My point wasn't that iCloud is cool or revolutionary. My point was that there is still a learning curve where you're discovering new things it can do after you get the basics of the device down.
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 Envisioned the iPad in 1983
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My point wasn't that iCloud is cool or revolutionary. My point was that there is still a learning curve where you're discovering new things it can do after you get the basics of the device down.
I am stating no such thing!
What are you on about?
What are you on about??
This is absolutely ridiculous.
There is no point in arguing with you when you talk about something completely different and clearly don't understand my original point. I wrote the last few posts trying to explain it to you but it has been a fruitless endeavour. I give up.
You clearly can't understand my simple statement that Steve Jobs, in that particular statement in 1983, mentioned an idea that has been mentioned and even worked on before, hence it wasn't novel or visionary (he did not mention anything new, he did not build upon an idea, he did not offer a new way of looking at the idea in this particular case, he wasn't the first person to bring this idea to life, he simply repeated an idea and the fact he did it is not worth any praise). I can't make it any clearer. I am not claiming that you need to be the first to be labelled a genius, I am not claiming that geniuses were not inspired by others, I am not claiming that inventions are not based on previous work, I am not claiming that science-fiction started in Europe (Sic!). These are just figments of your imagination, and you seem to be arguing with yourself.
Have a good day sir and remember to take your medicine.
Infinitely Irrelevant!
: I'm genuinely curious if Apple ever said that or anyone here. Computer is a result of multidisciplinary works after all.
Funny how we still the world monochromatically.
Can you spot who thought about the first tablet?
: I'm genuinely curious if Apple ever said that or anyone here. Computer is a result of multidisciplinary works after all.Funny how we still the world monochromatically.
Can you spot who thought about the first tablet?
Like i said…
Honesty.
But i’ll point some of yr blood marks left by your self-inflicted wounds:
You wrote:
The contradiction:
Then, you ranted…
I wrote that to prove that you cannot spot who thought anything first!
Plain simple, we are talking about scienceFiction aren’t we?
Why we still pretend that Colombo discovered America, if we also stated on confirmed evidences that asians( Polynesians and some say people from Siberia) in fact colonized the continent we call America.
Why i did bring that?
-- Wasn’t that obvious?!
Who started what first resumes in patent, not thought. But you did not understand it, i was actually inviting you for a discussion, but you took it personally.
Now who needs a medicine?
Honesty.
But i’ll point some of yr blood marks left by your self-inflicted wounds:
You wrote:
The contradiction:
Then, you ranted…
I wrote that to prove that you cannot spot who thought anything first!
Plain simple, we are talking about scienceFiction aren’t we?
Why we still pretend that Colombo discovered America, if we also stated on confirmed evidences that asians( Polynesians and some say people from Siberia) in fact colonized the continent we call America.
Why i did bring that?
-- Wasn’t that obvious?!
Who started what first resumes in patent, not thought. But you did not understand it, i was actually inviting you for a discussion, but you took it personally.
Now who needs a medicine?
Apple had the newton in the '90s and were developing a tablet in the early 2000s so I don't think that counts.
Self-driving cars need to be perfected first. Why? Because we need to have AI sophisticated enough to handle a flying car.
Why do we need computer-controlled flying cars in order to have flying cars? Because imagine a world where all the idiots currently on the road are in charge of piloting aircraft.
How. Was. That. A. Contradiction...???
How is:
"I am not claiming that inventions are not based on previous work"
contradicting:
"he wasn't the first person to bring this idea to life"
Those are two unrelated statements. Most inventions are based on previous work. Steve Jobs was not the first person to bring the idea of a tablet to life. Explain to me where is the contradiction here.
Your convoluted logic is beyond me. You start talking about Columbus and America and then ask who really needs to take some medicine.
I am stating simple things but you are taking them, manipulating them and transforming them into statements from another dimension. Why are you bringing Native Americans, Asians, Einstein into the conversation? You are presenting some examples which for some reason you treat like arguments, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm stating.
Let's try one more time:
You clearly can't understand my simple statement that Steve Jobs, in that particular statement in 1983, mentioned an idea that has been mentioned and even worked on before, hence it wasn't novel or visionary (he did not mention anything new, he did not build upon an idea, he did not offer a new way of looking at the idea in this particular case, he wasn't the first person to bring this idea to life, he simply repeated an idea and the fact he did it is not worth any praise).
He repeated an idea! Get it? He just echoed what other people were already talking about. Get it? He did not introduce anything new in that particular statement in 1983. Get it? He mentioned an idea that was around for many years. Get it?
He simply mentioned an idea that was around for years. He did not introduce anything to the table. He did not make it happen until many years after that. At that time, it wasn't anything new since people were already talking about such concepts. Get it?
It's like with my teleportation example. The fact that I'm talking about teleportation now is not visionary, because unless I introduce some new concepts I'm simply repeating what other people have been saying for years. Get it?
I feel I've exhausted all the possible ways of explaining my statement.
That's all I'm saying. Stop introducing irrelevant stories that have nothing to do with what I'm saying.
If you want to continue this discussion, please, nay, I beg you, please talk about what I've said and not about other things which are vaguely related to my statement!
Newton -> iPad
I just had a talk for some retirees about the iPad. I also showed of a Newton. It was a great device if it had had wifi. The writing recognition was really great. Calendar, Contacts, it had the things you need. Graphics was lacking, but that wasn't there unfortunately and way before its time.
I just had a talk for some retirees about the iPad. I also showed of a Newton. It was a great device if it had had wifi. The writing recognition was really great. Calendar, Contacts, it had the things you need. Graphics was lacking, but that wasn't there unfortunately and way before its time.
You might misunderstand Mr pig pile. "2001" is part of the movie title, not the release year of the movie. It came out in 1968.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/releaseinfo
Originally ran from: 1983 to 1986. So... Not prior to Jobs' talk (at least not significantly).
----------
Exactly...Apple simply figured out that their wonderful "computer that also makes phone calls" was red hot....and golly, let's make it 4x larger and re-brand it.
The iPad is a good product...but in reality it's just a 4x larger iPhone with a few software and hardware differences. I'm sure folks here will chime in about how massively different the iPad and iPhone are.
That would *almost* make sense... If we hadn't found out very shortly after the release of the iPad that it actually went the other way. The iPad was in development when Steve apparently realized it made the good foundation for a smartphone.
As to whether the iPad would have been the same runaway success without the iPhone's release ahead of it to prove the concept sound to the public, who knows?
----------
For completeness, be sure to list Apple's monopolies.
I think he did. He simply didn't label the list, because it's a null-set.
How. Was. That. A. Contradiction...???
How is:
"I am not claiming that inventions are not based on previous work"
contradicting:
"he wasn't the first person to bring this idea to life"
Those are two unrelated statements. Most inventions are based on previous work. Steve Jobs was not the first person to bring the idea of a tablet to life. Explain to me where is the contradiction here.
Your convoluted logic is beyond me. You start talking about Columbus and America and then ask who really needs to take some medicine.
I am stating simple things but you are taking them, manipulating them and transforming them into statements from another dimension. Why are you bringing Native Americans, Asians, Einstein into the conversation? You are presenting some examples which for some reason you treat like arguments, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm stating.
Let's try one more time:
You clearly can't understand my simple statement that Steve Jobs, in that particular statement in 1983, mentioned an idea that has been mentioned and even worked on before, hence it wasn't novel or visionary (he did not mention anything new, he did not build upon an idea, he did not offer a new way of looking at the idea in this particular case, he wasn't the first person to bring this idea to life, he simply repeated an idea and the fact he did it is not worth any praise).
He repeated an idea! Get it? He just echoed what other people were already talking about. Get it? He did not introduce anything new in that particular statement in 1983. Get it? He mentioned an idea that was around for many years. Get it?
He simply mentioned an idea that was around for years. He did not introduce anything to the table. He did not make it happen until many years after that. At that time, it wasn't anything new since people were already talking about such concepts. Get it?
It's like with my teleportation example. The fact that I'm talking about teleportation now is not visionary, because unless I introduce some new concepts I'm simply repeating what other people have been saying for years. Get it?
I feel I've exhausted all the possible ways of explaining my statement.
That's all I'm saying. Stop introducing irrelevant stories that have nothing to do with what I'm saying.
If you want to continue this discussion, please, nay, I beg you, please talk about what I've said and not about other things which are vaguely related to my statement!
What we are talking about here?
-- Is’t a computer the result of a multidisciplinary effort?
If it is then why it is irrelevant to bring those examples?
But WHY use an audio record to define one’s life achievement?
Isn’t that what you are doing?
The post says - Steve Jobs Envisioned the iPad in 1983.
And it is correct, the current iPad is the combination of What Apple is as a company since 1976 (?). That is a fact that makes the post title correct.
Your argument :
My argument contradiction yours was:
-- Since when arriving at a thought first makes you ONLY deserve the label Genius, since you stated he did not say nothing new.
Why Einstein and other Geniuses you ask, to prove my point, a point you could not refute.
Now i ask, since when was that the first time he said that ( of course it was Apple motto from the start ) ?
-- Only the statement is nothing new for those who know Apple’s Raison d'être. Which have nothing to do with Jobs being a genius or not.
It is Jobs work that defines him as a genius, not that audio.
And why i provided examples of other people work. But for you are irrelevant.
About the medicine, looks like you may have Alzheimer or something.
And about the contradiction, it is obvious ( as it is obvious that you cannot reduce anyone life work to a recorder audio ).
Obviously you did not get it!
Which is fine.
Great question my friend. Let me break it down for you, once more.
I have stated that:
The idea Steve Jobs has mentioned in 1983 was not visionary as it was no different from concepts that had been around for quite some time.
Now you can choose from the following options:
1) Agree with me
2) Disagree with me and state that that idea was new at the time (proof here)
3) Disagree with me and state that although the idea wasn't new he introduced some new concepts (proof here)
I can't think of any other option here.
That's all you can do. Instead of talking about Einstein, Indians and Alzheimer, you should simple respond to my statement.
What you are doing instead is tilting at windmills, blowing my statements our of proportion and trying really hard to argue with me by clutching at straws and posting irrelevant stories about how Columbus discovered America.
Can't you see that this conversation is ridiculous? While you're arguing against statements I did not say I constantly try to explain to you what I mean.
Can you please choose one of the three options above or show me another logical option.
Yeah, but so far all of the 'Star Trek Tablets' posted are from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
I'd love to see some from TOS. Given how the sets were typically full of 'das blinkenlights', an electronic tablet should have stood out pretty hard.
(There's a pic of Ohura [sp?] with a clipboard, but a clipboard and a tablet aren't the same thing.)
Obviously a lot clunkier than modern tablets, but that was 1966 and looks like a "computer in a book".
The post stated that it envisioned the iPad ( or better a computer in a book - which is only a word play ) in 1983, the date is a reference for the audio.
Lets just clarify a thing here:
-- Was it the first time he said that in that words on record, i guess it is. So it is relevant for the context of the iPad and that date. Which brings the visionary.
Who did the iPad before Apple?
No one did.
There were tablets before the iPad, but none was the iPad as there were computers thousands of years Before the first modern computer, conceptually as you put it.
It is your abstraction not mine.
Tablet is a concept that did not work before that iPad.
And a tablet is as abstract as a computer in a book.
So yes for the context of the iPad it is visionary.
----------
Yeah!
But until the iPad who made it?
Concept = abstract thought.
iPad is anything but abstract!
It might be the first time he mentioned about his plans to create a portable computer like that, but again, what I'm trying to say is that the idea itself that he described wasn't new.
You just loooooove truisms. Who made Windows 95 before Microsoft? No one did. Because Microsoft invented Windows 95!! Who did Jaguar XK before Jaguar? No one did. Because that particular Jaguar was invented by Jaguar!
You must be joking! There were already popular tablets, but not as popular as the iPad.
The iPad wasn't the first tablet! There were already tablets similar to the iPad before it got released! Additionally this has nothing to do with my original statement, because I'm not arguing who built the tablet first (NOT Apple), I'm simply talking about that particular concept that Jobs described in that particular speech.
This conversation is so tiring...
And, despite being so clunky, it's used like a clipboard in the show. Not a good example of a tablet. (Better pictures of it though, thanks.)
I am almost certain that that device was displaying things too, unless I don't understand what you mean by clipboard.
Wow!
Is Windows 95 a concept?
You confuse concept ( Microsoft surface ) with actually working/ready to ship physical thing.
There were already tablets similar to the iPad … you wrote.
Tell me more then…
Note the appropriate word you used - similar
A concept is an abstract thought, computer in a book is an abstract thought.
The iPad was not called a tablet by Apple for the same reason.
Sure. They had to wait for the technology to catch up to the idea.
But many things are thought of and designed long before the technology is available to actually build them. Geostationary satellites, for example, were described years before they were actually built.
Mate, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, stop making up what I say!! Where, WHERE did I say Windows 95 is a concept? Where??
And you suddenly mention Microsoft Surface????? What the hell are you on about??
You said: "Who did the iPad before Apple? No one did."
You are CLEARLY talking about a PRODUCT, not a bloody concept!
Tell you what? Have you never seen these?
And how on Earth is this related to Job's statement from 1983?
Can you please do choose from the following:
1) Agree with me
2) Disagree with me and state that that idea was new at the time (proof here)
3) Disagree with me and state that although the idea wasn't new he introduced some new concepts (proof here)
Please please please stop writing irrelevant posts.
Thanks in advance.
You move the goalpost enough - and you can be right. The problem is - so many of your assertions are incorrect. You discount some things but give credit to others. Your logic and argument is flawed.