Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Aug 2012 10:28 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless In light of the jury verdict in Apple vs. Samsung, the one-liners and jokes flew back and forth. One in particular, by Dan Frakes, has been copied and pasted all over the web, and it goes like this: "When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone's design is 'obvious'." This is a very common trend in this entire debate that saddens me to no end: the iPhone is being compared to simple feature phones, while in fact, it should be compared to its true predecessor: the PDA. PDAs have always done with few buttons.
Permalink for comment 532882
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Revisionist History
by TM99 on Wed 29th Aug 2012 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Revisionist History"
Member since:

We agree very much in that it is quite nuanced and complex, and perhaps there are even many 'truths'. I can even agree with the truth that Apple's meteoric rise from near bankruptcy to where they are at today is intriguing and even laudable. I also never said that some power users 'like' or even 'love' Apple products. As a personal example of knowing that truth, I have a very close college friend who does doctoral level AI research and uses iPads with autistic children. He is not a 'fanatic' though, and the only reason why now it is possible for him to use such a device in his work is because of the BSD-likeness of OS X on the server side of the equation.

However, it is still a truth that they are over-valued in the market, and this will eventually be corrected. It is also a truth that Apple is crossing that line into litigation as a means to secure, maintain, and defend a hoped for monopoly position. And we both are old enough to objectively have observed and know the truth that Apple under Jobs has always done historical revisionism in its marketing. It didn't happen during the Apple II years with Woz as a tempering influence. And it didn't happen during the years when Jobs was off at NeXT and Pixar. But under Jobs (either alive or dead) it has.

In a way responding to you about this, I am making a larger point with this as well. Because the Newton was created during the years when Jobs was gone, Apple didn't act then like they had invented the holy grail alone. Apple even licensed Hawkins character recognition software as their initial one didn't work out so well. So credit was given to Sculley and Apple for coining the term "PDA" even though they and all others knew there had been PDA's (in other forms and maybe not as successful but PDA's nonetheless) prior to the Newton and would be others thereafter. And by those of us who used Newtons, credit was given for their genuine innovations that they brought to the market segment.

Apple after Jobs is now showing us with this court case that Cook intends to keep Apple as they have been under Jobs. They and their 'fans' will continue the revisionist history-making to maintain their success. It has already happened here on OSNews in the linked article and thread about Samsung adding a 'dock' and thereby 'copying' Apple yet again. Seriously?!

I could write a psychological analysis on why this won't work but I will consider that for another time.

Good chatting with you. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1