Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung: Hey, everybody! Check out my pig! Isn't she cute? :p

Apple: :eek: Hey! Your pig looks just like my pig! Not cool! :mad:

German court: These pigs do look similar (;)) so we'll have to side with Apple

Samsung: :(

Apple: Up yours, Samsung :D Oh, and don't forget I'll need more parts for Christmas shipping rush. :cool:

Samsung: :eek: Wait a minute, I have an idea! (breaks out lipstick and smears all over pig's snout) How's that?

German court: Hmmm... I suppose that will work :)

Samsung: :D

Apple: Whoa, she's kind of cute! Heeeeeeeey, piggy! How youuuuuuuuu doin' :eek:

You're wrong! Apple still thinks that the second pig looks like its pig!!!

----------

If you consider me one of the "haters", then I have to say that you are almost shockingly oversensitive, and your definition thereof must be someone who doesn't applaud Apple for every single move they make.

Sigh. Whatever. Have fun down in the more smarterer boards.

Whatever, people call me a fandroid here all the time.

I love Android so much I decided to buy iOS over Android because the love was so strong, it would only create a rift in the universe if I owned Android powered products, does that sound right?:confused:
 
As if anyone's really buying them in the first place.

Now it's got another problem (aside from running Android): it's fugly.

So, if the Galaxy Tab is fugly, and the Galaxy Tab looks like the iPad (which you've stated several times by calling it an iPad knockoff), are you saying the iPad is fugly?

If a=b, and b=c, then a=c.
 
So, if the Galaxy Tab is fugly, and the Galaxy Tab looks like the iPad (which you've stated several times by calling it an iPad knockoff), are you saying the iPad is fugly?

If a=b, and b=c, then a=c.
I don't think the apple drone is smart enough to figure that one out.
 
So, if the Galaxy Tab is fugly, and the Galaxy Tab looks like the iPad (which you've stated several times by calling it an iPad knockoff), are you saying the iPad is fugly?

If a=b, and b=c, then a=c.

We all know LTD's defines beauty as in any product with a white apple on it, if it does not have one, it's fugly. It's quite simple, you should know that by now.

So he's not contradicting himself, the Tab copies the iPad without an white apple, hence it is fugly (his opinion).
 
So, if the Galaxy Tab is fugly, and the Galaxy Tab looks like the iPad (which you've stated several times by calling it an iPad knockoff), are you saying the iPad is fugly?

If a=b, and b=c, then a=c.

ROFLMAO! Owned!
 
So, if the Galaxy Tab is fugly, and the Galaxy Tab looks like the iPad (which you've stated several times by calling it an iPad knockoff), are you saying the iPad is fugly?

If a=b, and b=c, then a=c.

Android is a very poorly copied version of iOS.

----------

11 pages and nothing of actual worth was discussed. Figures.

Great post, you're bring your normal contribution to the thread I see.

----------

Thanks for the complement.

He seems to like you...

I think you've been spot on in this thread.
 
pretty sure Apple designed the first GUI os didn't they?

No. They did a far more important thing than that. They made the first GUI OS that actually was popular.

The stuff they took from PARC was primitive compared to the first Mac OS.

No overlapping windows, no drag and drop, no selecting multiple icons with mouse, no trash, no desktop metaphors and the list goes on. All these were invented by the Macintosh team. So Apple invented the default look for all the upcoming GUI OS's basically.
 
No. They did a far more important thing than that. They made the first GUI OS that actually was popular.

The stuff they took from PARC was primitive compared to the first Mac OS.

No overlapping windows, no drag and drop, no selecting multiple icons with mouse, no trash, no desktop metaphors and the list goes on. All these were invented by the Macintosh team. So Apple invented the default look for all the upcoming GUI OS's basically.

Looking at sales (the key indicator around here), it wasn't popular at all. And, if were taking that route, MSFT wins hands down with Win 95. And, no desktop metaphor? Are you nuts? Alan Kay, one of the scientists credited with its introduction/invention didn't work at Apple, he worked at PARC*. And yes, the work of him and his colleagues certainly found its way into the Alto (and later Star). Furthermore, neither is the work of Engelbart associated with Apple in any sensible way. Stop revising history and get your facts straight. This Apple-praising nonsense is tiring. Apple invented jack, at best they extended on the work that already was.

* Correction: Kay, like many others, went on to work at Apple after PARC lost its... funk. Certainly, Apple has been an important institution for Computer Science, but there is no need to revise history here.

Addendum:

http://ui.korea.ac.kr/Board/Upload/a personal view_n.pdf

Good reading for those interested in the history of the modern GUI, written by Kay himself (while at Apple).

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/thestaruserinterfaceanoverview

An article giving an overview of the Star user face (Altos successor).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDJn4-jIY3E

Kay speaking of his early work on PC's (The Flex Machine, 1968).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQg4LquY0uU

Worthwhile watching: "Personal Computing: Historic Beginnings".
For instance, in addition to Flex brings up LOGO and the Dynabook.

Dynabook.png

Dynabook, 1968 (Alan Key).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36NNGzNvjo
Dynabook video.
 
Last edited:
Looking at sales (the key indicator around here), it wasn't popular at all. And, if were taking that route, MSFT wins hands down with Win 95. And, no desktop metaphor? Are you nuts? Alan Kay, one of the scientists credited with its introduction/invention didn't work at Apple, he worked at PARC. And yes, the work of him and his colleagues certainly found its way into the Alto (and later Star). Furthermore, neither is the work of Engelbart associated with Apple in any sensible way. Stop revising history and get your facts straight. This Apple-praising nonsense is tiring. Apple invented jack, at best they extended on the work that already was.

Oh come on. Be fair. They added round corners to the windows!
 
Oh come on. Be fair. They added round corners to the windows!

Dont forget, 25 years later they added the ability to resize windows by pulling any side too. If it weren't for Apple, who knows how we would resize our windows! Now they just need to copy MSFTs snap to side (win 7), and allow for multiple "full screen applications" in the same screen (Win 8) and everything will be dandy.

(I do like Lion though. Best OS X version so far in my book. Safari is worse of a memory hog than Firefox though. Hope they fix it soon).
 
Looking at sales (the key indicator around here), it wasn't popular at all. And, if were taking that route, MSFT wins hands down with Win 95. And, no desktop metaphor? Are you nuts? Alan Kay, one of the scientists credited with its introduction/invention didn't work at Apple, he worked at PARC*. And yes, the work of him and his colleagues certainly found its way into the Alto (and later Star). Furthermore, neither is the work of Engelbart associated with Apple in any sensible way. Stop revising history and get your facts straight. This Apple-praising nonsense is tiring. Apple invented jack, at best they extended on the work that already was.

* Correction: Kay, like many others, went on to work at Apple after PARC lost its... funk. Certainly, Apple has been an important institution for Computer Science, but there is no need to revise history here.

I didn't revise history. Everything I have quoted has been invented at Apple. Xerox PARC GUI did not have overlapping windows, it did not have drag and drop, it did not have the desktop metaphors like the trash, it did not have multiple icon selection with mouse.

Seriously...

And about popularity, Macintosh was a popular computer. If you think it wasn't, then we are disagreeing on what popular means. And Windows 95? Are you kidding me? It came 11 years after Mac OS. How can you compare the popularity of the first Mac OS to something that came 11 years after? I never said Apple made the most popular GUI OS. I said they made the FIRST popular one. Even the first GUI Microsoft OS was released 5 years after the first Mac OS and it was messy as hell.


Oh, here's something for you to read.

http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/Oral_History/102658007.05.01.acc.pdf

It's one thing to say that what Atkinson and Hertzfeld's team did was not that important for the modern GUI, it's another to claim that they didn't do anything. Apple licensed around 200 GUI elements to Microsoft so they could release Win 1.0. Kinda impressive for a company who invented "jack".
 
Last edited:
I didn't revise history. Everything I have quoted has been invented at Apple. Xerox PARC GUI did not have overlapping windows, it did not have drag and drop, it did not have the desktop metaphors like the trash, it did not have multiple icon selection with mouse.

Seriously...

And about popularity, Macintosh was a popular computer. If you think it wasn't, then we are disagreeing on what popular means. And Windows 95? Are you kidding me? It came 11 years after Mac OS. How can you compare the popularity of the first Mac OS to something that came 11 years after? I never said Apple made the most popular GUI OS. I said they made the FIRST popular one. Even the first GUI Microsoft OS was released 5 years after the first Mac OS and it was messy as hell.


Oh, here's something for you to read.

http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/Oral_History/102658007.05.01.acc.pdf

It's one thing to say that what Atkinson and Hertzfeld's team did was not that important for the modern GUI, it's another to claim that they didn't do anything.

1) And Apple didn't have "resize window from any edge" until Lion (who cares!). The major invention is the paradigm, not continuous improvements of the same.

2) Ironically, the trash-can constitutes a paradigm-break. Normally, you dont have trash cans on your desk. (Nor do you eject disks by throwing them in the trash bin -- You do however move objects around, cf. drag-and-drop).

3) If the Mac was popular, so were Microsoft tablets early 2000. Yet, we all know how the arguments go when it comes to that.

4) No, I'm not kidding you. Win 95 is a major milestone as far as GUI goes; its constitutes the turning point. From thereon, GUI was the paradigm. And, its success was certainly unparalleled at the time too. All of this is widely accepted. No idea why you're refuting it.

5) But it wasn't the first one. People liked the stuff Xerox pushed too - the fact that Jobs got blown away by it should be evidence enough around here.

6) I never mentioned Hertzfeld and Atkinson; how could i have claimed that they did nothing?

7) Far too long to read, i did skim through it though. Not sure why you asked me to read it:

Booch: Let's hear the real truth.

Hertzfeld: The most interesting thing, really, is how much we got from Xerox Park.

[--]

Atkinson: So, I said at '68, the windows and mouse were invented by Englebart, and I actually went to visit Englebart. It was a wonderful visit, and I think he gave a really good argument which was that when you design for the beginner, sometimes you shortchange the experienced user. If you were designing only for a walk-up-and-use-it experience, you would never design a bicycle because it takes a while to learn to use a bicycle, although it gives you good power. So, he was designing more for a professional knowledge worker, and he's willing for people to learn this five-key chord thing and lots of new ways of working with stuff. In 1973, with Alan Kay and the Smalltalk Project at Xerox Park was where another big boost of user interface development happened. In 1979, when the Lisa team went to visit, we got to see the Alto and the Smalltalk System and I think the Bravo text editor. What people misunderstand is that we didn't just copy what we saw. It gave us great inspiration and gave us great confidence that, yes, we did wan to do windowing, but then we had to go incrementally, evolutionary-wise and develop this user interface a piece at a time by a lot of trial and error and a lot of stupid mistakes.

Hertzfeld: There was probably one before that. There was this guy at Xerox was making mice for Xerox before then. I think they had a ball.

Atkinson: Was it a ball?


Hertzfeld: Yeah, but his mouse was an order of magnitude more expensive. Hovey-Kelley did
the first one that was mass producible, I would say. I think they had a ball.

[---]

Hertzfeld: By the time of the Xerox visit, I bet you there were twice that many, maybe about a dozen. I think the best story I know about the Xerox trip is something Bill thought he saw but didn't actually see which was drawing behind Windows. They had overlapping windows but once windows overlap you have a non-rectangular area for the ones that aren't on top. And Bill was sure he saw drawing into the irregular area.

[---]

Hertzfeld: And so Rich Page started that 68,000 transition in around the summer of '79 and it was kind of completed around the fall as I remember, so you could say Lisa had a false start. It went for a year before the 68,000 transition happened. The Xerox PARC visit was shortly after that, so there was a first year of just kind of feeling out what to do. But then by the end of '79, the two main things – the 68,000 and the adoption of the mouse with the PARC-like interface, windows – all happened around the end of '79. By the middle of '80, we actually had Lisa prototypes and you were programming the Lisas on Lisas. And the Mac, of course, was developed using the Lisa as the development machine.​

So, yeah... why, really? By the way, did you read that part about PARC having overlapping windows? If not, do. Also, read their line about doing incremental, evolutionary, work. My point exactly.

Naturally, and evidently, the GUI as we know it has evolved since the early days. No one is disputing that. What is disputed is the tendency among some to give Apple way more credit than they deserve. Two reasons for this: a) it takes away from the individuals that actually did the work (regardless of where they worked) b) it takes away from the important institutes that did the ground breaking work that Apple and others today build on.

As a fellow scientist i find this to be truly disturbing. That said, Apple has done great things. Microsoft too. Some of the colleagues (by discipline) i hold highest have at some point worked at Microsoft and/or Apple (and, naturally, PARC too). Still, stay true to facts and give credit where credit is due.

Addendum:

The "invented jack" was with regard to the desktop metaphor, specifically "Apple invented the default look for all the upcoming GUI OS's basically..". Like stated in the quoted post, they certainly did good things. Plenty of them. While i acknowledge poor wording on my behalf, i blame in part bad reading on your end.. :- )
 
Last edited:
1) And Apple didn't have "resize window from any edge" until Lion (who cares!). The major invention is the paradigm, not continuous improvements of the same.

2) Ironically, the trash-can constitutes a paradigm-break. Normally, you dont have trash cans on your desk. (Nor do you eject disks by throwing them in the trash bin -- You do however move objects around, cf. drag-and-drop).

3) If the Mac was popular, so were Microsoft tablets early 2000. Yet, we all know how the arguments go when it comes to that.

4) No, I'm not kidding you. Win 95 is a major milestone as far as GUI goes; its constitutes the turning point. From thereon, GUI was the paradigm. And, its success was certainly unparalleled at the time too. All of this is widely accepted. No idea why you're refuting it.

5) But it wasn't the first one. People liked the stuff Xerox pushed too - the fact that Jobs got blown away by it should be evidence enough around here.

6) I never mentioned Hertzfeld and Atkinson; how could i have claimed that they did nothing?

7) Far too long to read, i did skim through it though. Not sure why you asked me to read it:

Booch: Let's hear the real truth.

Hertzfeld: The most interesting thing, really, is how much we got from Xerox Park.

[--]

Atkinson: So, I said at '68, the windows and mouse were invented by Englebart, and I actually went to visit Englebart. It was a wonderful visit, and I think he gave a really good argument which was that when you design for the beginner, sometimes you shortchange the experienced user. If you were designing only for a walk-up-and-use-it experience, you would never design a bicycle because it takes a while to learn to use a bicycle, although it gives you good power. So, he was designing more for a professional knowledge worker, and he's willing for people to learn this five-key chord thing and lots of new ways of working with stuff. In 1973, with Alan Kay and the Smalltalk Project at Xerox Park was where another big boost of user interface development happened. In 1979, when the Lisa team went to visit, we got to see the Alto and the Smalltalk System and I think the Bravo text editor. What people misunderstand is that we didn't just copy what we saw. It gave us great inspiration and gave us great confidence that, yes, we did wan to do windowing, but then we had to go incrementally, evolutionary-wise and develop this user interface a piece at a time by a lot of trial and error and a lot of stupid mistakes.

Hertzfeld: There was probably one before that. There was this guy at Xerox was making mice for Xerox before then. I think they had a ball.

Atkinson: Was it a ball?


Hertzfeld: Yeah, but his mouse was an order of magnitude more expensive. Hovey-Kelley did
the first one that was mass producible, I would say. I think they had a ball.

[---]

Hertzfeld: By the time of the Xerox visit, I bet you there were twice that many, maybe about a dozen. I think the best story I know about the Xerox trip is something Bill thought he saw but didn't actually see which was drawing behind Windows. They had overlapping windows but once windows overlap you have a non-rectangular area for the ones that aren't on top. And Bill was sure he saw drawing into the irregular area.

[---]

Hertzfeld: And so Rich Page started that 68,000 transition in around the summer of '79 and it was kind of completed around the fall as I remember, so you could say Lisa had a false start. It went for a year before the 68,000 transition happened. The Xerox PARC visit was shortly after that, so there was a first year of just kind of feeling out what to do. But then by the end of '79, the two main things – the 68,000 and the adoption of the mouse with the PARC-like interface, windows – all happened around the end of '79. By the middle of '80, we actually had Lisa prototypes and you were programming the Lisas on Lisas. And the Mac, of course, was developed using the Lisa as the development machine.​

So, yeah... why, really? By the way, did you read that part about PARC having overlapping windows? If not, do. Also, read their line about doing incremental, evolutionary, work. My point exactly.

Naturally, and evidently, the GUI as we know it has evolved since the early days. No one is disputing that. What is disputed is the tendency among some to give Apple way more credit than they deserve. Two reasons for this: a) it takes away from the individuals that actually did the work (regardless of where they worked) b) it takes away from the important institutes that did the ground breaking work that Apple and others today build on.

As a fellow scientist i find this to be truly disturbing. That said, Apple has done great things. Microsoft too. Some of the colleagues (by discipline) i hold highest have at some point worked at Microsoft and/or Apple (and, naturally, PARC too). Still, stay true to facts and give credit where credit is due.

Addendum:

The "invented jack" was with regard to the desktop metaphor, specifically "Apple invented the default look for all the upcoming GUI OS's basically..". Like stated in the quoted post, they certainly did good things. Plenty of them. While i acknowledge poor wording on my behalf, i blame in part bad reading on your end.. :- )

Well I should have been more clear about the overlapping windows part.

And multiple icon selection with mouse, probably one thing I do the most when I'm dealing on our desktops, again a very important tool. So is drag and drop, both Apple inventions.

And Windows 95 is irrelevant because it wasn't competing against the first Mac OS. When the first Mac OS was released with the Macintosh, it was the first commercially successful GUI OS. Win 95 was the GUI OS which win Microsoft the monopoly. And it borrowed heavily from Mac OS, like I said. Around 200 UI elements were licensed to Microsoft by Apple, not by Xerox, for Win 1.0, which were in use all the way until today.

Jobs was blown away by what he saw, certainly, like people from Xerox were eventually blown away by what his team did with the stuff they took from Xerox. That should be evidence enough as well.
Just because Xerox started it all does not mean that we owe more to them than we do to Apple or Microsoft. I never said Apple invented all of it, from the first post on I acknowledged that PARC started it all. But started is the key word.
 
Last edited:
Samsung (and Android) is already dampening iPhone sales in places like Australia, and no doubt Apple fears the same thing happening with the tablets as well.

Heck, Apple THEMSELVES have said during their lawsuits, that they fear that Samsung tablets will come in with the "velocity of a firehose" and forever turn those customers into Android users instead of iOS users.

And the Judge in the appeal hearing turned around and said there was no proof to back up such claims and he wasn't going to give a prelim injunction based on Apple spinning pretty words. Which makes sense because if it does happen and Samsung loses the final case, Apple can demand damages for all the units sold.

As for the 2007 comment, we are not in possession of all the facts. For all we know Apple has rooms full of communication records to Samsung, HTC etc notifying them that are/were using Apple IP without permission and to stop or risk a lawsuit and said companies telling them to stick it. But those attempts still qualify as Apple trying to protect their IP. And the US judge would have been influenced by the same lack of proof that Samsung would really hurt Apple's sales if allowed to carry on until the final trial. Just like in Australia.



----------

Apple still haven't learned the Windows lesson - They should have licensed the iOS and then all the other Tabs would be running it right now.

You mean the lesson of how companies simply MUST license to OEMs so Apple did and it never destroyed them because the hardware was crap and it caused negative reviews of the OS as well so no one wanted to buy the machines.

Yeah, they learned that lesson really well, which is why they won't license iOS.
 
Last edited:
Well I should have been more clear about the overlapping windows part.

And multiple icon selection with mouse, probably one thing I do the most when I'm dealing on our desktops, again a very important tool. So is drag and drop, both Apple inventions.

All good stuff, but hardly amazing when put next to say, the paradigm itself.

And Windows 95 is irrelevant because it wasn't competing against the first Mac OS. When the first Mac OS was released with the Macintosh, it was the first commercially successful GUI OS. Win 95 was the GUI OS which win Microsoft the monopoly. And it borrowed heavily from Mac OS, like I said. Around 200 UI elements were licensed to Microsoft by Apple, not by Xerox, for Win 1.0, which were in use all the way until today.

Why would that make it irrelevant? Why narrow down the context to fit your argument? Win 95 was huge, not only for the PC and for Microsoft, but also for the paradigm itself. And sure, it borrowed heavily. So did Apples GUI. Apple did incremental, evolutionary, work on Alto/Star. Microsoft did incremental, evolutionary work on the incremental, evolutionary work of Apple.

As a side-note: Xerox eventually went after both Apple and MSFT, hunting for royalties. Today, more than likely, they would've succeeded.

Jobs was blown away by what he saw, certainly, like people from Xerox were eventually blown away by what his team did with the stuff they took from Xerox. That should be evidence enough as well.
Just because Xerox started it all does not mean that we owe more to them than we do to Apple or Microsoft. I never said Apple invented all of it, from the first post on I acknowledged that PARC started it all. But started is the key word.

Either way you put it, Apples work were mainly incremental, and evolutionary, where as the work of e.g. Kay were radical, and revolutionary. Put next to each other, one rightly overshadows the other. We always owe more to those breaking new ground, than to those who pushed efforts of others further. That said, both Apple and MSFT did break ground on their own, and regardless they do certainly deserve credit -- just not so much when it comes to the desktop paradigm per se.

----------

You mean the lesson of how companies simply MUST license to OEMs so Apple did and it never destroyed them because the hardware was crap and it caused negative reviews of the OS as well so no one wanted to buy the machines.

Yeah, they learned that lesson really well, which is why they won't license iOS.


If that was the problem, the fix would've been as simple as to set strict requirements on hardware (Cf. MSFTs approach with WP). More likely, the clones rather than expand the market, cannibalized Apples products and thus profits.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.