This is actually an interesting article. I'd much rather see this kind of stuff than 'Pokémon Go now available in Siberia' or 'Bob's Portable Toilets now accepts Apple Pay'.
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.
Tony Fadell Shares New Details on Prototype iPhone Software With Virtual iPod Clickwheel
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I will just assume he knows what he is talking about considering he was, you know, actually there. You on the other hand....
You could have a point about everyone wanting to claim credit. Like the way that Jon Ive now claims that it was HE who orchestrated a multi-touch demo (projected on a conference table, IIRC) in order to convince Jobs to go that route... which is a different origin story from Jobs comments about it starting with a glass keyboard demo for a tablet.
There's always a bit of truth in all the stories. But they're piecemeal, like the old tale of blind men describing an elephant.
Past reports showed Apple looking at Sony for inspiration, these news now show Apple looking at Nokia for inspiration. Everyone please remember this when judging poor Samsung
Jobs revered Sony. Heck, he originally wanted to call the iMac the MacMan, because of the Sony Walkman.
From the Apple-Samsung trials, we know that even into 2006, they were not thrilled with Ive's proposed extruded case (below right) look for the iPhone. Some much preferred the rounded corner design (below left) derived from an internal guess (by designer Shin Nishibori) at what a Sony smartphone would look like:
Btw, notice that the codenames Purple 1 and Purple 2 (P2) were used throughout the trial, contrary to Fadell's memory of things.
Ah, sorry, I see what you mean. Right, even though the Prada was the first smartphone product to use a capacitive screen, and yes, it had been revealed at least to the iF for the design award back in Sept 2006, it's obvious that Apple (and everyone else) had long been independently working on such designs at the same time. So no, I don't think Apple copied the Prada.
However, it's interesting that a Korean smartphone maker created and sold a design similar to the 2010 iPhone 4, but way back in 2005:
If Apple designers didn't take any cues from the Pideon, as some think, then we can only conclude that the iPhone shape was actually a common end design around the world, and belonged to no one.
They don't have to. A lot of people don't know that Samsung sold an all touch phone in summer 2006 in Korea, an entire year before the first iPhone went on sale:
Nor do they know that during 2006, Samsung was working on a future touch UI, that was in some ways stunningly close to what the later iPhone looked like:
Most people don't know these things, because Apple lawyers bent over backwards to make sure such prior art (including the Pideon) was banned from the trial. Not exactly the mark of someone who is confident in their own design uniqueness.
The upshot is that companies all over the world were converging on similar designs. But thank god that Apple didn't go with a clickwheel, because for better or worse, whatever they do often tends to become popular.
Last edited:
What the heck... I can't believe this, it looks even as if maybe Apple actually copied Samsung on the original iPhone? Is this image from Samsung in 2006 really true?
Yes, it was a real UI concept called "Ireen", but it was internal to Samsung, so Apple would not have known about it. Neither Apple nor Samsung saw each other's internal R&D.
What it does show, along with examples from other companies, is that designers will often converge on similar features and layouts when coming up with an finger friendly device. I mean, come on, an icon grid makes sense, as does a Home button. Both had been around in smartphones nearly forever.
That's why Apple lawyers used a technical evidence submission mistake on the part of Samsung's lawyers, to refuse to allow a ton of prior art in the California jury trial. (Remember the Samsung lawyer literally begging the judge to let them use it, saying there could be no fair trial without it?)
When that same prior art was allowed in trials outside the US, Apple lost their design claims every time.
(Even in the US, appeals court judges had access to that hidden evidence, and partly due to being able to see it, they overturned bans on Samsung imports, along with other rulings. Their use of it actually became a bone of contention later on. Other judges thought that if the jury never saw the prior art, then the appeals judges should ignore it, as well. Legalities over common sense.)
Last edited:
There is a big difference between Samsung concept art about a hypothetical touch UI in 2006 and Apple actually introducing a functioning product in January 2007 that they were ready to start selling. Plus the iPhone was obviously practically complete in 2006, I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung's "UI concept" was based on corporate espionage.
Nobody said otherwise. The point was there's a lot of commonality in design.
Likewise, the fact that Apple's 2006 internal concept cases began to look very similar to an actual functioning 2005 Korean smartphone, is probably a coincidence, don't you agree?
Although, it is interesting that Unwired online magazine even commented in 2005, "If Apple would ever decide to build a new Apple Newton, it could look like this new Pocket PC from Korean ODM Pidion."
The question is, if Apple really truly believed their designs were innovative, then why would their lawyers be so worried about letting the jury see all the evidence. Hiding prior art is not the action of someone who thinks that they truly did something new and unique.
Apple has never claimed such espionage.
Rounded corners, icons and home buttons had been around in products for years. No spies necessary.
Last edited: