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 515797
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Why Steve hates android
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Apr 2012 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why Steve hates android"
Member since:

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:

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[7]: Why Steve hates android
by karunko on Fri 27th Apr 2012 12:39 in reply to "RE[6]: Why Steve hates android"
karunko Member since:

What changed things, disrupted the phone market and led to a widespread mutation in phone design was the iPhone.

I already made clear that, as a consumer, I couldn't care less about who copies who, and I have no problem saying that there's a lot to like about the iPhone but... Disrupted? Widespread mutation?!?

Please, tell me you're shooting for a job with Apple's PR department rather than being just pathetic! ;-)


Reply Parent Score: 2

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:

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

what do you think of the sagem wa3050 from 2001?

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