No I and others are pointing out that Apple is hypocritical in accusing others of copying when they have a long standing tradition of doing it themselves. The date thing is a red herring as I've seen quite a few things appear on Macs long after they appeared in Windows or on PCs. In fact I only moved over to Macs after they had taken enough of the good ideas from other companies to make the switch worthwhile.
I notice you conveniently ignored my post with Steve Jobs saying in a video interview "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas".
Apple isn't merely accusing people of "copying" dude.
I can't remember the correct term for it, but the difference between the Braun situation and the Samsung situation is that Samsung is wholesale ripping Apple off and that can confuse customers.
Samsung blatantly and obviously ripped a CURRENT popular product off. It's leeching off someone elses success which is not what Apple did with the iPod. Jony has said a million times Rams was his inspiration and even the calculator for the iPhone was a direct homage to Rams.
That's the difference and why your comparison is not valid.
And the video is old and out of context. Let's look at the iPod for example.
Before the iPod, there were MP3 players - but they were all crap. They all used flash memory and only had 64-128 MB (as in MEGAbytes) of memory, had no intuitive software, crap battery life (most used AA batteries), and just horrible interfaces. And the hard drive ones were even worse - they were a brick to carry. Seriously no one knew how to use them, they were basically a worthless gimmick.
A good artist would have simply copied what was done before. Apple could have just released an MP3 player called the "Musicon 5500" with no intuitive software (meaning doesn't work seamlessly with iTunes), double A batteries, and either a huge laptop-sized 5GB hard drive or a laughable size of 256MB. They could have done that. "50 songs in your pocket!" lol
Instead a great artist would invent the click wheel (Phil Schiller's idea) in order to make navigating through 1,000 songs a breeze, license a 1.8inch hard drive from Toshiba for the hard drive (thus the iPod is no bigger than a deck of cards), and have it work SEAMLESSLY with iTunes. It was perfect.
Everyone was so obsessed with specs, hard drive space, extra features (like radio and voice recording) back then they didn't realize what was needed to make a successful MP3 player. The world needed a digital Walkman: something that fits in your pocket, works great and easy to use, and has the features you DO want (earphones for example). That's why Apple succeeded while Sony, Creative, RIO, etc. etc. failed miserably. Notice in the iPod marketing it's "1,000 songs in your pocket" and not "5 GB of storage." Pure genius.
It was the same thing with tablets. The Windows XP tablets were so obsessed with being laptop replacements that they (Microsoft and PC manufacturers) didn't understand what a tablet should have been. The Windows XP tablets had crap battery life, too expensive (like $2,000 no lie), used a crummy stylus, crap internet/wireless connections, used full on Windows XP and were HUGE. Apple could have just released a tablet with a stylus and OS X and call it a day but they decided to innovate. Our fingers are the stylus; iOS' simplicity would be used instead of OS X; it would be thin and sexy; acceptable battery life; decent price point; it would have seamless connection to the internet, etc. etc.
Even today MS is still trying with the stylus. They just don't get it. Whatever.
So while yes, the iPod was not the first to the market it was the first to not be hot garbage and to actually be intuitive and easy to use. I remember the original iPods for Windows came out with this POS software (MusicMatch) but once Apple unleashed iTunes on Windows the iPod truly became a phenomenon.
Does that make sense? It's very confusing and Steve chose his words
very poorly, but his point still stands.
