Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Nov 2009 18:44 UTC
Apple Apple is usually quite the secretive company, revealing little of itself or its practices. With the App Store under heavy criticism, the company felt it needed to break the silence, and as such, Apple's senior vice-president for worldwide product marketing, Phil Schiller defended the company's App Store policies.
Thread beginning with comment 396072
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: The Apple Way
by tupp on Tue 24th Nov 2009 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Apple Way"
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

I definitely agree that Apple has not invented more than an small handful of new concepts.

I disagree with your definition of innovation. To me, that definition constitutes "rehash."

The touch and multi-touch features that Apple uses have been well documented in prior art and patents, some from several decades before the Iphone appeared.

There were multi-touch phone prototypes in existence prior to the Iphone, and Nintendo even had a patent on a multi-touch handheld.

In regards to the Iphone UI, the layout is generic, and resembles that of a Palm Pilot. All the Iphones little actions that so amaze Apple fans have mostly been done before in other UIs.

Even the enclosure design of the Iphone is generic, and was preceded by other touch smart phones, such as the LG Prada (which many think is better looking than the Iphone).

I will agree that Apple changed the public's take on smartphones, but that change is a result of intense marketing, rushing the product to market and the RDF -- it was not due to a superior UI/design/product.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: The Apple Way
by erak on Thu 26th Nov 2009 02:29 in reply to "RE[4]: The Apple Way"
erak Member since:
2006-09-24

Even the enclosure design of the Iphone is generic, and was preceded by other touch smart phones, such as the LG Prada (which many think is better looking than the Iphone).


Not to say that the iPhone design is totally an Apple invention, but the LG Prada comparison is quite weak. Even if the Prada phone was released earlier, I don't really think Apple had the time to make any adjustments to the design. LG Prada was announced Dec 12, '06 and the iPhone Jan 9, '07.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: The Apple Way
by tupp on Fri 27th Nov 2009 07:29 in reply to "RE[5]: The Apple Way"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Not to say that the iPhone design is totally an Apple invention, but the LG Prada comparison is quite weak.

Sorry, but we can't gloss over this statement.

How is the design of the the LG Prada "quite weak" in comparison to the Iphone?

The Prada won Red Dot "Best of the Best" Award in 2007 as did the Iphone later in 2008, but the Prada went on to win the International Forum Design product design award for 2007. The Prada also won a lot of the same/similar design awards that the Iphone won from computer/mobile-phone publishers.

Certainly, design awards are not an objective gauge of design quality -- such contests are often run/judged by pointy-head snobs who value stylishness over function -- but what other Design guage do we have to compare the Prada to the Iphone?

Please explain.


Even if the Prada phone was released earlier, I don't really think Apple had the time to make any adjustments to the design. LG Prada was announced Dec 12, '06 and the iPhone Jan 9, '07.

Well, first of all, there is no "even if" about it -- the Prada was being sold months before the Iphone was being sold. As I recall, the Prada started selling in January of 2007. When did the Iphone first start selling?...

Secondly, the Prada was showcased earlier than the announcement you mentioned, at the iF Design Awards in September 2006. Hence, it won the IF product design award for 2007 (which was announced in 2006: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocol... ).

I do not claim that Apple stole the LG/Prada design (although the LG CEO made that claim). However, there really is not that much to to the design of flat, compact, touchscreen phones other than a screen and a bezel, so they all pretty much look the same -- obvious and generic.

In light of this fact and given that others were winning awards on the same generic design prior to Apple, it seems rather silly for Apple fans to proclaim that the Iphone is a triumph of unique and innovative enclosure design.

Edited 2009-11-27 07:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: The Apple Way
by darknexus on Thu 26th Nov 2009 16:43 in reply to "RE[4]: The Apple Way"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

If that's true, then nothing is ever innovative. Our entire history is based on taking what we've already developed and improving it, expanding it, and refining it. We rehash everything be it technology or history. It's a cycle and, each time we refine a concept, we hopefully make it better. Innovation can't come from thin air, after all, there has to be a foundation on which to build new inventions.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: The Apple Way
by tupp on Fri 27th Nov 2009 08:18 in reply to "RE[5]: The Apple Way"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

If that's true, then nothing is ever innovative. Our entire history is based on taking what we've already developed and improving it, expanding it, and refining it. We rehash everything be it technology or history.

Not really. Ideas for brand new things constantly spring forth all over the world (but not very often at Apple).

People who are truly inventive can easily discern between such innovative ideas and mere rehash. For instance, when the first multi-touch "pinching gesture" was invented in 1983, that was innovative, but decades later, when Apple incorporated the same gesture into the Iphone interface, THAT was rehash.

When the first break-away, magnetic power connector appeared in 2001 ( http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/ ), that was innovative. However, when a similar connector with inferior engineering was first used on Mac laptops in 2006 and named "Magsafe," THAT was rehash.

By the way, there were quite a few safety problems these Mac connectors -- it would have been more appropriate if Apple had named them Mag-Unsafe."

When Microsoft invented the "dock" in 1985 ( http://toastytech.com/guis/bigw101.gif ) and when Acorn released its dock in 1987 with significantly more functionality (http://toastytech.com/guis/bigarthur.gif ), both docks were innovative. However, when NeXT debuted its dock in 1988 with no significant improvement in functionality and when the OSX dock first appeared in 2000 with essentially just a different "look," both of those docks were rehash. (The magnifying feature was neat, but it didn't really add any functionality.)

I could go on and on...

Reply Parent Score: 2