We already know it's fact that the tablet was their original goal. Jobs said so himself and this has been reported before. As MacRumors points out... if you've been following for a while. The "iPhone" rumour was circulating for years before there was any hard evidence of a phone, but there was plenty of evidence for a tablet device from their patents.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs Confirms iPad-Like Tablet Concept Preceded iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We already know it's fact that the tablet was their original goal. Jobs said so himself and this has been reported before. As MacRumors points out... if you've been following for a while. The "iPhone" rumour was circulating for years before there was any hard evidence of a phone, but there was plenty of evidence for a tablet device from their patents.
I had a go on one for the very first time yesterday, I have to admit I didn't expect to like it but that screen really is amazing. I didn't find it all that heavy but I guess after prolonged usage it would start to feel heavy. Rather tempted to get one now.
Anyway sorry back on topic, this is no surprise. We knew Jobs has been working on a tablet for ages now.
Anyway sorry back on topic, this is no surprise. We knew Jobs has been working on a tablet for ages now.
If the iPad came out before the iPhone, that would have changed everything!!
Good decision Steve
Agreed! The iPhone prepped the iPad interest.
The iPad would have been easier to develop, hardware-wise, than the iPhone. OTOH, the market for the iPad would have been limited, especially prior to the App Store and the rise of eBooks. Sorry, but I believe SJ's version of his company's history.
I think allowing Amazon to build the e-book market to the point that consumers were using it as well was a good decision to hold on the tablet. Its funny watching Steve chat will Bill Gates from 2007 and pay attention to what Steve is not saying and the looks he has when topics like this are raised. He would not be a good poker player LOL.
I would love to know what the development timeline looks like on the phone and ipad, have they already got the ipad for 2011 and 2012 and now designing that of 2013?
I would love to know what the development timeline looks like on the phone and ipad, have they already got the ipad for 2011 and 2012 and now designing that of 2013?
It's pretty obvious why they would make the iphone first. They decided for a more gradual development. I am guessing after the iPad we will have even more powerful multitouch tablets oriented for productivity.
+1 Although, I don't think you should apologize. If someone refuses to believe Jobs, especially when he says the tablet came first, then the ridicule is deserved.
I don't worship Jobs, but he definitely deserves credit for seeing the potential of scrolling as it applies to phones. If it weren't for the iPhone, I'd have been stuck with carrying a blackberry and iPod.
I've used this argument several times in the forums to defend the iPad. Apple has been working on this OS and interface combination for a long, long time. It's not at all that the iPad is "just a big iPod Touch". The iPhone and iPod Touch are tiny, little, baby iPads. The iPad was first, the iPad is king (for now). Though both devices have merits, just like when I had to decide this weekend if I wanted to buy a 2tb external 3.5" drive or a 1tb portable 2.5" external drive. I went with the bigger drive as it fits my current needs to store the HD video that I shoot, even though it isn't as portable. Sometimes people want things that are more useful to their lives and the things that they do. Apparently 2 million people find it useful so far. The iPad only came second as a product because the cost needed to come down for the technology, as well as the battery life needed to improve. //argument over
Next up, iPhone HD. Buy yours June 25th. It's an iPad Nano with two cameras.
Next up, iPhone HD. Buy yours June 25th. It's an iPad Nano with two cameras.
Kind of strange statement to make when SJ himself just explained that is precisely what he did.
You've got to hand it to Steve he's a brilliant business man and visionary. We kind of take the success of the iPhone and multitouch interface for granted now (as we will the iPad in a few years), but history could have been very different if Apple hadn't played its cards in the right order.
To all the other brilliant business minds and visionaries on this forum it doesn't mean diddly when you're armed with hindsight!
To all the other brilliant business minds and visionaries on this forum it doesn't mean diddly when you're armed with hindsight!
I think what's confusing some people is a bogus idea that the current iPad design came first. Obviously it did not.
Even Jobs didn't say that today's actual iPad design came first.
He said that a glass faced prototype touch tablet and its UI gave him the idea for the iPhone touch screen. So the prototype begat the iPhone which begat the iPad.
That makes sense. Everyone was doing tablets. And we know from multiple history articles that mobile OSX did not exist until the port was begun for the iPhone in early 2006.
Their scrolling story has slightly changed, though. For example, back in early 2007 the WSJ interviewed Apple insiders and got this version of events which claimed flick-scrolling came from an iPhone engineer:
Actually, it could've come from multiple engineers. The humorous thing about flick-scrolling to anyone who's done a touch UI since the 1980s (me, for example), is that it's a common accidental discovery, initially caused by hardware being unable to keep up with constant scrolling commands. In other words, you write code to scroll with a finger, but it keeps going after you let up. Then you get the "aha!" moment when you realize the extra lag could be useful. I think this has happened to everyone coding touch.
(Apple's huge UI goof was to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and totally remove most scrollbars in favor of flick scrolling. Sucks for long webpages, and really sucks for long documents. Both methods should be available.)
Even Jobs didn't say that today's actual iPad design came first.
He said that a glass faced prototype touch tablet and its UI gave him the idea for the iPhone touch screen. So the prototype begat the iPhone which begat the iPad.
That makes sense. Everyone was doing tablets. And we know from multiple history articles that mobile OSX did not exist until the port was begun for the iPhone in early 2006.
Their scrolling story has slightly changed, though. For example, back in early 2007 the WSJ interviewed Apple insiders and got this version of events which claimed flick-scrolling came from an iPhone engineer:
Actually, it could've come from multiple engineers. The humorous thing about flick-scrolling to anyone who's done a touch UI since the 1980s (me, for example), is that it's a common accidental discovery, initially caused by hardware being unable to keep up with constant scrolling commands. In other words, you write code to scroll with a finger, but it keeps going after you let up. Then you get the "aha!" moment when you realize the extra lag could be useful. I think this has happened to everyone coding touch.
(Apple's huge UI goof was to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and totally remove most scrollbars in favor of flick scrolling. Sucks for long webpages, and really sucks for long documents. Both methods should be available.)
That the iPad preceded the iPhone in the lab is not new news. And it makes a lot of sense to evolve an existing market and its surrounding ecosystem as a springboard to a device without much of a market rather than launching first into the unknown.
My question is if knowing this, why didn’t Mr. Proportional Spacing and Mr. Widget envision better scalability from the outset of the iPhone in anticipation of a device with different sized screens? This is not only about the apps themselves, but about the iPad’s home screen, which is not as aesthetically and functionally successful as it could be regarding icon spacing and the potential of increased on home screen functionality. And what value does an…um…3D dock add aesthetically or functionally over 2D? Why not a hideable dock and/or hot corners like in OSX?
See this mock up as an example: http://crenk.com/great-apple-ipad-home-screen-concept/
My question is if knowing this, why didn’t Mr. Proportional Spacing and Mr. Widget envision better scalability from the outset of the iPhone in anticipation of a device with different sized screens? This is not only about the apps themselves, but about the iPad’s home screen, which is not as aesthetically and functionally successful as it could be regarding icon spacing and the potential of increased on home screen functionality. And what value does an…um…3D dock add aesthetically or functionally over 2D? Why not a hideable dock and/or hot corners like in OSX?
See this mock up as an example: http://crenk.com/great-apple-ipad-home-screen-concept/
I don't think so, however you could try video.allthingsd.com. It's their conference.
i highly doubt an ipad running iphone 1.0 with no copy/paste, third party native apps would fly very well with customers.
iphone 1.0 worked fine as a mobile phone (something almost everyone carries) because it combined a nice phone along with an awesome ipod and an awesome web browser that really pushed forward mobile web browsing. Even with iphone 1.0, I could reduce the number of things in my pockets.
ipad running iphone 1.0 would lack the phone, have a so-so browser, and the iPod would be simply above average as it would be too big to pocket and HD itunes videos back then were quite lacking.
The default behaviour of "Scroll to top" when you tap the status bar is cool. I miss a "scroll to bottom" feature, though...
Believe what you want but Jobs himself confirmed it.
I didn't know you were the only member on this forum.
I'm not saying that I dont personally like the iTouch, iPhone, or any Apple product for that matter, but I feel like the iPad is just a bigger iTouch but with less capability. I mean I enjoy the technology but the iPad isnt as great as everyone says it is.
Jobs didn't say that the iPad came first.
He said he was inspired by a tablet prototype (which was apparently running a touch friendly version of Safari).
That's not the same thing as a full blown iPad. And it makes perfect sense as an inspiration:
Back then you usually had to surf the web on a phone with cursor keys. Being able to touch scroll around the screen must've triggered one of those "aha" moments, thinking it would work great on a small screen.