Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Apr 2012 20:36 UTC
Google I wasn't just wrong, I was being an idiot. "When Google was in the thick of Android's development in 2006 and 2007 - long before the platform ever reached retail - it was a very different product, almost unrecognizable compared to the products we used today. Documents dated May of 2007 and made public during the course of Oracle's lawsuit against Google over its use of Java in Android show off a number of those preliminary user interface elements, prominently marked 'subject to change', and you can see how this used to be a product focused on portrait QWERTY devices." I'm hoping I can dive into this a little deeper tomorrow; since it's the busiest period of the year for my little company right now, I don't have the time to do it today. Just to make sure nobody thinks I'm just going to ignore this, I figured it'd be a good idea to post a quickie today. I'll get back to this tomorrow, or Friday at the latest.
Thread beginning with comment 515759
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why Steve hates android
by akrosdbay on Thu 26th Apr 2012 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Why Steve hates android"
akrosdbay
Member since:
2008-06-09

Don't be silly. iPhone came early, not even first, on the market which used the technology available at the time at it's full potentional. Even if the iPhone did not arrive on the market an other would have build it.

The LG Prada proves it.


LG prada proves nothing.. it was a horribly slow device with badly implemented software. The soft keyboard was numeric with T9 input for crying out loud.

http://gizmodo.com/261172/settling-this-iphone-vs-lg-prada-nonsense

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Why Steve hates android
by Lennie on Thu 26th Apr 2012 07:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Why Steve hates android"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm not saying the first iPhone wasn't a great device and software combination for it's time.

I'm saying, it is obvious that the market would go that direction.

Because the technology existed.

Reply Parent Score: 6

akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

I'm not saying the first iPhone wasn't a great device and software combination for it's time.

I'm saying, it is obvious that the market would go that direction.

Because the technology existed.


In hindsight may be, but as evidenced by this very article most companies were not going in that direction and hadn't in decades. Given that most of the technology to make an iPhone existed in some form or the other, no one else had done it.

Look at the stalwarts of the industry around 2007, Palm, RIM, Nokia, Windows Phone.. they are all but dead now. Primarily because none of them saw it coming. They all reacted and a little too late. So your contention that someone else would have done it is with out any real historical evidence.

iPhone comes out and then Google reacts about 1.5 years later by redesigning android to be similar. Palm comes out with webOS nearly 2 years after, Microsoft with Windows 7 3 years after and Nokia tries a few things to compete and failed. RIM with the blackberry storm with a horrible touchscreen in 2008.

If these companies would have done it anyway those products would have come out within a month or in far lesser time than after the iPhone was launched. None of them had the same quality of touchscreen that Apple had. Because Apple had designed it in-house and had it manufactured, the rest of the industry caught up after.

Same deal with the iPad retina display. Eventually devices will catch up but the IP to make it happen won't permeate the general market for many months. Tablets with those HiDPI screens will eventually flood the market but not until the end of the year.

Edited 2012-04-26 14:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I have a Prada, and decided to use it for several months last year.

What's amazing about the Prada is not that it was better or worse than the iPhone (it was worse), but that it was the first large-scale phone designed with a finger-only interface - and I loved the keyboard (which, contrary to your statement, does have a letter keyboard). It wasn't as good as Apple's, surely, but it was still the first finger-driven interface.

That alone earns the Prada a place in history. The touch era started not with the iPhone, but with the Prada - which was a massively successful phone.

Edited 2012-04-26 09:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

I have a Prada, and decided to use it for several months last year.

What's amazing about the Prada is not that it was better or worse than the iPhone (it was worse), but that it was the first large-scale phone designed with a finger-only interface - and I loved the keyboard (which, contrary to your statement, does have a letter keyboard). It wasn't as good as Apple's, surely, but it was still the first finger-driven interface.

That alone earns the Prada a place in history. The touch era started not with the iPhone, but with the Prada - which was a massively successful phone.


The thing that made the iPhone innovative was not a touch screen but the multi-touch nature of the screen and the innovative software that was built around it.

There were many full touchscreen devices launched prior to the LG prada even. Garmin nuvi series GPS devices for instance. Most PDA's were touch screens even before the Prada. But using an iPhone touchscreen versus a nuvi touch screen was not even in the same league as far as user experience goes.

For example, the first car to have the same control layout as todays cars was the Cadillac type 53 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Type_53 which was released in 1915 a good 30 years after the Benz in 1885.

Cars leading up to the Caddy had the similar concepts of gears, steering etc. but they were all different and unintuitive. Now most modern cars are driven like that Caddy because it brought it all together and made cars intuitive for the masses. Your "LG prada did it first" argument is like saying some arbitrary car before the Type 53 had gears and a steering, so the type 53 is not the tipping point it is claimed to be. The reality of the matter is most smart phones today work like the iPhone and not the Prada.

You don't flick to scroll on the Prada, nor you do you double tap to zoom portions of a webpage, or pinch to zoom on it. Other than it being a touch screen device it is rather uninteresting historically.

Edited 2012-04-26 14:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

That alone earns the Prada a place in history. The touch era started not with the iPhone, but with the Prada - which was a massively successful phone.


No it didn't, because no one copied the Prada. It was an evolutionary dead end. It had no descendants. Real evolution is full of examples like this. Full of examples of ecosystems pregnant with the possibility of a major new mutation, one that could lead to endless derivative forking mutations and ones that will thus change the ecosystem. But there are also plenty of examples of botched mutations, mutations that take the pregnant possibilities and express them a way that is an evolutionary dead end, in a way that leads no where.

The Prada was an evolutionary dead end because nobody copied it. Nobody. Nobody was inspired by it to redesign their phones. Nobody. Nobody changed their products or their product development because of the Prada. Nobody. The Prada was made first announced on December 12, 2006. The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs little more than a month later on January 9, 2007. Thus the two phones were made known to the world at almost the same time.

Since then countless phones have been released that work just like an iPhone. They work like that because of the success of the iPhone not because of the failure of the Prada.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Why Steve hates android
by karunko on Thu 26th Apr 2012 13:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Why Steve hates android"
karunko Member since:
2008-10-28



Quoting the clowns at Gizmodo, eh? Like they have any credibility with anyone who can put 2 and 2 together... ;-)



RT.

Reply Parent Score: 3

akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09



Quoting the clowns at Gizmodo, eh? Like they have any credibility with anyone who can put 2 and 2 together... ;-)



RT.
"

I was too lazy to google more. Read my later responses to the thread. For people that want to be adamant that the LG Prada was like the iPhone, no source is credible enough.

There is a video of the head of Prada at the time saying the LG Prada and the iPhone were different devices and not competing in the same market. But the anti-apple hive doesn't want to give credit where credit is due because Apple came up with an innovative concept that changed the entire industry.

The argument is similar to saying Bah! Google was not the first search engine! nothing innovative about Google at all. AltaVista and Excite etc had a text field where you typed stuff and results came out. So google didn't do anything innovative with search. Sure they made search better but the market was headed there anyway!

Edited 2012-04-26 15:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0