Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Apr 2014 16:40 UTC
Google

From a 2006 (pre-iPhone) Android specification document:

Touchscreens will not be supported: the Product was designed with the presence of discrete physical buttons as an assumption.

However, there is nothing fundamental in the Product's architecture that prevents the support of touchscreens in the future.

The same document, but a few versions later, from 2007 (post-iPhone):

A touchscreen for finger-based navigation - including multi-touch capabilites - is required.

The impact of the iPhone on Android in two documents. Google knew the iPhone would change the market, while Microsoft, Nokia, and BlackBerry did not. That's why Android is now the most popular smartphone platform, while the mentioned three are essentially irrelevant.

Thread beginning with comment 587039
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: assumptions
by Tony Swash on Mon 14th Apr 2014 19:14 UTC in reply to "assumptions"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

The comments by the people who were in the meetings, quoted in the book Dogfight for example completely support the notion that the iPhone unveiling caused a complete reset in the Android project.

Thom's right - Google (and not much later Samsung) were the only players who saw the iPhone launch and realised immediately that the entire game had changed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: assumptions
by TechGeek on Mon 14th Apr 2014 19:22 in reply to "RE: assumptions"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Well, if the people at the meeting say that, then I stand corrected.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: assumptions
by organgtool on Mon 14th Apr 2014 22:05 in reply to "RE: assumptions"
organgtool Member since:
2010-02-25

Just because you were the first to do something does not mean that you should automatically be able to patent it and lock others out. The patent has to be for a non-obvious use. What Apple did was place someone else's capacitive touchscreens in their phones and implement a few multitouch gestures, which was one of the primary advantages capacitive touchscreens allowed over their resistive touchscreen predecessors. The patents they filed should have never been granted. You should be allowed to change the game, but unless you develop a truly novel and non-obvious use for the technology, you should not be able to prevent others from adapting to a changing environment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: assumptions
by jackeebleu on Mon 14th Apr 2014 23:09 in reply to "RE[2]: assumptions"
jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

The world called, and R&D budgets said, please GTFOHWTBS! The court docs show clearly that they saw the introduction and totally stopped all existing work, and changed the design to mimic/ape the iPhone. Facts, try some.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: assumptions
by AndyB on Tue 15th Apr 2014 11:42 in reply to "RE[2]: assumptions"
AndyB Member since:
2013-03-22

Just because you were the first to do something does not mean that you should automatically be able to patent it and lock others out. The patent has to be for a non-obvious use. What Apple did was place someone else's capacitive touchscreens in their phones and implement a few multitouch gestures, which was one of the primary advantages capacitive touchscreens allowed over their resistive touchscreen predecessors. The patents they filed should have never been granted. You should be allowed to change the game, but unless you develop a truly novel and non-obvious use for the technology, you should not be able to prevent others from adapting to a changing environment.

This being the case, what exactly can you patent? If you are the first to invent/produce something, my understanding is that if you don't want every competing company to blatentely copy you then it needs to be patented or copywrited to prove ownership.

It's the later companies who take someone elses ideas then try and patent it as their own who should be stopped, taken into a courtyard and shot!

Reply Parent Score: 2