HTC Cites Patents Obtained From Google in New Lawsuit Against Apple

[divinox]

Are you someone on the development team for Android ? If not, then that is only your subjective opinion. The plethora of evidence to the contrary is quite against you though, with all the handsets that do not have that form factor at all.

And since when did it become the "iPhone" form factor ?

Circa 2002 :

Circa 2003 :

The concept comes from Palm really which is an adaptation of earlier concepts for PDAs (including tablets like the Newton). Full touch screen devices with little hardware buttons is not something that suddenly appeared on the market with the iPhone. Did the iPhone popularize the form factor ? Of course. Just like the RAZR made flips cool, someone somewhere made QWERTY keyboard sliders the hot thing to have and the Nokia 5110 brought pixel based LCD displays rather than the old StarTac type displays.

The point is, Android supports this form factor, the full screen touch interface. It's a form factor in the industry, one that the iPhone uses and happens to have made popular. But to hint that simply because Android supports that 1 form factor that is currently trendy in the plethora of other form factors it supports makes it a copy of iOS or inspired by iOS or frankly "developed with the iPhone in mind" is simply stretching.

Again I ask. If Android is developed with the iPhone in mind, what part of the Android UI/Frameworks makes you think iOS when you look at it ? Please, don't talk about hardware, you have agreed and we have established that Android is hardware agnostic. Let's talk OS then. What is it ? Icons, Widgets, Multi-tasking, Notifications, Application frameworks, what is iOS like in Android ?

EDIT : Oh look at this pretty little thing from January 2007 :

800x480 on a 4.13" screen, 226 PPI. I guess Nokia rushed it and made this in less than a week or 2 after Apple announced the iPhone ?



Palm must have a plethora of patents for hand writing recognition. I remember their system of handwriting was quite ingenuous and worked very very well. Something we lost unfortunately with the stylus as the touch screen became a finger affair.

They have a patent on graffiti for sure. Quite a nifty little invention.

 

[voonyx]

First, simply not true.
Second, "as if other companies are doing these revolutionary things", what? Are you high?

Am I high?? It's becoming glaringly evident that you're just some teeny bopper high schooler whos invented some online persona of being a researcher. I mean "are you high", "step your game up" etc? Seriously, speak like an adult...you sound ridiculous.

Third, Concorde e.g.

Not revolutionary.

Fourth, as stated "success" is quite irrelevant as a parameter; e.g., the iphone would have been way more revolutionizing if it came out 50 years earlier. However, if so, it would not have been a success at all.

When you revolutionize an industry, success is an absolutely relevant metric. If you don't believe it is please name the last revolutionary fail of a product that you've come across. To suggest otherwise in uninformed and silly (two hallmarks that you have exhibited quite nicely).

Fifth, i've said from day one that it can be considered as "revolutionary" (i prefer disruptive, for most parts) as a business case.

Hence why I said "Since we can both agree that from a business perspective what they did is revolutionary, let's leave it at that."

Stop it. You started ranting about me stating that i am a researcher. You know where the confusion came from: you and yourself.

I really don't know how to reply to this. I honestly never thought you would be so confused by me seeing "I never read your book"...I simply used your figure of speech and applied it to what I was saying. Seriously...how old are you?? How could you possibly have been this confused??

For someone who makes such an effort, i am willing to make an exception.

Haha and what an exception it is. You know what? I'm willing to make an exception for you to. They're going to be presenting me with my $30M check in Antarctica tomorrow. Please come and support me

You're a fraud...and a horrible one at that.

No, i already offered to buy you coffee. In person i might add.

Yeah in Hong Kong. Great. Like I said you're going to great lengths to perpetrate your foolish lies, just give it up. You're a fraud.

To me, even spending 60 seconds on faking such a thing is going to extreme lengths. And no, 10 seconds to find the e-mail, another 20 to make it anonymous. Something like that.

Clearly, you've spent longer then 60 seconds on this.

I can. Now explicate: Which elements are these? And (dont forget), why cannot they be derived from earlier developments under (primarily) the desktop paradigm.

You've been given many examples. Re-read the thread. Perhaps you're high?

A rather weak case, i might add. But yeah, both OS use a webkit-browser. Dang, Google are such blatant copiers.

This foolish statement only serves to prove what I said all along. You really think, for some ridiculous reason, that people are arguing that Google just copied iOS line for line and repackaged it as Android. No one has said it is a clone.

When given an example, you dismiss it as "weak".

I've stated it several times. I want explicits and specifics rather than "revolutionary" and "totality". Very simple really.

You've gotten explicits and specifics several times from several different people. You've ignored them all.

Ok, this is my last response to you. Cant be bothered repeating myself.

Until the next time, right?

And clearly, yet you do.

I should start a counter on how many times you just make these statements that you try to pass on as truth. At worst you're a fraud, at best you're a horrible "researcher".

Yes, i am looking for specifics rather than say-it-nones.

You've gotten several

Second, i already told you that your reasoning is flawed.
a) success is not necessarily related to technological achievement (as shown, several times too).
b) outside of this, no one being close is just your opinion.

Yes because all the revolutionary products fail. When a revolutionary product succeeds its an anomaly. Success and revolutionary products do not go hand in hand. Do you really think before you type??

By that reasoning, if no product is ever more more successful, it quite simply never would have happened. We could have tech. a gazillion times more advanced, and yet no one could ever - really, ever - made an iphone. Yeah, that sounds... thought-out.

Wrong. Read slowly.

(would others have been as successful, commercially, as Apple? Maybe not, but that isnt what i've been talking about - at all).

Yeah I know...most of the best selling products are usually horribly engineered, un-user friendly pieces of crap. What you're saying makes sense.

What is an iphone-like device to you?

We have devices that:
a) have capacitive screens (e.g. LG prada).
b) have design dominated by screens.
c) run "modern smartphone-os" (themselves not necessarily being wicked, but highlighting the (natural) turn towards software (brought forward much thanks to companies with origins in software and computing, rather than mobile phones)
d) convergence of phone, camera, browser, mp3-player.
e) used touch-based interaction (e.g. HTC touch).

Would it have been exactly like the iphone? Maybe not. But, if you feel that it would have been so dramatically different:

please highlight the elements you think others would have failed to get, also: dont make this all about "totality". Be specific.

Good. Now show me a phone that was being developed that incorporated a-e in your little list above before Apple's iPhone. Again...just one link. It surely cannot be this hard for you since you speak with such conviction. And plus you're a "researcher"...this should be a piece of cake, right?

Assume no one will. Also, I must have written the following about ten fifteen times by now: success is not clearly correlated, so why keep focusing on it? Geez, we have an economic history off lesser technological solutions being picked by the market. Are we then to believe that lesser technological solutions are more technologically revolutionary?

An example of an unsuccessful technological revolution please? I mean this is the 10th to 15th time you've said it, so you must have something in mind, right?

However: If you cant see the flaw by now, im afraid i cant (or rather wont) help you.

You had it right the first time: You can't.

I never suggested anything until recently. And, you still never provided anything substantial to strengthen your case.

(2-3 years is, btw, a long time in computing).

I've never provided anything substantial? or is it you're dismissing everything I provide as unsubstantial? Again, if no one has created a phone that has had as much success as the iPhone in 4 years, you're suggesting it would have been in 2 or 3? K. This, along with your delusions of being a researcher, must be part of the fantasy.

I'd say that it has happened over and over. There are tons of devices out there that crush the iphone 1. Now, they may not have earned as much money. But like stated, that is - for this discussion - quite irrelevant.

Tons? Surely you can name one then right? Since the iPhone is not technologically revolutionary, one of these tons of phones must be, right? Since sales are irrelevant, it wouldn't matter if they've not come close to being as successful as iPhone right? I don't need tons. Just name one.

No. That is your argument. Not mine. You see, unlike you i have actually substantiated my claim. You have said "it didnt happen", and "no body has been as successful" (arguments without substance at all).

You have said "it would have happened" and "everyone would have been as successful"...

Ok, im writing you off as a troll now. Have fun.

Step your game up, bro!!

Dont think trolls had the capacity to be mentally stimulated, so no need for you to worry.

You're upset. I understand.

N.B. You can respond whatever you want, whenever you want. I will not reply. You had your chance of moving this beyond the level of ad nauseam, you failed. Bye.

Sure you will. You always do. If I'm a troll, you're just feeding me right? If I'm not a troll, then you're just a glutton for punishment.

 

[Oletros]

Good. Now show me a phone that was being developed that incorporated a-e in your little list above before Apple's iPhone. Again...just one link. It surely cannot be this hard for you since you speak with such conviction. And plus you're a "researcher"...this should be a piece of cake, right?

LG Prada

a) have capacitive screens -> Check
b) have design dominated by screens -> Check
c) run "modern smartphone-os" -> Check
d) convergence of phone, camera, browser, mp3-player. -> Check
e) used touch-based interaction (e.g. HTC touch). -> Check

 

[voonyx]

LG Prada

a) have capacitive screens -> Check
b) have design dominated by screens -> Check
c) run "modern smartphone-os" -> Check
d) convergence of phone, camera, browser, mp3-player. -> Check
e) used touch-based interaction (e.g. HTC touch). -> Check

Flash UI is a "modern smartphone-os"? Not quite. You can try again if you'd like.

 

[Oletros]

Flash UI is a "modern smartphone-os"? Not quite. You can try again if you'd like.

If using Flash as UI is not having a modern OS, no having multitask, not having apss aparte the ones provided, not having copy& paste etc is having a modern OS?

Or only counts the things you want to be counted?

 

[voonyx]

If using Flash as UI is not having a modern OS, no having multitask, not having apss aparte the ones provided, not having copy& paste etc is having a modern OS?

Or only counts the things you want to be counted?

I'm not the one who said "modern smartphone-os"...I'm simply stating that Flash-UI is not one.

Or only counts the things you want to be counted?

Not at all. I'm counting the things that were presented as fact without evidence that need to be proved. Flash UI doesn't prove it.

 

[divinox]

Am I high?? It's becoming glaringly evident that you're just some teeny bopper high schooler whos invented some online persona of being a researcher. I mean "are you high", "step your game up" etc? Seriously, speak like an adult...you sound ridiculous.



Not revolutionary.



When you revolutionize an industry, success is an absolutely relevant metric. If you don't believe it is please name the last revolutionary fail of a product that you've come across. To suggest otherwise in uninformed and silly (two hallmarks that you have exhibited quite nicely).



Hence why I said "Since we can both agree that from a business perspective what they did is revolutionary, let's leave it at that."



I really don't know how to reply to this. I honestly never thought you would be so confused by me seeing "I never read your book"...I simply used your figure of speech and applied it to what I was saying. Seriously...how old are you?? How could you possibly have been this confused??



Haha and what an exception it is. You know what? I'm willing to make an exception for you to. They're going to be presenting me with my $30M check in Antarctica tomorrow. Please come and support me

You're a fraud...and a horrible one at that.




Yeah in Hong Kong. Great. Like I said you're going to great lengths to perpetrate your foolish lies, just give it up. You're a fraud.




Clearly, you've spent longer then 60 seconds on this.




You've been given many examples. Re-read the thread. Perhaps you're high?



This foolish statement only serves to prove what I said all along. You really think, for some ridiculous reason, that people are arguing that Google just copied iOS line for line and repackaged it as Android. No one has said it is a clone.

When given an example, you dismiss it as "weak".




You've gotten explicits and specifics several times from several different people. You've ignored them all.



Until the next time, right?



I should start a counter on how many times you just make these statements that you try to pass on as truth. At worst you're a fraud, at best you're a horrible "researcher".



You've gotten several



Yes because all the revolutionary products fail. When a revolutionary product succeeds its an anomaly. Success and revolutionary products do not go hand in hand. Do you really think before you type??




Wrong. Read slowly.



Yeah I know...most of the best selling products are usually horribly engineered, un-user friendly pieces of crap. What you're saying makes sense.



Good. Now show me a phone that was being developed that incorporated a-e in your little list above before Apple's iPhone. Again...just one link. It surely cannot be this hard for you since you speak with such conviction. And plus you're a "researcher"...this should be a piece of cake, right?



An example of an unsuccessful technological revolution please? I mean this is the 10th to 15th time you've said it, so you must have something in mind, right?



You had it right the first time: You can't.



I've never provided anything substantial? or is it you're dismissing everything I provide as unsubstantial? Again, if no one has created a phone that has had as much success as the iPhone in 4 years, you're suggesting it would have been in 2 or 3? K. This, along with your delusions of being a researcher, must be part of the fantasy.



Tons? Surely you can name one then right? Since the iPhone is not technologically revolutionary, one of these tons of phones must be, right? Since sales are irrelevant, it wouldn't matter if they've not come close to being as successful as iPhone right? I don't need tons. Just name one.



You have said "it would have happened" and "everyone would have been as successful"...




Step your game up, bro!!




You're upset. I understand.




Sure you will. You always do. If I'm a troll, you're just feeding me right? If I'm not a troll, then you're just a glutton for punishment.

like stated, i will not respond. go troll elsewhere.

p.s. Hicss is in honolulu, and Shanghai is not Hong Kong. Ciao!

Addendum: the bold-typed actually brings us forward, so ill respond to that.

You would have a point if my statement was that others had it in the making. I was, however, speaking of trends. Therefore, there is no need to find a device that ticks every box. All that is necessary is to show a movement in the direction that i am pointing at (i.e. the direction where a "modern smartphone" would, with time, evolve; i.e., a trajectory pre-dating the iphone, pointing in "its" (read: the modern smartphone) direction*.).

* inclusion of gyros, accelerometers and such may - or may not - be an actual "out of the box" addition made by Apple. Really cant say. I guess its related to the screen-rotation (which people would've implemented with time, given that lots of media is made for landscape rather than portrait), but yeah.. might have something there.

What uses did Apple have thought out for these things? Does anyone know? And, were there similar implementations in related fields of technology?

 

[voonyx]

like stated, i will not respond. go troll elsewhere.

p.s. Hicss is in honolulu, and Shanghai is not Hong Kong. Ciao!

Thanks for responding.

 

[KnightWRX]

Flash UI is a "modern smartphone-os"? Not quite. You can try again if you'd like.

Moot point, the original iPhone did not ship with a modern smartphone OS either.

 

[voonyx]

Moot point, the original iPhone did not ship with a modern smartphone OS either.

haha again...it's not my point. divinox is the one that stated it, not me. so yes, i agree..his point is moot, much like most of his points.

 

[KnightWRX]

haha again...it's not my point. divinox is the one that stated it, not me. so yes, i agree..his point is moot, much like most of his points.

His point stands though. The LG Prada is evidence to back it up. Whatever Apple did in January 2007, the trends were already forming in the industry for these full capacitive touch screen models to come along based on the price coming down for these screens and the prior models that used resistive screens in that same form factor.

Did the iPhone make this trend into something big ? Yes. Would it have happened anyway ? LG Prada happened regardless. Would it have been as big without the iPhone ? No one can say that with certainty.

 

[voonyx]

His point stands though. The LG Prada is evidence to back it up. Whatever Apple did in January 2007, the trends were already forming in the industry for these full capacitive touch screen models to come along based on the price coming down for these screens and the prior models that used resistive screens in that same form factor.

Did the iPhone make this trend into something big ? Yes. Would it have happened anyway ? LG Prada happened regardless. Would it have been as big without the iPhone ? No one can say that with certainty.

My point stands too. No phone was being developed that incorporated the technologies that Apple did at the time. Simple point, and hasn't been disproved.

You really believe that the LG Prada would have been as successful as the iPhone if the iPhone didn't come out...

I mean, I'm trying to give you two the benefit of the doubt, but the ridiculous assertions are getting tired...

 

[KnightWRX]

My point stands too. No phone was being developed that incorporated the technologies that Apple did at the time. Simple point, and hasn't been disproved.

List these technologies and we'll see. The original iPhone wasn't much to behold and except for the capacitive touch screen (which the LG Prada also shares), it didn't really do much more than other devices on the market at the time.

Don't get me wrong, it was a nice phone and it was an overall nice packaging of stuff, but that stuff wasn't new in the industry at all.

You really believe that the LG Prada would have been as successful as the iPhone if the iPhone didn't come out...

I never said that. I said the LG Prada would have come out iPhone or no iPhone. I think I was pretty clear in stating no one knows what would have happened without the iPhone.

That's the kind of nitpicking and selective understanding you've been doing from the start. No wonder you can say stuff like this :

I mean, I'm trying to give you two the benefit of the doubt, but the ridiculous assertions are getting tired...

You only find them ridiculous because you nitpick every single little detail and twist the meaning to put words into our posts that just aren't there.

Instead, try understanding the basis and background behind them.

If you even attempt to reply without just admitting you were wrong about my post and its meaning, I will just move you to ignore. It's pretty obvious at this point what it is you are doing here with your wall of text posts and quoting close to single sentences to reply to each one.

 

[OhHaiThere]

My point stands too. No phone was being developed that incorporated the technologies that Apple did at the time. Simple point, and hasn't been disproved.

To be fair, and to have a point you must state which specific technologies you're referring to. I'm not denying you here, but broad statements like this are useless.

You really believe that the LG Prada would have been as successful as the iPhone if the iPhone didn't come out...

It doesn't matter how successful LG was or was not. The debate is about who stole what technology from whom (IP), not who's great at marketing and bringing the gadget to the mainstream. There's no arguing Apple is a top marketer and they know how to market and popularize products which have already been invented.

 

[voonyx]

List these technologies and we'll see. The original iPhone wasn't much to behold and except for the capacitive touch screen (which the LG Prada also shares), it didn't really do much more than other devices on the market at the time.

The mentioned screen, multi-touch, visual voicemail, html emails...iphone incorporated all this trivial obvious stuff and changed the industry. to say that it's success was not due to what its tech did is bizarre and stupid.

I never said that. I said the LG Prada would have come out iPhone or no iPhone. I think I was pretty clear in stating no one knows what would have happened without the iPhone.

That's the kind of nitpicking and selective understanding you've been doing from the start. No wonder you can say stuff like this :



You only find them ridiculous because you nitpick every single little detail and twist the meaning to put words into our posts that just aren't there.

Instead, try understanding the basis and background behind them.

If you even attempt to reply without just admitting you were wrong about my post and its meaning, I will just move you to ignore. It's pretty obvious at this point what it is you are doing here with your wall of text posts and quoting close to single sentences to reply to each one.

Wait...you never admitted you were wrong about your silly patent fiasco, and now you're saying you will move me to ignore if I don't admit I was wrong here? I've gotta say again man, you're putting way too much credence in your authority to make people do what you say. I'll save you the time. I'll ignore you. You've quickly proven with your silly statement bolded above, that you're simply here to push your flawed logic with no regard to actually offering up proof.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you and divinox were the same person! Consider yourself ignored.

 

[KnightWRX]

Wait...you never admitted you were wrong about your silly patent fiasco

Nope, because again you twisted and nitpicked my words instead of understanding what I meant. Thanks and moved to ignore.

 

[divinox]

haha again...it's not my point. divinox is the one that stated it, not me. so yes, i agree..his point is moot, much like most of his points.

No, i were simply highlighting ongoing trends in development, which pointed in the direction of the modern smartphone. I never equated the modern smartphone with "iphone 1".

----------

My point stands too. No phone was being developed that incorporated the technologies that Apple did at the time. Simple point, and hasn't been disproved.

You really believe that the LG Prada would have been as successful as the iPhone if the iPhone didn't come out...

I mean, I'm trying to give you two the benefit of the doubt, but the ridiculous assertions are getting tired...

Something i have yet to claim. So, who are you arguing with - really? Surely cannot be me.

----------

The mentioned screen, multi-touch, visual voicemail, html emails...iphone incorporated all this trivial obvious stuff and changed the industry. to say that it's success was not due to what its tech did is bizarre and stupid.



Wait...you never admitted you were wrong about your silly patent fiasco, and now you're saying you will move me to ignore if I don't admit I was wrong here? I've gotta say again man, you're putting way too much credence in your authority to make people do what you say. I'll save you the time. I'll ignore you. You've quickly proven with your silly statement bolded above, that you're simply here to push your flawed logic with no regard to actually offering up proof.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you and divinox were the same person! Consider yourself ignored.

out of that list, the only thing that strikes me is visual voice mail, something we never had where i live anyway.. e-mail, hardly something that came with the iphone.

 

[brdeveloper]

No, i were simply highlighting ongoing trends in development, which pointed in the direction of the modern smartphone. I never equated the modern smartphone with "iphone 1".

----------



Something i have yet to claim. So, who are you arguing with - really? Surely cannot be me.

----------



out of that list, the only thing that strikes me is visual voice mail, something we never had where i live anyway.. e-mail, hardly something that came with the iphone.

When Apple has launched iPhone 1, I've always seen that as a tremendous histeria from journalists and media in general. It has never excited me too much with its monotask UI and no 3G support which has made iPhone a toy-phone in comparison with the competition. It was just a nice touchscreen experience, but far away from a "computer" phone.

 

[KnightWRX]

Out of that list, the only thing that strikes me is visual voice mail

Too bad Apple had to license that patent from a holding firm after a lawsuit :

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-klausner-settle-on-visual-voicemail/

Hence why Visual Voicemail is on phones other than Apple's : because it's not an Apple technology to begin with.

When Apple has launched iPhone 1, I've always seen that as a tremendous histeria from journalists and media in general. It has never excited me too much with its monotask UI and no 3G support which has made iPhone a toy-phone in comparison with the competition. It was just a nice touchscreen experience, but far away from a "computer" phone.

The biggest problem on the iPhone was the lack of programmability other than Web Applications (something Apple was pushing for in the original keynote). Other phones on the market were programmable at the time, even dumbphones had full J2ME stacks (my 2003 T610 had J2ME support and you could installation Java applications on it). It took iOS 2.0 to get us that.

Why do you think demand was so big for a SDK ?

The original iPhone wasn't perfect there's no denying that. It was still overall a cool package. It still was a big success for Apple and in the mobile world in general. However, to claim it was a revolution rather than an evolution requires a little bending of the trends of the market at the time.

Apple is good at evolution. Taking bits and pieces scattered about and packaging them up in a single unified product.

 

[voonyx]

No, i were simply highlighting ongoing trends in development, which pointed in the direction of the modern smartphone. I never equated the modern smartphone with "iphone 1".

First...I thought we were done?

Second, iPhone combined all the trends and created a revolutionary device. Thanks.

Something i have yet to claim. So, who are you arguing with - really? Surely cannot be me.

Logical progression of an argument. Try to keep up. You claim it would have happened anyway. Logic would dictate that that meant someone was working on something that would have helped it "happen anyway". Makes sense?

out of that list, the only thing that strikes me is visual voice mail, something we never had where i live anyway.. e-mail, hardly something that came with the iphone.

First, thanks for discounting my examples...again. Where you live doesn't somehow make what I suggested irrelevant. Second, it wasn't the first phone with capacitive screens either. And Apple didn't invent multi-touch either. As I mentioned, it was the first to combine all these things to create a revolutionary product. No other company did that, and no other company was working on a product that did. Simple as that (or maybe not, since you seem to be having a hard time with this )

 

[samcraig]

When Apple has launched iPhone 1, I've always seen that as a tremendous histeria from journalists and media in general. It has never excited me too much with its monotask UI and no 3G support which has made iPhone a toy-phone in comparison with the competition. It was just a nice touchscreen experience, but far away from a "computer" phone.

Agreed. I had a few friends that bought the first one and compared to my treo - I saw little point other than it had a little bit of cool UI under it's hood. It didn't have the app store and didn't have exchange email. Pretty to look at - but not very functional as an actual SMART phone. Which is why I have to laugh at people on here who insist that before the iPhone - there was no such thing as a "real" smart phone. Ahh - the young

And while I love/enjoy my iPhone 4 - I still find it lacking in some key areas including email...

 

[voonyx]

Agreed. I had a few friends that bought the first one and compared to my treo - I saw little point other than it had a little bit of cool UI under it's hood. It didn't have the app store and didn't have exchange email. Pretty to look at - but not very functional as an actual SMART phone. Which is why I have to laugh at people on here who insist that before the iPhone - there was no such thing as a "real" smart phone. Ahh - the young

And while I love/enjoy my iPhone 4 - I still find it lacking in some key areas including email...

I have to laugh at people who think that "the iPhone revolutionized the smartphone industry" implies it was the first smartphone. Ahh - the old

 

[samcraig]

I have to laugh at people who think that "the iPhone revolutionized the smartphone industry" implies it was the first smartphone. Ahh - the old

If you're going to misquote me - you can raise any straw man argument you want.

I never commented on the young who think or don't think the iPhone revolutionized the smartphone. I said - specifically - that many on here believe that "before the iPhone - there was no such thing as a "real" smart phone"

There's a difference. But I don't expect you to understand.

 

[voonyx]

If you're going to misquote me - you can raise any straw man argument you want.

I never commented on the young who think or don't think the iPhone revolutionized the smartphone. I said - specifically - that many on here believe that "before the iPhone - there was no such thing as a "real" smart phone"

There's a difference. But I don't expect you to understand.

I understand and I apologize. See I'm full of surprises.

 

[KnightWRX]

There's a difference. But I don't expect you to understand.

He does this to every post. Twists and nitpicks to put words that weren't there and then argue ad nauseum about it.

That's his modus operandi.

See his arguments with divinox. Best to just let him be.