Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Aug 2012 10:28 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless In light of the jury verdict in Apple vs. Samsung, the one-liners and jokes flew back and forth. One in particular, by Dan Frakes, has been copied and pasted all over the web, and it goes like this: "When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone's design is 'obvious'." This is a very common trend in this entire debate that saddens me to no end: the iPhone is being compared to simple feature phones, while in fact, it should be compared to its true predecessor: the PDA. PDAs have always done with few buttons.
Thread beginning with comment 532678
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Revisionist History
by TM99 on Tue 28th Aug 2012 04:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Revisionist History"
Member since:

No, I'm perfectly fine with the fact that people were working on these areas.

What I'm not fine with is claiming that Apple does not and has never invented or innovated anything, however, a device that required a licensed OS, hardware manufacturing from Tandy and Casio, and marketing and distribution from those two hardware manufacturers, and Donna Dubinsky from Apple doing financing and recruiting (mostly from Apple) to keep the company afloat to produce a product AFTER the Newton that was an even bigger flop is somehow designated groundbreaking and revolutionary.

No actually you aren't fine with what is being said otherwise you wouldn't bring up tired straw man arguments constantly.

Apple and its current fans have a mistaken mindset currently that says because our products are a commercial success, we did this first, best, or alone. We are the great innovators and Jobs, who was a narcisstic ass-hole was somehow a creative genius instead of the prick he really was. Therefore we deserve to receive legal protection and can control the market as we see fit. We can destroy Android simply because Jobs lost to Microsoft and by gods, he wasn't going to lose again even after he was dead.

When others push back against that and say things like, well, there is prior art. Apple may have innovated that but they built it on the foundations done by this company or that company, you call us 'fandroids' or 'haters'. You pull out straw men and tell us that we don't see anything that Apple has done well.

Bullshit! I don't know how old you are but I am willing to bet that I was using Apple products before you were even born. Some of us remember history. We know about Xerox PARC. We know and used Zoomers and Amigas. We know about GRiDPads. We had Newtons and used superior Palms. We remember SoundJam MP before Apple bought it and rebranded it as iTunes.

We remember the Apple Quicktake, which was called the first consumer digital camera, but we know that it was simply a rebranded Fuji or Samsung. Yeah, we remember that and know that iPhones and iPads contain more prior art from other companies like this so we do pause. We remember when Apple almost went out of business and now they are the highest grossing corporation ever. And we know that what goes up, will eventually come down.

So please give this line of reasoning a rest. It is quite tiresome and wholly unconvincing to those of us who were there from the beginning and those who may be young but at least take the time to educate themselves on what really has happened in the history of modern computing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Revisionist History
by brichpmr on Wed 29th Aug 2012 00:07 in reply to "RE[7]: Revisionist History"
brichpmr Member since:

Well, I'm a greybeard who has been around since the end of the 1940s, and I gotta tell you that Apple's recovery from where they were in 1997 to their current position goes way beyond whether they innovated anything. Arguably, there has not been another tech company that created an ecosystem and a strategy to leverage that ecosystem via a combination of hardware and software that found favor among tens of millions of 'great unwashed' as Apple has done.

They don't sell their 'shiny' toys just to tech illiteratis....there are plenty of power users sprinkled in their customer mix. The truth is almost always more nuanced than one might think.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Revisionist History
by TM99 on Wed 29th Aug 2012 04:01 in reply to "RE[8]: Revisionist History"
TM99 Member since:

We agree very much in that it is quite nuanced and complex, and perhaps there are even many 'truths'. I can even agree with the truth that Apple's meteoric rise from near bankruptcy to where they are at today is intriguing and even laudable. I also never said that some power users 'like' or even 'love' Apple products. As a personal example of knowing that truth, I have a very close college friend who does doctoral level AI research and uses iPads with autistic children. He is not a 'fanatic' though, and the only reason why now it is possible for him to use such a device in his work is because of the BSD-likeness of OS X on the server side of the equation.

However, it is still a truth that they are over-valued in the market, and this will eventually be corrected. It is also a truth that Apple is crossing that line into litigation as a means to secure, maintain, and defend a hoped for monopoly position. And we both are old enough to objectively have observed and know the truth that Apple under Jobs has always done historical revisionism in its marketing. It didn't happen during the Apple II years with Woz as a tempering influence. And it didn't happen during the years when Jobs was off at NeXT and Pixar. But under Jobs (either alive or dead) it has.

In a way responding to you about this, I am making a larger point with this as well. Because the Newton was created during the years when Jobs was gone, Apple didn't act then like they had invented the holy grail alone. Apple even licensed Hawkins character recognition software as their initial one didn't work out so well. So credit was given to Sculley and Apple for coining the term "PDA" even though they and all others knew there had been PDA's (in other forms and maybe not as successful but PDA's nonetheless) prior to the Newton and would be others thereafter. And by those of us who used Newtons, credit was given for their genuine innovations that they brought to the market segment.

Apple after Jobs is now showing us with this court case that Cook intends to keep Apple as they have been under Jobs. They and their 'fans' will continue the revisionist history-making to maintain their success. It has already happened here on OSNews in the linked article and thread about Samsung adding a 'dock' and thereby 'copying' Apple yet again. Seriously?!

I could write a psychological analysis on why this won't work but I will consider that for another time.

Good chatting with you. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1