Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
why leave out the ending? "...And we have always been shameless about stealing". :- )

Because it wasn't significant to the point.

p.s.

i disagree with your point. converge was already happening, big time. further, touch-based interaction was blooming in research centers all across. as such, its not so much the vision, but the execution (and timing) that lead to what later became such a success. surely, the iphone may very well have been a massive catalyst for change - but that change was taking place already.

Like I said, that's a hypothetical in an imaginary world.

as for copying of the ui, i will never get that argument. then again, maybe we have different definitions of a ui.

What's not to get? Android did not have a multitouch UI before the iPhone. Android did have a mulitouch UI after the iPhone. It had many similar interface elements to the iPhone. Not a big deal. A perfect example of Picasso's quote. Call it "inspired by" if you can't get past the negative connotations of the word "copied".
 
Sorry you are the one rewriting history right there. Apple did not make Capacitive touchscreens take off. Capactive touch screens allowed fully touch OS to take off. Apple just jumped on board with the tech early and got a head start on it since they did not have to deal with legacy support nor have to figure out how to make their software work with capactive touch screens.

Just because Apple lead the charge does not change the fact that it was the fact that Capactive screens finally had become cheap and reliable enough to work in a cell phone around that time.

Proof of that is the fact Apple was not the first to use it and the first to see it be used was around 2007. The fact that it was not there until that time tells us that it just was not cheap or good enough yet before hand. It changed around that time.

Techology no matter what if you follow it you will see an explosion of certain tech all take off at about the same time. Follow LCD TV for example. For the longest time the largest size you really saw them was around 40 in. After that point it was plasma screens. Then follow it and with in a short time span everyone was cranking out large LCD TV.
Other tech to follow is look at CD burners. Around the same time point everyone started dropping burners in computers they sold and same again happen with DVD burners. It just the tech changes.

Apple just was and did jump on board earlier than everyone else.

The fact that you are making the argument that Apple was the reason capacitive screens took off is rather sad and very fanboyish.

This is entirely disingenuous. Most smartphone makers were still focused on how to make the best slideout keyboard. To claim apple just lucked into this is silly. Apple has always pushed this kind of tech to bring it to market. You seem to be saying that the smartphone market would be the same if Apple never got into it.

That is an absurd assumption.
 
Sorry you are the one rewriting history right there. Apple did not make Capacitive touchscreens take off. Capactive touch screens allowed fully touch OS to take off. Apple just jumped on board with the tech early and got a head start on it since they did not have to deal with legacy support nor have to figure out how to make their software work with capactive touch screens.

Just because Apple lead the charge does not change the fact that it was the fact that Capactive screens finally had become cheap and reliable enough to work in a cell phone around that time.

Proof of that is the fact Apple was not the first to use it and the first to see it be used was around 2007. The fact that it was not there until that time tells us that it just was not cheap or good enough yet before hand. It changed around that time.

Techology no matter what if you follow it you will see an explosion of certain tech all take off at about the same time. Follow LCD TV for example. For the longest time the largest size you really saw them was around 40 in. After that point it was plasma screens. Then follow it and with in a short time span everyone was cranking out large LCD TV.
Other tech to follow is look at CD burners. Around the same time point everyone started dropping burners in computers they sold and same again happen with DVD burners. It just the tech changes.

Apple just was and did jump on board earlier than everyone else.

The fact that you are making the argument that Apple was the reason capacitive screens took off is rather sad and very fanboyish.

Where is your proof? What evidence can you provide that capacitive multitouch displays were about to take off without the iPhone? Your hypothetical fantasies are not proof.
 
This is terrible. $pple is worse than microsoft now. Someone needs to step in and break apple up into smaller companies or force them to license iOS because right now it looks like they want to be a monopoly.
 
Where is your proof? What evidence can you provide that capacitive multitouch displays were about to take off without the iPhone? Your hypothetical fantasies are not proof.

And you can provide proof iPhone did oh wait you can not?

I gave you a list of example of other technologies in the past that reacted the same way and thinking that multi touch would not take off at some point and it all because of Apple is fanboysish at best or completely clueless.
Also pointed out the iPhone was not the first one to use capacitive touch screens and some were popping up around that time before the iPhone launch or shortly after the iPhone launch. Remember dev cycles for cell phones is very long term so anything released with in 12 months was already in the pipeline.

As I pointed out you are the one rewriting history. I showed you other examples of techology and how it took off and you often time see things happen all around the same time.
 
Because it wasn't significant to the point.

When left out no, when included it puts your so called point in a whole different light.

Like I said, that's a hypothetical in an imaginary world.

To someone like you, perhaps. To those who care enough to follow technological developments, not so much.

What's not to get? Android did not have a multitouch UI before the iPhone. Android did have a mulitouch UI after the iPhone. It had many similar interface elements to the iPhone. Not a big deal. A perfect example of Picasso's quote. Call it "inspired by" if you can't get past the negative connotations of the word "copied".

Apple was not first to show multitouch UI. Second, once you do go touch, and have tech. that supports more than one finger, it is quite expected that all of the things people have been envisioning for decades also get implemented. How can you not see this?

As for similar (graphical?*) interface, sure - then again the ios interface was very similar to (pretty much) every other interface ever made under the paradigm that has been ruling for close to 3 decades. As such, Google is no more guilty of being "inspired" than Apple is.

* not sure if this is what you are referring to here. if not, first paragraph sums it up, along with the last line of second paragraph.

----------

It seems to be some sort of illness. They even create fake accounts just to vote up and down posts.

proof?

We should feel bad for people who have nothing in their life that is interesting enough to them to attract their attention. I can not personally fathom spending hours upon hours every day hating on some company or product on the internet. I really do not know what kind of mental or emotional hole you must be living in to keep that up.

Indeed we should, i dont see many haters on "my" side though.

There are plenty of products I do not like or enjoy and some I really have some bad feelings towards, yet I spend no time at all on a regular basis hunting down people discussing them and then bashing them at every turn. I am curious as to what people with this illness did before the internet. Were they the bitter and angry letter writers to newspapers, magazines and companies? What form did their illness of inappropriate hatred manifest itself back then.

Were not hunting down people for the sake of liking the wrong product. We just dont like ignorant, uneducated rants.

The best is when they try to deflect their own illness and claim that people who like something and support it are equally ill. Of course this is not true because spending your time pursuing things you enjoy is normal behavior. Spending your time obsessively stalking products and people you do not like is an illness.

Who did this? Can you please quote someone?

It is not like they take an issue with one thing in particular but positively view everything else, these groups of people take the negative position on every single story and discussion that is posted on this forum as it relates to Apple. That in and of itself proves they are behaving irrationally.

Once again, who are you talking about - really?
I am starting to think this might be a good area for counseling and rehabilitation. This Interhate Syndrome is not uncommon. You see it too often, and the obsessive level we see in many cases is scary. Some of the people here post in every single thread and make scores of posts every single day always bashing and attacking a company and its customers. I know if a friend or family member of mine spent hours a day hating on people and companies on the internet, I would be working hard to try to get them some serious treatment for a serious problem.

You speak of haters, yet i see none (other than Apple devotees hating on everyone else).

Not to mention that constant barrage of negative thoughts and negative attitudes have to color and effect their perception on the world and the rest of their life. Again this is not normal behavior. I would hope they could all get help sooner rather than later. I really do try to encourage these Interhaters to direct their energies towards positive pursuits and areas of interest, but they tend to dismiss it and use it as another place to launch an attack from. I have so many different interests that I can not ever find the free time to ever get to review and research and talk about them as much as I like yet I am fortunate enough to have a lot of free time to pursue such things.

negative attitudes? Ok, im usually negative against ignorance. Its what is wrong with this world, so i guess ill stick with that for now.

If I could spend 140 hours a week just reading Internet forums for anything I wanted, I still would never reach a point where I was reading forums for a company or products I do not like, let alone do it hours a day like some people here do.

Then again, technology is perhaps not one of your interests? For others, it is their livelihood.

----------

Hey, heres an idea. Lets read this everyone, shall we?

http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

(Wonder who will be the first to hate on the fact that the guy who wrote it works at MSFT. Internet hate, was it?)

----------

Also, how about getting familiar with this:

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jan2008/id2008012_297369.htm

And checking up on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmxVA5xhuo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9iet1vcXZY

(It is people like Myron and Buxton that get pissed on by all of the revisionist nonsense that gets thrown around everywhere).
 
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUG7nwMmoUc

First touch phone, ever (1992). Guess what - it has icons in a grid! (obviously).

(Quite lovely comment in the end... "it doesnt do multi-touch, and its a monochrome screen... but its still better than android". :- )

BTW: One of my all-time favourite PARC innovations. God, what i would do to have worked there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g

(if you cant watch 5 minutes of computer history, fast forward to 3:30)
 
Last edited:
And you can provide proof iPhone did oh wait you can not?

I can provide you with reality. Capacitive multitouch screens on smartphones took off with the iPhone. You are the one with the unprovable assertion that it would have happened without the iPhone in order to be dismissive of the iPhone's significance.

I gave you a list of example of other technologies in the past that reacted the same way and thinking that multi touch would not take off at some point and it all because of Apple is fanboysish at best or completely clueless.
Also pointed out the iPhone was not the first one to use capacitive touch screens and some were popping up around that time before the iPhone launch or shortly after the iPhone launch. Remember dev cycles for cell phones is very long term so anything released with in 12 months was already in the pipeline.

"Other technologies did, so this one will" is not a real argument. The fact that Apple was not first is not relevant, because I didn't claim they were.

As I pointed out you are the one rewriting history. I showed you other examples of techology and how it took off and you often time see things happen all around the same time.

You took a statement of fact as an insult. Real history shows that capacitive screens in smartphones took off with the iPhone. To say that they would have anyway is to guess what would have happened in a fantasy world. Their popularity was logically connected to the advances in the UI. That's why devices with a poor UI, like the Blackberry Storm, failed.
 
When left out no, when included it puts your so called point in a whole different light.

It doesn't affect my point at all. Like I said, some ignorant people can't distinguish between copying ideas and IP theft. Picasso's quote and Jobs's follow up were both in reference to the legal and natural building of ideas on top of what already exists. Neither quote was about IP theft.

To someone like you, perhaps. To those who care enough to follow technological developments, not so much.

There is no one like me. Please stop with the stereotypical BS. As I explained to Rodimus, I was referring to the fact that a world where capacitive touchscreen smartphones succeeded without the iPhone does not exist. It's a fantasy world of "what if". I'm not sure why you would question that.

Apple was not first to show multitouch UI. Second, once you do go touch, and have tech. that supports more than one finger, it is quite expected that all of the things people have been envisioning for decades also get implemented. How can you not see this?

I didn't question any of that. Why do you make stuff up to disagree with?

As for similar (graphical?*) interface, sure - then again the ios interface was very similar to (pretty much) every other interface ever made under the paradigm that has been ruling for close to 3 decades. As such, Google is no more guilty of being "inspired" than Apple is.

It's just willful ignorance to not see the difference between the iPhone OS and the mobile OS's that existed before and even traditional desktop OS's. No point in arguing this idea.
 
I can provide you with reality. Capacitive multitouch screens on smartphones took off with the iPhone. You are the one with the unprovable assertion that it would have happened without the iPhone in order to be dismissive of the iPhone's significance.

So because it took off shortly after the iPhone came out is not an argument.


"Other technologies did, so this one will" is not a real argument. The fact that Apple was not first is not relevant, because I didn't claim they were.

Tell you the truth it is. It shows examples of how it works in reality. Why would this one be an expectation to the the pattern instead of the norm. So you tell me why this case is different and an exception.


You took a statement of fact as an insult. Real history shows that capacitive screens in smartphones took off with the iPhone. To say that they would have anyway is to guess what would have happened in a fantasy world. Their popularity was logically connected to the advances in the UI. That's why devices with a poor UI, like the Blackberry Storm, failed.

History shows that around 2007 it took off. The first capacitive screen phones started coming out then and not long afterwards we saw several others take off which means they were already in the pipeline any how. And again ask why is capactive screen an exception to the norm
 
It doesn't affect my point at all. Like I said, some ignorant people can't distinguish between copying ideas and IP theft. Picasso's quote and Jobs's follow up were both in reference to the legal and natural building of ideas on top of what already exists. Neither quote was about IP theft.

I dont share your interpretation of the quote. Rather, as i see it, the quote is somewhat embodied in making the stolen your own, something Jobs has surely excelled in; "...and we have invented a new technology called multi-touch" is a good example. After all, you need look no further than this board to realize that.

There is no one like me. Please stop with the stereotypical BS. As I explained to Rodimus, I was referring to the fact that a world where capacitive touchscreen smartphones succeeded without the iPhone does not exist. It's a fantasy world of "what if". I'm not sure why you would question that.

There are many people like you. Even so, i fail to see the relevance of your anti-stereotype nonsense. Make it just you then.

To you, perhaps. To, people not like you (i.e. everyone in your world) its the other way around (as you have stated that there is no one like you, everyone must be not-like you. happy?).

I didn't question any of that. Why do you make stuff up to disagree with?
So, you agree that all the pieces were essentially there, including the vision, and yet you call it revolutionary? Wow.

It's just willful ignorance to not see the difference between the iPhone OS and the mobile OS's that existed before and even traditional desktop OS's. No point in arguing this idea.

Where lies the difference? Really. I never can seem to get a straight answer with regards to this. Feel free to use images or what-not to make your point. Im dying to understand.

----------

I can provide you with reality. Capacitive multitouch screens on smartphones took off with the iPhone. You are the one with the unprovable assertion that it would have happened without the iPhone in order to be dismissive of the iPhone's significance.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.


(short: that is not proof of the opposite either).

"Other technologies did, so this one will" is not a real argument. The fact that Apple was not first is not relevant, because I didn't claim they were.

Actually, compared to your argument its an absolutely brilliant one. At least his argument is fixable; your argument is inherently flawed.

You took a statement of fact as an insult. Real history shows that capacitive screens in smartphones took off with the iPhone. To say that they would have anyway is to guess what would have happened in a fantasy world. Their popularity was logically connected to the advances in the UI. That's why devices with a poor UI, like the Blackberry Storm, failed.

see above.
 
So because it took off shortly after the iPhone came out is not an argument.

It is exactly my argument. My claim is that the popularity of capacitive touchscreen smartphones was connected to to the emergence of the iPhone. That is reality. That is what happened.

You are the one saying it would have happened anyway. Maybe, maybe not. But you can't prove a fantasy.

Tell you the truth it is. It shows examples of how it works in reality. Why would this one be an expectation to the the pattern instead of the norm. So you tell me why this case is different and an exception.

Wow. No. The reality is technologies fail far more often than they succeed.

History shows that around 2007 it took off. The first capacitive screen phones started coming out then and not long afterwards we saw several others take off which means they were already in the pipeline any how.

The fact that they existed does not mean they were popular. What are you trying to argue? In fact, they weren't popular on the scale of the iPhone for a couple more years.

And again ask why is capactive screen an exception to the norm

Exactly. And i have an obvious answer to that question. Because, starting with the iPhone, they were connected to a useful device with a UI that took advantage of it's unique capabilities. That's why it succeeded on a scale that was anything but the norm.
 
I dont share your interpretation of the quote. Rather, as i see it, the quote is somewhat embodied in making the stolen your own, something Jobs has surely excelled in; "...and we have invented a new technology called multi-touch" is a good example. After all, you need look no further than this board to realize that.

Sure. You want to take it literally. But your interpretation isn't really what matters, it's what the speaker of the quote intended. Are you really accusing Picasso of IP theft?

There are many people like you. Even so, i fail to see the relevance of your anti-stereotype nonsense. Make it just you then.

You don't know me. Don't make it me at all. Discuss the topic.

To you, perhaps. To, people not like you (i.e. everyone in your world) its the other way around (as you have stated that there is no one like you, everyone must be not-like you. happy?).

Again, you are making stuff up or assuming stuff that I didn't say. I just stated the obvious fact that the capacitive touchscreen smartphone and iPhones rose to popularity together.

So, you agree that all the pieces were essentially there, including the vision, and yet you call it revolutionary? Wow.

Every invention, every revolutionary device is based on pieces that were already there. And you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would question the fact that the iPhone revolutionized the wireless phone industry. It's not really a fanboy claim.

Where lies the difference? Really. I never can seem to get a straight answer with regards to this. Feel free to use images or what-not to make your point. Im dying to understand.

Like I said, you seem to want to profess willful ignorance, so there is no point in this argument.

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation"]
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
[/URL]

(short: that is not proof of the opposite either).

Actually, I just stated a fact. You can look it up. It happened. Rodimus is the one with the theory that requires proof.

Actually, compared to your argument its an absolutely brilliant one. At least his argument is fixable; your argument is inherently flawed.

What exactly is my argument, in your opinion?
 
Again, the "Apple invented everything and are the sole innovator" crowd derails a thread. :rolleyes:

Again, anyone who says things like "Android did not copy iOS" is labeled a "Apple-hater" (what is hateful about stating that Android did no copy iOS I will never get... It does not even say anything negative about Apple. :confused:)

What a crappy thread this has become. All in the name of not giving credit to any of Apple's competitors. They never do anything right nor do they ever innovate. It's all Apple and anyone who says otherwise is hating. :rolleyes:

I hate this forum sometimes.
 
Again, the "Apple invented everything and are the sole innovator" crowd derails a thread. :rolleyes:

Again, anyone who says things like "Android did not copy iOS" is labeled a "Apple-hater" (what is hateful about stating that Android did no copy iOS I will never get... It does not even say anything negative about Apple. :confused:)

What a crappy thread this has become. All in the name of not giving credit to any of Apple's competitors. They never do anything right nor do they ever innovate. It's all Apple and anyone who says otherwise is hating. :rolleyes:

I hate this forum sometimes.

It especially sucks when you have to invent reasons to be upset. Who is actually making any of the statements that you are claiming? Android did copy the iPhone. iOS has subsequently copied ideas from Android and other OSs. The original iPhone copied ideas from previous smartphones and OSs.
 
It is exactly my argument. My claim is that the popularity of capacitive touchscreen smartphones was connected to to the emergence of the iPhone. That is reality. That is what happened.

You are the one saying it would have happened anyway. Maybe, maybe not. But you can't prove a fantasy.



Wow. No. The reality is technologies fail far more often than they succeed.



The fact that they existed does not mean they were popular. What are you trying to argue? In fact, they weren't popular on the scale of the iPhone for a couple more years.



Exactly. And i have an obvious answer to that question. Because, starting with the iPhone, they were connected to a useful device with a UI that took advantage of it's unique capabilities. That's why it succeeded on a scale that was anything but the norm.

And despite of all the work and visionry with regards to multi-touch that happened prior to the launch of the iphone, you really think that if it werent for jobs we would "still be living in the stone age" so to speak?

His argument (if i understand him right) is not so much that Apple didnt do wonders for the sale of capacitive screens (in turn, driving prices down even further). Rather, his point is that Apple came in at a time where these monitors were just beginning to come into reach (both price-wise, and functionality wise vs. resistive screens), and that this attracted (and in the near future wouldve attracted) the attention of others than just Apple. That, as far as i can see, seems like a reasonable assumption.
 
Sure. You want to take it literally. But your interpretation isn't really what matters, it's what the speaker of the quote intended. Are you really accusing Picasso of IP theft?

It has nothing to do with being literal. And yes, im more than sure that Picasso stole tons of stuff through out his career. Artists generally do (be them painters, musicians or writers). The trick, one could say, is stealing without being looked upon as a copier (once again something Jobs is obviously very good at).

You don't know me. Don't make it me at all. Discuss the topic.

Never said i knew you. Stop evading. You stated that Y was X. I said: to you perhaps, to others Y is Z. I do not need to know anything about you to make that statement. Cut the crap.
Again, you are making stuff up or assuming stuff that I didn't say. I just stated the obvious fact that the capacitive touchscreen smartphone and iPhones rose to popularity together.

Im not making anything up. Im adjusting to your rant about stereotypes. Once again, stop evading.
Every invention, every revolutionary device is based on pieces that were already there. And you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would question the fact that the iPhone revolutionized the wireless phone industry. It's not really a fanboy claim.

Never said that the iphone didnt disrupt an industry, on the contrary i stated that several times on this board. Even so, what is said above does not hold.

Youre trying to make the iphone into this brilliant composition of available things that no-one ever thought about bringing together, when in reality the trend was already there. Granted, Apple may have been a catalyst, their disruption may have brought us the future a wee bit sooner, but they didnt rewrite it. The future was already there, our path was locked in on it.





Like I said, you seem to want to profess willful ignorance, so there is no point in this argument.
Hah. Well, its hard to be anything but "ignorant" when no-one, ever, is capable of providing something substantial. If it is so obvious to you, you should be able to point these things out. Dont just talk, do some walking for a change.

Actually, I just stated a fact. You can look it up. It happened. Rodimus is the one with the theory that requires proof.
Correct me if i am mistaken, but you hinted at a specific causality. Assuming this is true i can nothing but reiterate myself; Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

What exactly is my argument, in your opinion?
See above.
 
And despite of all the work and visionry with regards to multi-touch that happened prior to the launch of the iphone, you really think that if it werent for jobs we would "still be living in the stone age" so to speak?

Again, you are projecting someone else's arguments onto me. I never said anything like that, and I don't agree with it at all.

His argument (if i understand him right) is not so much that Apple didnt do wonders for the sale of capacitive screens (in turn, driving prices down even further). Rather, his point is that Apple came in at a time where these monitors were just beginning to come into reach (both price-wise, and functionality wise vs. resistive screens), and that this attracted (and in the near future wouldve attracted) the attention of others than just Apple. That, as far as i can see, seems like a reasonable assumption.

And I would agree with that in theory. But his argument was to dismiss the significance in the iPhone to simply of function of latching onto a burgeoning capacitive touchscreen smartphone market and therefore Android UI would have inevitably been pretty much the same when introduced in 2008 without the influence of the iPhone OS.
 
Again, the "Apple invented everything and are the sole innovator" crowd derails a thread. :rolleyes:

Again, anyone who says things like "Android did not copy iOS" is labeled a "Apple-hater" (what is hateful about stating that Android did no copy iOS I will never get... It does not even say anything negative about Apple. :confused:)

What a crappy thread this has become. All in the name of not giving credit to any of Apple's competitors. They never do anything right nor do they ever innovate. It's all Apple and anyone who says otherwise is hating. :rolleyes:

I hate this forum sometimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU

(no wonder why).

----------

Again, you are projecting someone else's arguments onto me. I never said anything like that, and I don't agree with it at all.

So, if Apple had not "invented the smartphone", we would still have these very same smartphones today? Is that what you are saying now?

And I would agree with that in theory. But his argument was to dismiss the significance in the iPhone to simply of function of latching onto a burgeoning capacitive touchscreen smartphone market and therefore Android UI would have inevitably been pretty much the same when introduced in 2008 without the influence of the iPhone OS.

See, this is where i lose track of you. You cannot agree with the first, without agreeing with the second. Ok, the world isnt exactly that binary, but damn close. Sure, it would be foolish to think that iOS had no effect, but i think you are overstating the impact as far as "innovations" go. Even without Apple, both the means of interaction and the graphical interfaces were already "there". If anything, Apple gave (further) proof of concept. (Which Google, obviously, would've been stupid to not learn from).

Please make a list of the things you think that Google stole. It makes it so much easier to understand you, and take this further. To me iOS is basically touch+basic gestures (swipe, pinch, press, hold etc.)+standard gui. Obviously it is something more to you.
 
Never said that the iphone didnt disrupt an industry, on the contrary i stated that several times on this board. Even so, what is said above does not hold.

You said it wasn't revolutionary, but you agree it revolutionized an industry. Huh.

Youre trying to make the iphone into this brilliant composition of available things that no-one ever thought about bringing together, when in reality the trend was already there. Granted, Apple may have been a catalyst, their disruption may have brought us the future a wee bit sooner, but they didnt rewrite it. The future was already there, our path was locked in on it.

It was a brilliant composition of thing that no one thought to bring together before. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Hah. Well, its hard to be anything but "ignorant" when no-one, ever, is capable of providing something substantial. If it is so obvious to you, you should be able to point these things out. Dont just talk, do some walking for a change.

Can you really not see any difference between iOS and OSs that existed before it's release? None at all? Again, if you claim to not see any, then you are willfully ignoring the obvious.

Correct me if i am mistaken, but you hinted at a specific causality. Assuming this is true i can nothing but reiterate myself; Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

You are mistaken. I said they were connected. One didn't happen without the other.

----------

So, if Apple had not "invented the smartphone", we would still have these very same smartphones today? Is that what you are saying now?

No. I don't know where you are coming up with these arguments.

See, this is where i lose track of you. You cannot agree with the first, without agreeing with the second. Ok, the world isnt exactly that binary, but damn close.

Of course, I can agree with one and not the other. I just did. To agree that the industry may have eventually moved to multitouch without Apple is not the same as agreeing the the first release of Android in 2007 (which I think it would have been without the iPhone) or 2008 would look the same as it does now.

Sure, it would be foolish to think that iOS had no effect, but i think you are overstating the impact as far as "innovations" go.

What impact did I overstate? Seems like we might be close to agreement if you stopped making up what you think I mean and actually respond to what I actually say.

Even without Apple, both the means of interaction and the graphical interfaces were already "there". If anything, Apple gave (further) proof of concept. (Which Google, obviously, would've been stupid to not learn from).

I think you are overstating what was already "there". The technologies may have existed, but the vision to bring them all together at once did not.
 
To reduce the iPhone to a touch screen device is to completely not understand what it was and what it accomplished at the time that was so much different than what other people were doing or would have done for any time soon.
 
In other related news, during the court hearing yesterday in Germany regarding the Apple vs. Samsung Galaxy 10.1 tab case, the judge voted in Apple's favor. Which means that Samung is not allowed to sell its Galaxy Tab in Germany.

The jugde argued that the overall appearance of the Galaxy Tab resembles Apple's iPad too closely.

Here is the link to the article, however in German: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,782389,00.html
 
You said it wasn't revolutionary, but you agree it revolutionized an industry. Huh.

I prefer disrupted, and evolutionary. From a techno-perspective the iPhone was not revolutionary. From an industry-perspective, sure - why not. If so, however, i prefer to speak of what "the iphone became", rather than "what the iphone was". Who knows what wouldve happened without the jailbreaking scene for example, after all Jobs originally envisioned a strict pseudo-feature phone "only" offering the web-platform for potential developers (if i remember it correctly - which i think i do, since i remember that i didnt like Jobs choice to disable java).
It was a brilliant composition of thing that no one thought to bring together before. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

First: Do you have any evidence of the opposite? Second: If you expect an answer you need to be more specific. What was it - specifically - that no one thought of?).

Can you really not see any difference between iOS and OSs that existed before it's release? None at all? Again, if you claim to not see any, then you are willfully ignoring the obvious.

Not many, really. Depends on how specific we want to be here. Could you please be specific instead of evading? What is it that makes it so unique in your eyes?

You are mistaken. I said they were connected. One didn't happen without the other.

But no one really wanted to use capacitive before Apple did, or?

----------

[/COLOR]

No. I don't know where you are coming up with these arguments.

Im trying to understand you, as you flip-flop all over the place. Stay in one place, please.

Of course, I can agree with one and not the other. I just did. To agree that the industry may have eventually moved to multitouch without Apple is not the same as agreeing the the first release of Android in 2007 (which I think it would have been without the iPhone) or 2008 would look the same as it does now.

The positions are not compatible, so logically - no, you cannot. If you think you can you didnt get what you responded to in first place.

Specifically, in what ways would it look different? And, are you talking about hardware or software here?
What impact did I overstate? Seems like we might be close to agreement if you stopped making up what you think I mean and actually respond to what I actually say.

Since you refuse to be specific, and make up all these incompatible arrangements in response to my questions it is no wonder that "i dont get you".

I think you are overstating what was already "there". The technologies may have existed, but the vision to bring them all together at once did not.

Vision where? Among incumbant firms?

----------

In other related news, during the court hearing yesterday in Germany regarding the Apple vs. Samsung Galaxy 10.1 tab case, the judge voted in Apple's favor. Which means that Samung is not allowed to sell its Galaxy Tab in Germany.

The jugde argued that the overall appearance of the Galaxy Tab resembles Apple's iPad too closely.

Here is the link to the article, however in German: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,782389,00.html

Youre a few pages late, mate :- )

----------

To reduce the iPhone to a touch screen device is to completely not understand what it was and what it accomplished at the time that was so much different than what other people were doing or would have done for any time soon.

Who did this?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.