It's not ridiculous that you think it would have happened anyway, it's ridiculous that you act as if it was imminent and Apple wasn't doing something revolutionary.
And yet, no one can make this "revolutionary" explicit. It always ends up with "totality" or "success". As for imminent, i just stated in the other post that if anything i have said the reverse. Then again, time is always relative.
You downplay what Apple did by saying capacitive screens were getting cheaper...
They were. And, capacitive screen tech. have some uses where it clearly outplays resistive screen tech., multi-touch being one. Why dont you spend less time arguing, and more time reading up on these things?
Had capacitive screens not been in commercial reach the iphone would probably not have been a success at all. plain and simple. Would of course have been equally good, but oh so expensive.
...as if that's the only reason Apple was able to do what they did as far as the iPhone's success.
Its not. Im sure that others wouldve just picked up capacitive and made only incremental changes to the overall UI design. Until, of course, MSFT or a new entrant (big like google, or small like joojoo) took the time to release something proper.
If that's not what you're implying then what are you? That eventually sometime in the 21st century someone would have done it? Ok...I guess...doesn't make the fact that Apple did it when they did any less revolutionary.
Time-wise, its always hard to guess. Maybe Apple brought the future say, 2-3 years sooner if that. In doing so, they clearly revolutionized a market. No arguing that either. Still does not make the device, as such, revolutionary in itself, from a technological perspective. Then again, very few things are. For me, at least, to be considered revolutionary one must do something more than succeed in the long tail of innovation.
I wouldn't know much about your book, since you refuse to provide a link to an article you've written, all the while saying you've written many and that this is "what you do for a living"...where's the proof? You just sound like a fraud when you say those things.
My book? When did i say i wrote a book? "...in my book" is figure of speech.
As for proof, come see my presentation at HICSS. Ok, im still awaiting confirmation (should know in 2 days), but i'd be surprised if i wasn't there to present.
Dear XXX XXX -
We are happy to inform you that your paper XXX
has been conditionally Accepted with Mandatory Changes to HICSS-45.
Changes specified by the Minitrack chair in this notice must be made prior to final acceptance. The reviews for your paper 1xx1 are included below.
By August 31st, you must submit the revised paper in pdf format again to the review site:
https://precisionconference.com/~hicss/
Immediately notify your Minitrack Chair by email that you have re-submitted the paper for further review.
The Minitrack chair will confirm that required changes have been made on the paper. You will then receive a notice of final Accept* or Reject from the Minitrack chair by email. (Contact your chair directly if you have not received this notice by Sept 10.)
I think the only answer you'd be satisfied with is someone proving that Android is a shot for shot 100% clone of iOS.
I'd be satisfied if someone made explicit why Android is a clone at all.
Multiple people have said in this very thread what they think was copied.
I've seen one, to which i have responded. That one, like many others, boiled down to "totality" and multi-touch - which was already hot stuff as far as tech. goes. Im sorry, but i do not feel that people using multi-touch are copying Apple - or anyone else - just as i dont feel that anyone using a mouse is.
You're ignoring what they're saying. If you want a specific answer and will discount any other answer, tell us exactly what you wanna hear. Maybe someone will oblige.
See above.
"It would have" is not a valid argument either.
You would have a point if it were not for the fact that i have qualified that statement. You, however, have not qualified yours.
Again like I mentioned above, you seem to think that I am saying that Apple created iOS and then Google gained the source code for it, cloned it and called it Android.
Thats not what i think at all.
Take off the glasses. That's not what I'm saying.
Never thought you did.
What I'm saying, and what you've yet to disprove, is that it wasn't "just gonna happen anyway".
I cant disprove it, as everything "that didnt happened" is "supposition" to you.
If you want to qualify it by adding 70 years to the timeline then yeah you'd be right, it probably would have happened.
More like, 2 maybe 3.
But Apple did not usurp some lowly company who was working hard to release their OS. The truth is, unless you have evidence to back it up, there was no one who was working on a device that incorporated the tech that apple did at the time, so it wasn't gonna "happen anyway"
Incumbent firms rarely do manage to do these things, and even when they do they rarely see the value in what they are doing. Lots of research on that. Good thing is, Apple is not the only company out there with vision - and software companies (e.g. MSFT and palm) were already dipping their toes in the mobile space.
Yes...they were, my point is that no other company was going to do it.
And you say this based on what?
Apple did it at the right time at the right place, and had enough vision to make it something revolutionary. You already admitted previously that they did not have some unfair advantage that no other company had, so clearly "right time right place" is not the sole reason they were so successful.
They had two advantages as i see it. 1) They came from software. 2) They were not incumbents. As for unfair, no i dont see these as unfair at all. Its all in the game.
Proof? All I need is a link.
I've given you proof. You didnt bother to take it in. Why should i waste more time on the matter than i already have?
Well you jumped into an argument where something was presented as fact, and then failed to provide any evidence that it was actually happening. Had KnightWRX said "theoretically this could have happened" you would be right. He didn't. He stated that companies like "HP, MSFT, IBM sit on patents without ever suing"...I wasn't calling him out, I simply asked for an example as I had never heard of that. Neither you nor him were able to provide one.
All i did, which i stated in that thread, was provide theoretical foundation. Enough of this now. That discussion has no place in here.
You asked me for examples of your ridiculous statements. I provided them.
And, i still dont see why they are ridiculous. But you're of course free to feel the way you are.