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 529099
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Crucifixion
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Aug 2012 08:55 UTC 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[5]: Crucifixion
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Crucifixion"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Did Xerox actually have many commercial sales?


That's not relevant to if it was first or not. Lisa was also a commercial failure for Apple, btw.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Crucifixion
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:48 in reply to "RE[4]: Crucifixion"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Did Xerox actually have many commercial sales? As I remember it was a flop. May be "first commercially successful" would be accurate?


Shifting the goalpasts. Apple fans' favourite pasttime. Oh, so Apple didn't invent it? So what, they were the first to be commercially successful with it! Oh, they weren't the first to be commercially successful? Well, they were the first to do it right!

So predictable.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Crucifixion
by BushLin on Wed 1st Aug 2012 20:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Crucifixion"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

"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?"

I have no doubt that Apple would have preferred to use the Linux kernel for OS X but took FreeBSD as their liberal licence allowed Apple to take all their hard work and give nothing back. They made a pretty interface with many fans but can't take credit for the underlying OS.

Oh yeah, as Thom says, you are guilty of trying to move the goalposts on the original argument on the first GUI... at least try to be objective.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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