.. Android is not tied to one vendor, and thusly, not tied to a single carrier or device.

Its kind of funny how BlackBerry and Microsoft have been around in this market forever, and how far they have been left behind by Google and Apple. And by funny I mean sad.

HTC and they have really nice powerfull hardware.

Multitouch and touchscreens really are all the rage these days, especially in mobile devices. Apple's iPhone set the bar, and now it's up to the rest to either catch up to Apple, or outdo them.

So who is Google partnering with? Who's actually shipping Android on an actual phone?

MS's surface is too expensive (and limited) for most people ... It took the iPhone to bring multi touch within the grasp of the general populous.

Apple set the bar by bringing this tech to the mass market. MS's surface is too expensive (and limited) for most people and just about everyone else was researching this or not marketing it in a way to generate much publicity.

It took the iPhone to bring multi touch within the grasp of the general populous.

The iPhone included all the usual suspects, photos you could pinch, google maps and so on, and also allowed you to browse the internet with relative easy.

Apple didn't invent this nor did they add a great deal to it, what they did do is see a market for it and integrate it well into a product.

Somehow, I'm having a hard time reconciling those two statements. The iPhone is over $500 (US). Sorry, but only the well-heeled are plunking down that much money for the phone, not the "general populous".

So, Apple is merely good at marketing and publicity. The products aren't actually innovative.

If anything, it took the glow from the Apple reality distortion field. If you go to the link in my earlier post, you will see that several companies offered multi-touch devices for sale many years before the Iphone. It was just a matter of time before one of these companies would finally succeed. Apple has an advantage in that its fan base accepts almost everything that the company offers, good or bad.

Lots of phones/PDA-phones offer these features with excellent usability. The Iphone does not have the best usability compared to a lot of smart phones.

The Simon (1992) was "well-integrated" as the first completely touch-screen cellphone that was mass marketed. How was Apple unique in the way it marketed the Iphone and in the way it integrated multi-touch into the already well-established touch-screen phone?

Oh Geez, get over yourself.

You could say the same about the wimp interface. It was around long before Apple brought it to the masses, but Apple is still around, where are the other guys.

Actually, the WIMP interface was "brought" to the masses long before the Mac, i.e. the Xerox Star, the Three Rivers Perq and Visi-On. Apple was just the first company to market with Super-Bowl ads, etc., so they were much more successful.

That question has no bearing on the quality and innovation of a product. One could ask the same question of the many excellent software companies forced out of business by Microsoft. Indeed, Apple would probably be history if it weren't for a loan from Microsoft.

So, Apple is merely good at marketing and publicity. The products aren't actually innovative.
Your opinion but most people disagree.

Where are all those devices and who used them? How many did they sell?

How good were those devices?

Lots of phones/PDA-phones offer these features with excellent usability. The Iphone does not have the best usability compared to a lot of smart phones.
Name one that my 7 year old nephew could use or would want to use.

The Simon (1992) was "well-integrated" as the first completely touch-screen cellphone that was mass marketed. How was Apple unique in the way it marketed the Iphone and in the way it integrated multi-touch into the already well-established touch-screen phone?
A lot of products have been touch screen before the iPhone. PDAs, treos, Apple Newton etc. All of them were a pain to use without a stylus. Not really touch if you need a pointed plastic piece to really use.

Actually, the WIMP interface was "brought" to the masses long before the Mac, i.e. the Xerox Star, the Three Rivers Perq and Visi-On. Apple was just the first company to market with Super-Bowl ads, etc., so they were much more successful.

Most of those products failed because they didn't take out Super Bowl Ads???!! That's a very naive view to say the least.

Oh please! Another oversimplified view of reality. Sure the only reason Apple is successful today is because Microsoft loaned it money, Seriously!

No one seems to be able to create a list of Apple GUI innovations that is more than about four items.

Where are all the Apple Newtons? Who used them? How many did they sell?

Do such questions matter to innovation? Who is more important -- the inventor or the salesman? I say the inventor, because a product can sell itself without a salesman, but a product cannot exist without an inventor.

If you merely doubt the existence of these products, go here: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

It looks like a 7-year-old might enjoy using some of the Multi-touch interfaces that appeared from 1994 to 1997. However, I am not sure how important it is for most of these products to be usable and to be enjoyed by 7-year-olds.

The Simon (1992) didn't need a stylus: http://cdecas.free.fr/computers/pocket/simon.php

Most of the multi-touch items in the first link above did not require a stylus.

"...Super-Bowl ads, etc." -- Not just the Super-Bowl ads, but the huge marketing/advertising push that would include Super-Bowl ads.

The other companies had almost the same GUI years earlier (some arguably superior than the Mac), but they put a relatively minuscule amount of money and effort into marketing/advertising.

It is sort of naive for one to miss the "etc." qualifier.

Without the Microsoft $150 million and the colaboration with Microsoft, Apple might not exist today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple#The_Microsoft_Deal

I did and I don't see a mobile multi-touch device unit till 2006-2007. It is safe to assume that Synaptics and Apple were working in parallel so you can safely say that Apple innovated the iPhone.

Wrong. My statement was meant in shock at the very simple view that a superbowl ad or marketing would make a product successful.

The other companies had almost the same GUI years earlier (some arguably superior than the Mac), but they put a relatively minuscule amount of money and effort into marketing/advertising.

Got any data on that.

The Xerox Star failed because it was expensive and didn't perform well.

Also Xerox was brain dead enough to try and sell it as a package with a print server and Laser printer and in sets of 2 and 3.

Apple's Lisa also failed around the same time with the same magic Apple marketing. How do you explain that?

The naivety here comes from thinking that the only way for a product to succeed is marketing. Try starting a company with that philosophy and see how that works out.

Keyword being "might". Apple may have failed even with that money if it weren't for its product line and new digital media hub strategy that Jobs brought back to the company along with the MS deal.

Your ideas and arguments are really ill conceived.

I think I am done with this off topic discussion. Cheers.

No one seems to be able to create a list of Apple GUI innovations that is more than about four items.

No one? How many people have you asked?

One can easily say that Apple innovated the Multi-touch interface on a mobile phone.

There is a huge difference between inventing something and making it commercially viable. Unlike you ignorantly posit it has nothing to do with marketing.

I don't see a mobile multi-touch device unit till 2006-2007. It is safe to assume that Synaptics and Apple were working in parallel so you can safely say that Apple innovated the iPhone.

You talked about usability of the iPhone. If a seven year old can use it I can say it is fairly useable. I write kernel/FW code for a living and have used most user interfaces available.

Let's get this straight. I was talking about portable devices. Using a projector and camera in a PDA/Mobile phone seems stupid. The Simon was overpriced, huge and impractical and therefore failed miserably. In todays dollars it would cost $1376.

Why then does Apple put all that money and effort into advertising and marketing? Advertsing can make or break a product, company, political candidate, etc., and you are a naive Apple fanboy if you believe otherwise. My guess is that you have been victimized by the very advertising/marketing in question.

On what? -- on the other companies' GUIs or on their marketing advertising budgets?

In regards to advertising/marketing budget, if you know anything about advertising, it is obvious that Apple put a lot of money into ads. Super-Bowl commercials don't come cheap. The only computer company that probably surpassed Apple was IBM with the "Charlie Chaplin" campaign.

The Xerox Alto was expensive. How do you figure the same with the Star? Where did you hear that the performance was inferior?

Note that the Xerox Star page on Digibarn states, "The Xerox 8010 (aka "Star") was introduced in 1981. It changed the way office workers used computers by presenting a desktop interface, and a mouse -- now standard on most office computers.": http://www.digibarn.com/friends/curbow/star/index.html

If "it changed the way office workers used computers," Xerox must have had been able to move a few units, and it didn't exactly fail.

Again, how do you know this information about the Star? And thank you for reinforcing my point on the importance of marketing.

Lack of marketing/advertising, price and an internal decision not to push the Lisa.

Certainly, marketing is not the only way for a product to succeed. Many products succeed on their own.

However, many products (such as most items made by apple) succeed primarily due to marketing and advertising. It has already been established that Apple's products are not particularly innovative nor special -- it is the marketing/advertising that makes them sell.

When Steve Jobs announced the Microsoft investment, he prefaced the announcement with, "If we want to move forward and see Apple healthy and prospering again, we have to let go of a few things here."

So, Apple needed the help of Microsoft to be healthy, prosper and move forward, according to "Fearless Leader."

I suppose you are correct -- it is foolish to think that marketing and advertising have any effect on the success of a product or company.

I don't see you making a list. I challenge you to see if you can make a list of more than four GUI items that originated from Apple.

You could say that, but it wouldn't be true if you said that Apple was the first to develop a multi-touch cell phone. That honor goes to Synaptics. They did it without Apple, prior to the Iphone.

Not exactly. It depends on whether or not one includes development in the definition of "inventing."

Regardless of one's definition, marketing doesn't really have anything to do with inventing nor innovation. It is possible that some marketing ape could contribute an actual innovation, but it rarely happens. Usually, the most that a marketing chimp will do to affect the product is maybe try to influence the style. "Design by committee" is often terrible.

No. The Onyx was developed without Apple, prior to the Iphone.

[
If one writes kernel code and knows little of usability, one might make such a conclusion.

However, usability is much more complex than such an oversimplified notion. You are referring only to the usability aspect of comprehension (intuitiveness), which is complicated in itself. Usability relies on many more factors that are interelated: speed, power, security/safety, physical ergonomics, technical resolution/clarity, graphic design, mapping/modeling etc.

Comprehension is not the "end-all." For example, the Sugar interface is probably great for a 7-year-old, but hideous for a businessman, "power user."

Furthermore, almost always, someone adept with a tiling window manager moves much faster within/between applications than someone using just a single-button, mouse-based GUI.

Whether the Simon was huge and/or impractical is debatable, given the relative size of cell phones in those early days.

Nevertheless, the Simon was the first, portable, fully-touch-screen cell phone. And it came out in 1992 -- 15 years before the Iphone.

Somehow, I'm having a hard time reconciling those two statements. The iPhone is over $500 (US). Sorry, but only the well-heeled are plunking down that much money for the phone, not the "general populous".

Reconcile what exactly? The iPhone costs $399 and $499. Where did you get the over $500 from.

Sounds like the mentality that SCO had, right before they went bankrupt.

NOBODY is shipping Android because it is not finished yet.

As for who's Google partnering with, well, just google for it, and you'll find plenty of information online. OK, I'll save you the effort: As for operators, there's China Mobile, NTT DoCoMo, Telefónica, T-Mobile, Telecom Italia, Sprint and KDDI... How about that? Very few of the largest are missing, and these add up to quite a large proportion of the worldwide mobile market. As for cellphone makers, there is Samsung, Motorola, LG and HTC; not bad, really, not bad at all.

Even bearing in mind their openness, think that the iPhone may be even worse for the operators: it is Apple inside and out, and there's not much room for operator identity integration. There are also leonine conditions imposed by Apple on what may be done and not done with the phone, and they pass around the hat to gather a sizeable proportion of the earnings.

iphone is nowhere successful as ipod. not because of technology but because of stupid carrier contract rules and cheating on subsidy to buy 2 year contract.on other hand you dont need contract to use ipod.

US cellphone market is at primitive stage compared to rest of the world. therefore unless google comes with unlocked phone and force carriers to keep it unlocked, their OS is not going to pick up any mobile marketshare...

"Reconcile what exactly? The iPhone costs $399 and $499. Where did you get the over $500 from.

Don't know about your seven year old nephew, but MY seven year old nephew and niece have absolutely no trouble using my sisters Nokia S60 phone to take pics, play games and play music.

I don't see you making a list. I challenge you to see if you can make a list of more than four GUI items that originated from Apple.

Making a statement is not a challenge.

Where can you buy a Synpatics phone? Which carrier supports it? What are the specs? Is it GSM or CDMA? It is vaporware. A concept to show off a part they want to sell to companies that make the cell phones. Onyx is not a real product it can't even make a phone call it is a concept to show case a touch sensing technology...

Regardless of one's definition, marketing doesn't really have anything to do with inventing nor innovation. It is possible that some marketing ape could contribute an actual innovation, but it rarely happens. Usually, the most that a marketing chimp will do to affect the product is maybe try to influence the style. "Design by committee" is often terrible.

What are you rambling about?

If one writes kernel code and knows little of usability, one might make such a conclusion.

I'll take this real slow. A 7 year old can use it and technically savvy person can use it. My mom ca use it. It is infinitely more useable than most smart phones.

Usability relies on many more factors that are interelated: speed, power, security/safety, physical ergonomics, technical resolution/clarity, graphic design, mapping/modeling etc.

Aparently it is another concept you can't really grasp. Everything you listed the iPhone does extremely well and better than most smartphones.

Comprehension is not the "end-all." For example, the Sugar interface is probably great for a 7-year-old, but hideous for a businessman, "power user."

According to you. Many businesses are waiting for the 2.0 feature set. I know of many "power users" that are pestering thier IT departments to support the iPhone.

Furthermore, almost always, someone adept with a tiling window manager moves much faster within/between applications than someone using just a single-button, mouse-based GUI.

Where did that come from there is no logical flow to your comment?

I work very fast on any UI. CLI, GUI you name it.

Nevertheless, the Simon was the first, portable, fully-touch-screen cell phone. And it came out in 1992 -- 15 years before the Iphone.

The newton was out then. The iPhone is multi-touch and works unlike the Simon that was ridiculously expensive with not real infrastructure so fairly useless.

The discussion here is about the first multi-touch phone and it is the iPhone.

I get it you don't like Apple or thier products.

The reason why you have not made a list is because you can't do it. Really, there are only one or two computer GUI innovations originated by Apple, including everything that is in multi-touch behavior of the Iphone.

Nevertheless, Synaptics developed the multi-touch cell phone prior to Apple. And the "concept" that you mentioned they wanted to sell was multi-touch. Looks like they "sold" it to Apple, although it has been obvious for many years to incorporate multi-touch on the many touch-screen phones that preceded the Iphone.

You gotta keep up with the conversation. I am not going to reduce the pace because you are too slow to understand something obvious.

Again, you are merely saying that the Iphone is "comprehensible." Most cell phones these days are thoroughly comprehensible. To an Apple fanboy with an oversimplified understanding of usability, this qualifies as "superior."

However, a multi-touch cell phone has several built-in usability disadvantages: no tactile feed-back -- always have to be looking at screen to operate, further hindered by fingers not being transparent, blind people are out of luck; usually requires two hands to operate;
lack of visual clarity/feedback in bright sunlight and with smudges; etc.

Please refer to the above paragraph about built in disadvantages of a multi-touch cell phone.

So, you equate the Iphone interface with the "Fisher-Price" Sugar interface.

A tiling window manager has low initial comprehension but great eventual speed. Single-button-mouse based GUIs have greater initial comprehension, but lower eventual speed.

The Simon worked. It's infrastructure was IBM and BellSouth -- both very real and huge corporations with a lot of original, deployed technology. Just because there were fewer cell towers doesn't detract from the fact that the Simon preceded the Iphone by 15 years as the first fully touch-screen phone.

There were also many other fully touch-screen phones that preceded the Iphone. It appears that Apple emulated the design of some of this prior art, for instance, the award-winning LG Prada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxUDNOyjZIU

In regards to the Newton (1993), the Simon (1992) preceded it by one year, and the first touch-screen PDA was the Sony PTC-300 (1991): http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/history/product/1990/ptc-300.html

The Iphone was not the first multi-touch phone invented. By the time the Iphone was developed by Apple, multi-touch phones were obvious -- that is why Apple doesn't have a patent on a multi-touch cell phone.

If Apple had invented the multi-touch cell phone, you can bet your life that they would have tried to claim the innovation in a patent. They didn't.

No. You don't get it. I dislike the blind adoration of brainless Apple/Jobs fanboys, and the resulting distortion of facts/history.

I don't have time to indulge your ignorant claim that Apple isn't an innovative company.

Balda makes the screen on the iPhone. Apple has filed a patent for the Multi-Touch screen.

Sorry vaporware doesn't make a product. iPhone is the first Cell phone to use a multi-touch screen.

The iPhone has won independent usability studies compared to other smartphones.

When would you ever need to use a phone without looking at the screen? Don't tell me while driving.

The iPhone works fine single handed, I do it all the time. It looks like you have never used it.

The usability in direct sunlight has nothing to do with touch technology.