Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Sep 2012 22:24 UTC, submitted by yoni
Apple "Apple is one of the most secretive companies on the planet, so the Apple-Samsung trial was fascinating in that it lifted the veil of secrecy that typically shrouds Apple's operations. From marketing budgets to photos of never-before-seen iPhone prototypes, the evidence introduced at trial gave the world an unprecedented glimpse into the inner workings of Apple." Lots of stuff we already knew, but Yoni Heisler ties it all together nicely.
Thread beginning with comment 535098
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Journalism at its worst
by porcel on Fri 14th Sep 2012 18:34 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

The piece that the osnews article linsk to is an advertisement in disguise.

It is ahistorical in the sense that it disregards the real path that led to the current smartphone and the many designs that existed prior to Apple starting work on the iPhone. In other words, the article is just one more attempt to rewrite history so that the public can continue to believe in the "apple innovation" story.

Why? Because Apple now represents a significant share of the US´s GDP and a cash-cow must be protected at all costs.

What actually came out of the trial is how many other companies had prior art for every little thing that Apple claims to have invented and how many other phones existed that looked and behaved much like what would become the iphone.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Journalism at its worst
by Tony Swash on Fri 14th Sep 2012 19:00 in reply to " Journalism at its worst"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The piece that the osnews article linsk to is an advertisement in disguise.

It is ahistorical in the sense that it disregards the real path that led to the current smartphone and the many designs that existed prior to Apple starting work on the iPhone. In other words, the article is just one more attempt to rewrite history so that the public can continue to believe in the "apple innovation" story.

Why? Because Apple now represents a significant share of the US´s GDP and a cash-cow must be protected at all costs.

What actually came out of the trial is how many other companies had prior art for every little thing that Apple claims to have invented and how many other phones existed that looked and behaved much like what would become the iphone.



Yawn. Really - this tired old stuff? It entirely escapes me how anyone remotely interested in technology and global phone markets cannot see that the iPhone was a inflection point that changed everything in the smart phone market. If you don't get that then you won't get much else.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Journalism at its worst
by Janvl on Fri 14th Sep 2012 20:17 in reply to "RE: Journalism at its worst"
Janvl Member since:
2007-02-20

According to Jean-Louis Gassee and to Steve Wozniak Apple is no innovator.
Jean-Louis Gassee considers the iPhone a "re-invention" of the smartphone existing of a mix of already available techniques.

I guess mr. Swash those two know much much better then you do.

Reply Parent Score: 4

gsyoungblood Member since:
2007-01-09

To my recollection Apple did two things that proved significant with the introduction of the iPhone: capacitance touch screen, and masterful marketing. Those are the unique things Apple dropped on the world. Other phones were already converging on the basic shape/style of the iPhone, though in the splash and massive campaigns since much of the earlier details have been all but forgotten by a few.

As they say, the winner writes the history. And like it or not, Apple is winning. Sure Android may "sell more" but Apple is the one making all the money off the market.

Reply Parent Score: 1