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 587059
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
organgtool
Member since:
2010-02-25

If this whole thing was so obvious, why did no one but Apple take the lead, and then everyone followed suit doing what was so "obvious"?


Somebody is always the first to do something, but that doesn't mean that what they did was worthy of a patent. Do you think that the first person that realized that they could sell products online should have been granted a patent that would have prevented anyone else from selling products online for 20 years? Most sane people would say that the "invention" was obvious, even if no one had already done it before. The same thing applies here.

but no one did, so your saying that anyone should be able to come along after the cost of implementation has spent, and not the ability to recoup, because hey, everyone deserves technology for free. Salaries, Sallie Mae student loans be damned, your years of reserach should be free to all users and multi-billion dollar corps alike.


How much do you think it costs to develop pinch-zoom and bounce scrollback? Those are things I could have done by myself in college in less than a week each (bounce scrollback within a weekend). You are clearly not a software developer and you're giving Apple way too much credit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

spronkey Member since:
2009-08-16

You are clearly not a software developer and you're giving Apple way too much credit.

You are clearly not an interaction designer.

Yeah, you can "hack out" something in a day or two. But so often, the devil is in the details.

Apple would have spent months fine-tuning interaction speeds, thresholds, algorithms for handling the multi-touch inputs. All of this stuff seems invisible once the product is launched to anyone who wasn't involved - "just works" is damn hard, and too often people that don't understand the work involved in perfecting these interfaces and their interactions massively underestimate just how difficult and time-consuming this part is.

Reply Parent Score: 4

organgtool Member since:
2010-02-25

Yeah, you can "hack out" something in a day or two. But so often, the devil is in the details.

Believe it or not, I'm completely with you on that point.
Apple would have spent months fine-tuning interaction speeds, thresholds, algorithms for handling the multi-touch inputs. All of this stuff seems invisible once the product is launched to anyone who wasn't involved - "just works" is damn hard, and too often people that don't understand the work involved in perfecting these interfaces and their interactions massively underestimate just how difficult and time-consuming this part is.

I don't disagree with any of this. However, as another poster who disputed my claims has admitted, it took Samsung years to perfect their own implementation of pinch-zoom and bounce scrollback. If Samsung had simply aped Apple's designs, it would not have taken them years. You are absolutely right that the devil is in the details - and the details were missing from the patent. Otherwise, Samsung would have been able to get a comparable implementation out much sooner than it took them. I might agree that these features are patent-worthy if the patents actually contained the details that made it work so well.

Reply Parent Score: 2