jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Thu Oct 4 07:55:58 CDT 2012
Hans, > You will all admit that iPhones and iPads were techological revolutions Uhhh no, I am not willing to admit that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone An interesting read. "The first cellular phone to incorporate PDA features was an IBM prototype developed in 1992 and demonstrated that year at the COMDEX computer industry trade show. A refined version of the product was marketed to consumers on 16 August 1994 by BellSouth under the name Simon Personal Communicator." "In 1996, Nokia released the Nokia 9000, part of the Nokia Communicator line which became their best-selling phone of that time. It was a palmtop computer-style phone combined with a PDA from HP." "In early 2001, Palm, Inc. introduced the Kyocera 6035, the first smartphone in the United States. This device combined the a PDA with a mobile phone and operated on the Verizon Wireless network. It also supported limited web browsing" "In 2004, HP released the iPaq h6315, a device that combined their previous PDA, the HP 2215 with cellular capability" "In 2007, Apple Inc. introduced the original iPhone, one of the first mobile phones to use a multi-touch interface. The iPhone was notable for its use of a large touchscreen for direct finger input as its main means of interaction, instead of a stylus, keyboard, and/or keypad as typical for smartphones at the time." So... first of all notice how Apple doesn't even enter the cell phone picture for 15 years, at least as a major player. Next... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen Notice that you can read down through that and Apple is simply not mentioned.. *ANYWHERE* Next... search the following for touchscreen. http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/05/the-evolution-of-cell-phone-design-between-1983-2009/ "Ericsson R380 - The R380 featured a black and white touchscreen, partially covered by a flip" In the year 2000!! Next... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch Notice that Apple *acquired* the company that developed modern multi-touch. Notice also that: "Apple additionally attempted to register "Multi-touch" as a trademark in the United States—however its request was denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office because it considered the term generic." So Apple applies an generic interface enhancement (touch screen / multi-touch) that they had nothing to do with developing for an existing truly revolutionary device (the smart phone) that they had nothing to do with developing and *APPLE* is the revolutionary. Apple simply applied technology to technology to take the next logical step. One could reasonably argue that it was just an idea whose time had come, and whose technology was at a state where it could be feasibly applied. As for the iPad "revolution" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/history-tablet-pc-photos_n_538806.html#s77817&title=GridPad_1989 And I will leave it to someone else to debunk that myth, but notice in the slideshow the iPad is #14 in this simple history. What Apple has is a marketing arm that manages to claim all the credit for everything that they touch, and sells the world that they are cool. So really their marketing machine is revolutionary eh? I will agree that any company that can convince so many people to part with so much money is doing a good *marketing* job. Whether their product is worth all that money... let's just say 'I ain't buying it'. As for whether they are technological revolutions... I think I have demonstrated the nonsense of that statement. John W. Colby Colby Consulting Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it On 10/4/2012 4:24 AM, Hans-Christian Andersen wrote: > I find it pretty funny how some people started out mocking the iPhone, saying it was a waste of money, over priced, not revolutionary. "Ack, my old flip Motorola phone could do the same." Then the iPad came around and it was the same. "Tablets... What a waste of money. No ones ever going to want one of those." > > Now it's different. You will all admit that iPhones and iPads were techological revolutions, except "now the competition has caught up, x y z flaw exists in Apples latest gizmo, Apple is about to die, all hail Samsung" something or the other. > > Just admit it: you were never going to buy anything from Apple, even if it were a cure for cancer. > > Just admit it and move on. Apple is still doing fine. People aren't standing in lines to get an iPhone for their elderly parents. People aren't furious that apple changed their connector, because its been the same connector since the original iPhone (5 years ago) and you cant claim that much consistency with many other competitors. > > I've heard the exact same claims here as I have on several other online forums today - almost word for word. You are not being original. You are being affected by a marketing campaign. > > So just go on with your lives. Enjoy your Galaxy S3s and Nexus 7s and iPhone 5s and welcome to the future. > > > Best regards, > Hans-Christian Andersen