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 515796
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why Steve hates android
by Tony Swash on Thu 26th Apr 2012 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why Steve hates android"
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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The Prads sold millions and millions of times and won countless awards - that's a failure for you? Strange metrics you have.

In a any case, you're so far into the RDF you can't even acknowledge a simple truth: the Prada was the first phone with a full touch interface - not the iPhone. It's absolutely fascinating and massively entertaining to see you squirming like this.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Actually the first touch phone was made by a guy called John in his garden shed in a small town outside London in July 2006.

Imagine if that was true - would it make John's touch phone important? Could the revolution that happened after 2007 in phone and phone OS design be traced back to John's phone?

I repeat. Nobody copied the Prada or were influenced or were inspired by the Prada to change their product design. Nobody. And there is not a shred of evidence to support the proposition that the Prada was a game changing product. What changed things, disrupted the phone market and led to a widespread mutation in phone design was the iPhone.

So what is the significance of the Prada? Its a slightly interesting footnote in the history of phone design, a product that indicated roughly the direction that phone design was going to take but a product that was deeply flawed, failed to show the true potential of the new touch screen paradigm and ended up going nowhere. That was not the fate of the iPhone announced four weeks after the Prada.

If one wants to understand where the world of today came from then one needs to trace the real roots of things, not the history of things that might have changed the world but the history of the things that actually did. All else is just pedantry.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Why Steve hates android
by smashIt on Thu 26th Apr 2012 20:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Why Steve hates android"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

the Prada was the first phone with a full touch interface - not the iPhone.


what do you think of the sagem wa3050 from 2001?
http://www.gsmarena.com/sagem_wa_3050-pictures-246.php

the important stuff even has finger-sized icons ;)


and i know there was one from siemens in the 90s but i've forgotten what it was called...

Edited 2012-04-26 20:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"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.
"

That is a laughably bad analogy, even by the standards of analogies - and it just goes to show that you have no clue how biological evolution actually works. Would you claim that dolphins are evolved from sharks because they share similar body shapes & similar adaptations to their environment?

The similarities are only superficial and there are fundamental differences between those two organisms, both morphologically AND genetically. There's a term for that: "convergent evolution", which basically means two or more organisms that develop similar traits, despite neither being descended from the other. Which is a much more accurate analogy for the relationship between Androids and iProducts.

If anything, your analogy is closer to intelligent design, if not out-and-out creationism. Maybe you should back and re-read some of those 10th grade biology texts, instead of basing your understanding of evolution on Pokemon.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Why Steve hates android
by zima on Wed 2nd May 2012 23:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Why Steve hates android"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Nobody. Nobody [...] Nobody. Nobody [...] Nobody.

Repeating things (in general, not just this) like they're some mantras won't make non-RDF-ed people believe... (though, sure, it can strengthen your faith, shield you stronger in the perception bubble of your very atypical place; and http://www.osnews.com/permalink?516201 )

Curious BTW how that "announced on December 12, 2006" Prada won the iF Design Award in September 2006.

Reply Parent Score: 2