Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Feb 2012 17:53 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Jobs called Android a 'stolen product', but theft can be a tricky concept when talking about innovation. The iPhone didn't emerge fully formed from Jobs's head. Rather, it represented the culmination of incremental innovation over decades - much of which occurred outside of Cupertino." Nothing particularly new in there for regular OSNews readers, but still handy to have it in one place.
Thread beginning with comment 508352
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I'mma just come out and say it
by flypig on Fri 24th Feb 2012 20:44 UTC in reply to "I'mma just come out and say it"
Member since:

But I don't think the article is trying to claim Apple doesn't innovate. It's saying that by Apple's own definition of theft, the iPhone is a stolen product. It's got nothing to do with how others define innovation or theft; it's trying to hold Apple to their own definition.

In other words, if Android is a 'stolen product', then by the same definition, so is the iPhone. Both have borrowed heavily from those that came before it.

Personally, I think the article makes a good point, and I think it's a good thing. Apple builds on others' ideas. Others build on Apple's ideas. This is sometimes referred to as progress.

Reply Parent Score: 5

earksiinni Member since:

Oh absolutely. It's definitely a "stolen product" by the standards that Jobs laid out. I have always maintained that Apple is an evolutionary and, in many cases, creatively reactionary company. There is very little in terms of features or functionality or even design paradigms that come out of Cupertino that are revolutionary; the level of polish is, however, revolutionary, time and time again.

I'm just trying to be objective--at least, by my own principles, which I think most people here would disagree with. Few on OSNews would agree, I believe, that "level of polish" is something that can be defined as "revolutionary", which is perfectly fine. But when people start bashing Apple left and right for not being innovative because they took this and that design paradigm from somewhere else, they totally miss the point of why other people call the company innovative.

My comments was more directed at above commenters who decided to turn this into a tribunal judging Apple's innovativeness, a fracas stemming from a misunderstanding of the word "innovative" which I gladly joined in :-)

P.S.: To be clear, I agree with everything the article says; but as evidence of my point, take a look at what it has to say about the slide to unlock feature. Click on the YouTube link and watch the feature in action on that older phone. There is really no comparison whatsoever in terms of how polished the feature is on that phone and on the iPhone. Is Apple's feature stolen? Of course. Is Apple's implementation revolutionary and innovative because of how polished it is? Yes.

Edited 2012-02-26 17:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

flypig Member since:

I don't disagree with what you've said here.

Apple generates polarised views. As you quite rightly point out, Apple has created lots of innovative products and features, yet others see them as being evolutionary or derivative.

However my guess is this polarisation is intentionally generated by Apple. Denying Apple’s innovation is primarily a response to the way Apple (and some Apple users) portray the nature of Apple's innovation.

Apple has a tendency to emphasize how innovative its products are without acknowledging the innovation of others. In fact, it even goes further to dismiss others' innovation (see e.g. the "stolen product" claim). This is particularly dangerous if your primary means of innovation is through something as intangible as polish (although I’d personally say there’s more to Apple than that).

The natural response to this is to play down Apple's innovation, since it's the only way to restore perspective. In my view, the consequence is that both sides end up in implausible positions.

Reply Parent Score: 1