Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 29th May 2008 16:16 UTC
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. Google is trying just that with its Android mobile phone operating system, and it has demoed the capabilities of its new mobile phone operating system.
Thread beginning with comment 316173
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-07
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.
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.
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.
Not exactly. It depends on whether or not one includes development in the definition of "inventing."
Eh?
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?
No. The Onyx was developed without Apple, prior to the Iphone.
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. It never passed FCC certification. It can't be sold. Ergo it is not a phone. So the iPhone is the first Multi-Touch phone. Period. End of Story.
[
If one writes kernel code and knows little of usability, one might make such a conclusion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Just because you don't like some thing doesn't make it any less innovative.
Edited 2008-05-30 09:08 UTC
Member since:2006-11-12
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.
Making a statement is not a challenge.
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.
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...
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.
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?
What are you rambling about?
You gotta keep up with the conversation. I am not going to reduce the pace because you are too slow to understand something obvious.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aparently it is another concept you can't really grasp. Everything you listed the iPhone does extremely well and better than most smartphones.
Please refer to the above paragraph about built in disadvantages of a multi-touch cell phone.
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.
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.
So, you equate the Iphone interface with the "Fisher-Price" Sugar interface.
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?
Where did that come from there is no logical flow to your comment?
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.
Please keep up.
I work very fast on any UI. CLI, GUI you name it.
Good for you.
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 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 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 discussion here is about the first multi-touch phone and it is the iPhone.
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.
I get it you don't like Apple or thier products.
No. You don't get it. I dislike the blind adoration of brainless Apple/Jobs fanboys, and the resulting distortion of facts/history.
Member since:
2006-11-12
No one? How many people have you asked?
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.
Edited 2008-05-30 08:21 UTC