Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Jul 2012 19:38 UTC, submitted by tupp
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It might be a cliche, but sometimes, a picture says more than a thousand words. Over the years, I've often talked about how the technology world is iterative, about how products are virtually always built upon that which came before, about how almost always, multiple people independently arrive at the same products since they work within the same constraints of the current state of technology. This elementary aspect of the technology world, which some would rather forget, has been illustrated very, very well in one of Samsung's legal filings against Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 529074
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Crucifixion
by jigzat on Wed 1st Aug 2012 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Crucifixion"
jigzat
Member since:
2008-10-30

Well despite the argument that Apple copy Xerox (Although legally) they had the first comercial graphic OS and they had it for many many years (what like 20) and if you compare it with Samsung I haven't heard they have an in house OS, plus Mac OS X was a really advanced OS back then although again they bought from NeXT (you all know the story) and please lets not get into the GNU is better, that is a really subjective issue. In any case Apple has been developing OS from more than 20 years I think I think they might have a little experience developing OS's. If they don't bring any more advancements is because money wise reasons

Interesting fact about the Palm Zoomer.

Edited 2012-08-01 02:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Crucifixion
by Yehppael on Wed 1st Aug 2012 08:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Crucifixion"
Yehppael Member since:
2012-08-01

What about the linux kernel? Android with a some specific changes uses it, and it's 21 years old.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Crucifixion
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Aug 2012 08:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Crucifixion"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

they had the first comercial graphic OS


They did not. That honour belongs to the Xerox Star, launched in 1981. See what I mean with people not having a clue about history and just assuming Apple did everything?

and they had it for many many years (what like 20)


I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying nobody had a graphical operating system for 20 years after the release of the first Mac? What does this even mean?

and if you compare it with Samsung I haven't heard they have an in house OS


They have loads. Every one of their feature phones runs on an operating system, and, of course, they have Bada.

In any case Apple has been developing OS from more than 20 years I think I think they might have a little experience developing OS's.


When you really break it down, Apple only developed the original Mac OS, and then failed utterly and completely at keeping it up to date. All their other projects in this space failed miserably - so they had to buy their way out.

Your post is a perfect illustration of what I meant in the article: people have no clue about history, and just parrot whatever they read in Apple forums without actually bothering to look up the facts.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

"they had the first comercial graphic OS


They did not. That honour belongs to the Xerox Star, launched in 1981. See what I mean with people not having a clue about history and just assuming Apple did everything?
"

Did Xerox actually have many commercial sales? As I remember it was a flop. May be "first commercially successful" would be accurate? And this isn't the Mac, this is the Lisa.

"In any case Apple has been developing OS from more than 20 years I think I think they might have a little experience developing OS's.


When you really break it down, Apple only developed the original Mac OS,
"

Wrong. Or is the Mac OS X on my Mac Mini Scotch Mist? The Openstep on my old grey box bears almost no resemblance to Mac OS X 10.0, let alone 10.7. There are a few similarities, but then there are as many to Classic MacOS also. So, you are now belittling the 10+ years Apple worked on OS X?

Your post is a perfect illustration of what I meant in the article: people have no clue about history, and just parrot whatever they read in [....] forums without actually bothering to look up the facts.


Yep, indeed Thom.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by jigzat on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 17:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

they had the first comercial graphic OS


They did not. That honour belongs to the Xerox Star, launched in 1981. See what I mean with people not having a clue about history and just assuming Apple did everything?

and they had it for many many years (what like 20)


I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying nobody had a graphical operating system for 20 years after the release of the first Mac? What does this even mean? [/q]

You misinterpreted everything, Mac OS X was the first successful graphical OS plus I was pointing out they have been in the business for quite some time

"and if you compare it with Samsung I haven't heard they have an in house OS


They have loads. Every one of their feature phones runs on an operating system, and, of course, they have Bada.
"

Interesting about BADA yet they released it 2 years ago and they are pretty much not using it. And using someone else maintained OS is not the same as developing.

"In any case Apple has been developing OS from more than 20 years I think I think they might have a little experience developing OS's.


When you really break it down, Apple only developed the original Mac OS, and then failed utterly and completely at keeping it up to date. All their other projects in this space failed miserably - so they had to buy their way out.
"

As I pointed out we all know that Apple bought NeXT and so their experience, plus it doesn't matter how bad pre-mac-os-x was you don't make a mainstream OS without gaining experience. For instance Windows , before Windows 7 it was pretty much dated from the technological point of view yet the Microsoft Engineers are so good that they manage to keep a really crapy OS usable.

Your post is a perfect illustration of what I meant in the article: people have no clue about history, and just parrot whatever they read in Apple forums without actually bothering to look up the facts.
[/q]

Dude this is just a shallow discussion we are not looking world peace, take it easy.

Edited 2012-08-02 17:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by tupp on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 05:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

they had the first comercial graphic OS
They did not. That honour belongs to the Xerox Star, launched in 1981. See what I mean with people not having a clue about history and just assuming Apple did everything?

Well, if we are going to ignore:
- the Alto's GUI;
- the GUIs of about a zillion ATM machines in the 1970s;
- the GUIs of 1970s home video games;
then the Three Rivers;Perq/Accent GUI is certainly the strongest contender for the first "commercial" GUI: http://toastytech.com/guis/guitimeline.html

The "GUI Timeline" shows that the Perq was released in 1980 (prior to the Xerox Star and anything Apple), but it was definitely shown around in 1979 and there were Perq brochures circulating in 1979.

A lot of Perqs were sold, but I fail to see the significance of their "commercialization" -- the Alto had a GUI six years earlier.

Furthermore, I am fairly sure that there were several additional non-Apple/non-Xerox GUI players showing product around 1981-1982.

At any rate, this GUI first (and all of the other innumerable non-Apple firsts) has nothing to do with the quite obvious fact that Samsung didn't copy the Iphone design and that the Iphone was not the first "fully" touch-screen smart-phone in its genre/"form factor."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Crucifixion
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Crucifixion"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

they had the first comercial graphic OS


No, as Thom said that was the Xerox Star.

and they had it for many many years (what like 20)


Uh, no. Seriously, wtf? Digital's GEM came out in 1985, and so did Windows 1.0. Amiga and Atari ST in 1987. X Windows came out in 1984.

if you compare it with Samsung I haven't heard they have an in house OS


Bada. Not that it matters if they have decades of experience or not. It's the end product that counts.

plus Mac OS X was a really advanced OS back then


Yeah, it was SOOO advanced. Windows had nothing on it...
"Advanced" is more than a fancy GUI.

that is a really subjective issue


Ah, just like how you claim OSX was "really advanced".

In any case Apple has been developing OS from more than 20 years I think I think they might have a little experience developing OS's


Sure, too bad they rested on their laurels for some 20 years and almost went under. I guess bad experience is also experience.

If they don't bring any more advancements is because money wise reasons


Ah, so they will stop innovating again and let the competition kill them? Because that's money wise.

Edited 2012-08-01 09:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Uh, no. Seriously, wtf? Digital's GEM came out in 1985, and so did Windows 1.0. Amiga and Atari ST in 1987. X Windows came out in 1984


And the Lisa was released in January 1983, and it had a wholly graphical OS. Your point is therefore moot.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 10:44 in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Both the Amiga 1000 and the Atari ST were on the shelves in 1985, not 1987. The Amiga 500 was released in 1987.

And it's X Window System, not X Windows.

Edited 2012-08-01 10:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3