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 532840
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Revisionist History
by brichpmr on Wed 29th Aug 2012 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Revisionist History"
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

RE[10]: Revisionist History
by brichpmr on Wed 29th Aug 2012 10:06 in reply to "RE[9]: Revisionist History"
brichpmr Member since:

There is a certain catechism about Apple so-called 'fans' that exists on this and other forums. All I can say about that is anecdotal. What I experience in my daily work in an enterprise with 5000+ people is a healthy mix of Apple and non-Apple devices. I don't run into many users who are sipping Steve Jobs kool aid.....they are simply using their iPads, iPhones and Macs for a variety of reasons. Same is true for the non-Apple users. I observe only a small number of 'fans' who see this as a platform religion....not limited to Apple device users.

Apple has a checkered history, and are ripe for critique about their practices. Only time will tell whether their ability to compete is adequate in the market, but the past 15 years have been (arguably) unparalleled in business annals. If I was a shareholder I would expect Apple to do whatever it takes to protect their intellectual property within the bounds of what the law allows. When they step over those bounds, I expect them to be slapped by the courts.

Reply Parent Score: 1