You probably don't want your notebook to support true multitasking either - after all, it's also a mobile device that runs on battery power...
Exactly, I don't want my MacBook Pro to waste any power on apps, which I'm not currently looking at. It's called „AppNap“ and it's an up and coming new feature of OSX Mavericks. This is innovation inspired by how fake multitasking works in iOS. While you're still waiting for Apple to bring true multitasking to iOS, they are actual deliberately removing it from OSX. Deal with it.
What Apple does here is not called innovation. It's called finding shallow excuses for the lack of features that ALL other mobile phone platforms provide - from Windows over Android to Firefox OS and Ubuntu Touch.
Go and buy an Windows 8 Ultrabook, ignorant crybaby. People are running apple operating systems because they do not work like any other OS. If you build your computers like everyone else, you're called Dell and doomed to bankruptcy. Exceptional value lies in uniqueness only. Properties that are not unique to iOS and OSX are not features but rather commodities.
Sorry, but this is the type of comment someone completely ignorant of current mobile operating systems would make. Yes, I do want true multitasking, because I use it every day on my two years old Galaxy Nexus.
But that's what i'm saying. You don't want an iPhone! iPhones are for people who don't care about true multitasking. „It just works“ thats all what apple users want to say about their phones. If it could possibly interfere with „just working“, it's a grade of freedom Apple will happily kill in all their devices.
 
Apple invented the tablet computer? No. What they did was make it sleek and simple. Same with the iPod.
And same with the Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur. They did not invent the world's first motorized airplane. What they did was make it sleek and simple. The Wright Flyer was just the first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight. There were dozens and dozens of unsuccessful airplanes build before the iPad G1.

Now stop the ********. Apple did invent the PC, the Tablet and the Smartphone with Apps. They however did not invent the MP3-Player. That was actually a well established category long before Apple entered the market.
 
Now stop the ********. Apple did invent the PC, the Tablet and the Smartphone with Apps. They however did not invent the MP3-Player. That was actually a well established category long before Apple entered the market.

No they didn't. They improved upon them. Apple didn't invent the PC. IBM already had business machines out for awhile, and Xerox had the Star, which was for all intents and purposes a modern computer as we know them today built in 1981. What Apple did was make them affordable for home users.

Apple didn't invent the tablet. They made it super skinny, relatively inexpensive, and last forever on a charge. That's an impressive feat to be sure, but hardly an invention of an entirely new product never before seen in the tech world.

Apple didn't invent the smartphone with apps. People have been downloading apps from the internet on their PDA's and flip phones since the late 90's. What Apple did was make them convenient and easy to use.

Put simply, Apple rarely invent, they tweak and refine. I don't know why some of you put so much personal stake on the myth that Apple creates everything. They don't. They take good ideas from elsewhere and make them simple, attractive, and reliable. That doesn't make them any less of a company, any less innovative. They're just not quite the wellspring of modern technology they're made out to be.
 
No they didn't. They improved upon them. Apple didn't invent the PC. IBM already had business machines out for awhile, and Xerox had the Star, which was for all intents and purposes a modern computer as we know them today built in 1981. What Apple did was make them affordable for home users.
Yes the one-person home-computer or how we like to call it the personal computer. Affordability and practicability for home users opened up and thus invented a completely new category of computers, vastly different from the old business machines. When IBM realised the new market was developing, they copied the idea with the IBM-compatible PC much like Intel "invented" the Ultrabook after seeing the first MacBook Air.

aeae485f7e68a11f8a0427851b2c5c60.jpg

Apple didn't invent the tablet. They made it super skinny, relatively inexpensive, and last forever on a charge.
What part of Wright borthers didn't invent the airplane, you don't get? They improved upon it and made it super skinny and light so that it could fly, of the shelves like an iPad. Making a thing useful for the very first time is the same as inventing it.
That's an impressive feat to be sure, but hardly an invention of an entirely new product never before seen in the tech world.
Brothers Wright did nothing entirely new in the tech world. They learned everything they needed to know about flying by reading „Der Vogelflug“ from Otto Lilienthal.

„Despite Lilienthal's fate, the brothers favored his strategy: to practice gliding in order to master the art of control before attempting motor-driven flight. The death of British aeronaut Percy Pilcher in another hang gliding crash in 1899 only reinforced their opinion that a reliable method of pilot control was the key to successful—and safe—flight. At the outset of their experiments they regarded control as the unsolved third part of "the flying problem". They believed sufficiently promising knowledge of the other two issues—wings and engines—already existed (Wiki)

See, everything already existed. The only thing missing was someone to put it all together in a way so you could control it with ease. Because with usability and reliability comes usefulness. And that turns a prototype into a product.
 
Yes the one-person home-computer or how we like to call it the personal computer. Affordability and practicability for home users opened up and thus invented a completely new category of computers, vastly different from the old business machines.

You actually think Apple invented the home computer market? No, they were one of the first players, but hardly THE first. Commodore and Tandy put out home computers at roughly the same time as the original Apple II in 77. Atari followed them in 78 with the 800 line. They weren't the originators of the home computer revolution.

When IBM realised the new market was developing, they copied the idea with the IBM-compatible PC much like Intel "invented" the Ultrabook after seeing the first MacBook Air.

You mean despite the fact that the IBM PC was nothing at all like the Apple II, and the only similarities between the two were the fact they were both "home computers". See, this is what I'm talking about when I say hardcore Apple fans make claims of copying simply because someone else does something that falls roughly in the same category. It's pure and utter ignorance.

And I love how Intel "copied" the Air. They developed most of the internals for the machine at Apple's request, and suddenly they're ripping off their own work. Cuz Apple had this incredibly novel idea to make computers thinner and lighter.

Also keep in mind that Apple had to remove their adverts stating the Air was "the thinnest computer ever made" because a few other companies had beat them to the punch a few years previously (mainly the Sony Vaio and Mitsubishi Muramasa, both 2004 machines).

Once again, all your doing is showing how little you know, and how biased what you do is.

What part of Wright borthers didn't invent the airplane, you don't get? They improved upon it and made it super skinny and light so that it could fly, of the shelves like an iPad. Making a thing useful for the very first time is the same as inventing it.
Brothers Wright did nothing entirely new in the tech world. They learned everything they needed to know about flying by reading „Der Vogelflug“ from Otto Lilienthal.

This is such a stupid argument. First of all, it's a huge stretch comparing the advent of flight to the iPad. Secondly, it's not like we have a bunch of obnoxious Wright Brothers fanboys running around screaming that Lockheed Martin is copying their innovations. Thirdly, "usefulness" is subjective. A lot of people bought more iPads than Tablet PCs, for sure. But the iPad was marketed better, and cost far, far less.

It was the perfect machine for its time, no doubt, and opened up the mobile landscape as no other product has before. Not even the iPhone can claim that. But was all the technology required to make it happen invented solely in Cupertino, as bestowed upon Steve Jobs by the Zephyrs of Genius? Hardly. It's an evolutionary product as much as it is a revolutionary one, much like anything.

BUT THE WRIGHT BROTHERS OLOL!

See, everything already existed. The only thing missing was someone to put it all together in a way so you could control it with ease. Because with usability and reliability comes usefulness. And that turns a prototype into a product.

Just to cut it short, I'll say what I've said a thousand times before in similar conversations. Apple deserves credit for the amazing things they've done. I believe this. It's why I buy their iDevices. I also think they get far more credit than they deserve. They're not the sole giant in the industry. They're standing on the shoulders of everyone who's come before, just like everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Xerox had the Star, which was for all intents and purposes a modern computer as we know them today built in 1981.
„The Xerox Star was not originally meant to be a stand-alone computer, but to be part of an integrated Xerox "personal office system" that also connected to other workstations and network services via Ethernet. Although a single unit sold for $16,000, a typical office would have to purchase at least 2 or 3 machines along with a file server and a name server/print server. Spending $50,000 to $100,000 for a complete installation was not an easy sell, when a secretary's annual salary was about $12,000 and a Commodore VIC-20 cost around $300.“ (Wiki)

Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg


It is called a „workstation“ and it is marketed as a workstation. It certainly is no home computer meant to be owned by one private person for its personal use. And even to companies it was not an easy sell. Thats like the invention of the first aircraft with the little exception that it did not fly. Xerox did not invent the PC. Xerox invented a lot of technologies that made the PC possible. They always missed the final step.

„Researchers at Xerox and its Palo Alto Research Center invented several important elements of personal computing, such as the desktop metaphor GUI, the computer mouse and desktop computing. These features were frowned upon by the then board of directors, who ordered the Xerox engineers to share them with Apple technicians. The features were taken on by Apple and, later, Microsoft. Partly thanks to these features, these two firms would then go on to duopolize the personal computing world.“ (Wiki)

Wikipedia has it right, graphical user interface and computer mouse are inventions of Xerox and they are important elements of personal computing. Like the inventor of the wheel did not invent the car and the inventor of the touchscreen did not invent the tablet.
 
Wow. You really love the bold tag, don't you?

I never claimed the Xerox Star was a home PC. It was a $10,000 workstation that was never meant to come anywhere near the consumer market. The TRS-80 and Commodore PET sure were, though. They, along with the Apple II, came out in early-mid '77.

Once again, Apple were just one company among many. One of the first, but not THE first.

...unless you want to break it down by months, but that'd just seem desperate on your part.
 
This topic is about the new iOS 7, not about who copied who. Look! We almost got 1500 posts on a single topic and novody stops arguementing. We got past 50 pages of pure spam. It's like if I say:
-Hi everyone! How do you like the new iOS 7?
And everyone say:
-APPLE STOLE FROM ANDROID.
-No, Android and WP copied Apple.
-Apple has some pirate flag in their logo, they stole everything from Xerox
-Bananas are yellow, not red.
It's like: What the ******* are everyone talking about?
 
You actually think Apple invented the home computer market?
I never said that. I said Apple invented the PC. The Apple II is not a PC. The Macintosh was the very first PC. But the Apple II was already a home computer (not the first) and being a home computer is a very important part of what distinguishes Personal Computers as a category from the kind of computers IBM made at that time.
No, they were one of the first players, but hardly THE first. Commodore and Tandy put out home computers at roughly the same time as the original Apple II in 77. They weren't the originators of the home computer revolution.
And no one ever claimed so.
You mean despite the fact that the IBM PC was nothing at all like the Apple II, and the only similarities between the two were the fact they were both "home computers".
See, the IBM PC was a fundamental shift in the companies strategy. Earlier IBM computers were not home computers at all. It was a reaction to the market success home computer makers had with their machines. PC became the category name for all home computers with a graphical user interface. Much like Ultrabook became the category name for all MacBook Air like Laptops.

Ultrabook is also a brandname by Intel and they define what properties a Notebook must have to call itself an Ultrabook. No AMD CPUs for example. Apple never used the term Ultrabook for its MacBook Air and under the newest definition it wouldn't even fit, because it has no touchscreen. Nevertheless in the category computers subcategory personal computers subcategory laptops subcategory ultra books the MacBook Air is the dominating product in market share and profit share. Apple did not invent computers. Apple did invent personal computers. Apple did not invent laptops. Apple did invent ultrabooks.
See, this is what I'm talking about when I say hardcore Apple fans make claims of copying simply because someone else does something that falls roughly in the same category. It's pure and utter ignorance.
You're not even listening to what I have to say and dare to call me ignorant? Look in the mirror.
And I love how Intel "copied" the Air. They developed most of the internals for the machine at Apple's request, and suddenly they're ripping off their own work.
That pretty much is the definition of ripping off.
Cuz Apple had this incredibly novel idea to make computers thinner and lighter.
If it's not a novel idea by Apple, why so much pressure by Intel to push OEMs to produce Ultrabooks? Intel foresaw that the MacBook Air was about to become the good enough laptop for almost everyone. Prior to the Retina MacBook Pro it wasn't even clear if heavier more powerful notebooks would survive as a major category at all. Intel was at risk to become dependent on Apple as its biggest and only customer for the fastest growing segment of the market. They had to react, just like IBM had to react with the IBM PC.
Also keep in mind that Apple had to remove their adverts stating the Air was "the thinnest computer ever made" because a few other companies had beat them to the punch a few years previously.
A market is defined by quantities, revenues and profits. You made up the silly idea that an ultrabook is defined mainly by its thinness and lightness. But a sheet of paper is thinner and lighter than any other ultrabook, yet it's not the leading product in that market. What ever combination of properties the Mitsubishi Muramasa has, it did not help to sell lots of units, at a high price, with a healthy margin.
A lot of people bought more iPads than Tablet PCs, for sure. But the iPad was marketed better, and cost far, far less.
Better marketing is innovation, lower prices are innovation. As much as smaller and lighter and longer battery life. Also a quieter laptop is innovation, a more sturdy one is innovation. The omission of legacy ports like Ethernet, Firewire, PCMCIA and optical and spinning drives is innovation. The iPad was different enough from PCs to become useful on its own. Tablet-PCs were just Laptop-PCs with an added Touchscreen. And the additional functionality wasn't even worth the price, so it never became a feature in PCs anyway. Let alone an entire new category of computers. We call them tablets but we mean iPad-like.
But was all the technology required to make it happen invented solely in Cupertino, as bestowed upon Steve Jobs by the Zephyrs of Genius?
No one ever claimed that. You are fighting windmills, Don Quixote. What you like to ignore, is that a huge part of the technology an design that was required to build an iPad actually was developed in Cupertino.
I also think they get far more credit than they deserve. They're not the sole giant in the industry.
They are. You don't make more money than Microsoft if you're not the sole giant in the industry. They haven't been in the past and might not be in the future, but right now Apple is THE giant, bigger than Sony ever was. Bigger than any technology company ever was.
 
See, everything already existed. The only thing missing was someone to put it all together in a way so you could control it with ease. Because with usability and reliability comes usefulness. And that turns a prototype into a product.

Perfect :)


And Renzatic, how is Intel saying to all those Wintel-manufacturers "Hey, Apple is selling this nice MacBook Air and they are paying us ********s of money for the CPU, why don't you copy those and sell them with Windows instead?" not ripping Apple off?

Intel didn't model the "Ultrabook" on something they invented themselves or a famous model by Asus or Samsung - Intel wanted to sell more of the CPUs Apple was using in the MBA and so they asked other companies to sell knock-offs of the MBA with identical specs - and it was obvious that all those "Let's do what Apple did" companies would also clone the looks of the MacBook Air.
 
Though the one thing that really amazes me is that no one's brought up Samsung yet.
It's because you still deny the invention of iOS and its followers Android and Windows Phone. Samsung never developed a mobile OS sufficient for the new era of smartphones, which is a category of iPhone-like phones, not the Nokia Communicator kind of smartphones, which used that word earlier but for a completely different kind of phone.

When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone he made up a chart with easy/hard and smart/dumb axis, and explained how he saw the market. The smartphones of that era were a little smarter than normal phones, but even harder to use. And he wanted the iPhone to be not such kind of a smartphone at all, but way smarter and way easier o use.

Every new smartphone ever since wanted to be exactly were the iPhone was. And Android and Windows Phone are the means to get there. Samsungs own Bada OS is more like an competitor to Nokias Symbian. And if you still deny the depth of innovation that took place between Symbian and iOS, you just have to take a look at Nokias stock price.

Apple really did invent the smartphone as we know it.

There is no need to bring up Samsung, they never innovated with anything.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.