Please point us to the MULTITOUCH capacitance screen phones that existed prior to the iPhone. Point to ANY touch screen phone that did not require a stylus for input. You can’t. They did not exist. Ergo, that statement is false.
Apple has always been an aggressive and litigious marketing company, not a true technology leader. They have sued the true innovators repeatedly.
Please cite the lawsuits Apple has instigated. I listed them for you. . . But you imply that Apple is always suing "the true innovators." Prove it. Cite the cases. Show us your proof. Did Microsoft create the Graphical User Interface? Was not Apple’s code found in Microsoft’s Windows Video Player? Did not Apple WIN the Samsung suit? Where are the suits against the "true innovators" you claim Apple is always bringing? You can’t cite them because they don’t exist.
Apple has a reputation of licensing the IP, or buying the companies who produce the IP, it uses, unlike Microsoft and Google whose business model, especially early on, was to steal IP and wait for small developers to sue themselves into bankruptcy, at which point Microsoft would buy them at fire sale prices, while Google just ignored such things as IP patents and copyrights. . . not even bothering to file off the serial numbers (comments in code) in what they appropriated.
I’m done with this since you toss off evidenceless one liners like that last claim. I’m not going to spend my time arguing with an idiot who has such a tenuous grasp of history to claim such twaddle, or to claim both sides of an argument that YOUR SUPER POWERFUL Windows phone with 128 MB and a 416 MHz clock, could be more productive and powerful than a desktop computer, so long as YOU get to choose the reference computer, but claim that such devices are not good for productivity! Or further claim that Your 1 megapixel plastic lens phone camera, displaying just 64k colors on an old tech screen, somehow out-performs a 2 megapixel Zeiss made glass lens camera displaying 262,144 colors at twice the resolution on an entirely new tech screen with 179 degree field of view. Or, your assertion that the phone market did not change following Apple’s introduction of the iconic iPhone design, with all phones now essentially mimicking the iPhone’s look, feel, and operational concepts. Only rabidly blind fans of the competing followers—those who want history to be other than it is—are those who are refusing to see it for what it factually and in reality is.
Such claims are, on their face, delusional. I’m not going to cure your delusions, so I’m going to stop trying, because you refuse to see facts in front of your face, preferring your opinions and your delusional version of history. Fine. Live in fantasyland.
Apple is and always has been a company based on marketing not hard research. Multi-touch input devices were thought of and developed by others long before leadership at Apple thought that it might be a cool way to control a phone cell phone. It turned out that it was an idea that caught on the same way that game controllers with more buttons and two joystick like inputs became popular for video games. That was an evolution from controllers with one joystick and a couple of buttons. Multi-touch was an evolution from touch controllers which sensed just one input. Big whoop!!!
But I do applaud Apple for deciding to put a multi-touch controller on the first iPhone, it was an evolutionary development that they were able to convince consumers was worthwhile. It didn't turn an expensive toy with good specs but severely limited features into some type of super phone. It didn't add any new functionality of real importance; it was merely an evolutionary development. But it sold and sold well enough to convince other companies to put the same type of input on their phones.
The way you harp on it one would think it was divine inspiration. As I told you... on a laptop and in many other applications I find multi-touch input to be more of an annoyance than a help. But the market controls what is available in our society. So often steps forward have their associated annoyances.
I do not need to go into Apple's long history of litigation. It is a well known web of unsavory manipulation of our legal system that frankly makes me sick. It has become the butt of jokes the world over. You trying to minimize this well known component of the company's history and current operations is both sad and farcical. It undermines all of your other whimsical claims about divine inspiration from Apple.
Apple has been amply rewarded for the innovative ideas that they have made popular with their brand of marketing. They may still be a bit player in the development of new technology but they have become the most valuable company in the world. This is from clever marketing and the ruthless stifling of the competition through legal means. The number of lawsuits filed by their army of lawyers is impressive, but you and I are both aware that the number of lawsuits filed is not an accurate measure of legal manipulation or power. To think that it is... is so silly that it is really not possible to respond to in any appropriate manner. It is so unfortunate that our great legal system has turned into the leading way for unimaginably wealthy entities such as Apple to victimize true innovators. It is very, very sad. I do not know if you really believe some of the mischaracterizations you have made about Apple being some type of victim in this world or if it is just nonsense you throw out to confuse the issues the same way that Apple's lawyers do.
Swordmaker, your reliance on name calling and the venom in your responses in this discussion is somewhat humorous but I find it worrysome as well. Your level of discourse truly has fallen a great deal from what it once was. It makes me worry about you. I suspect that your are still suffering from health issues, and I truly will continue to keep you in my prayers. In the past I always have respected your opinion and learned a great deal from your about Apple products. I hope that you will continue to share your knowledge here as long as possible. Have good day my friend.
Actually, I said that even a twenty year old computer running DOS with a 10MB hard drive was a more productivity tool took than my tiny phone was in 2005. Anyone can verify that by re-reading the post just above.
“Or, your assertion that the phone market did not change following Apple’s introduction of the iconic iPhone design”
Actually I have said REPEATEDLY that the because the first iPhone was a commercial success that it was an influence on cell phone designers going forward. These are only two examples of misquotes from you. There were multiple other misquotes just in your last post, but you have done the same thing throughout this thread and in many others threads as well.
If you feel you are winning a debate then why do you feel that it is somehow necessary to mischaracterize what people have said. You have done this consistently and repeatedly? I assume that you are just trying to make things confusing for people who may be only reading the last post or two in a thread. It is a despicable Alinsky like misinformation tactic that reflects very, very poorly on your character. Why should we believe anything that you post when you essentially lie even about what has just been written by others just a few lines above? That is just crazy... there is no other way to put it.
It is along the same lines as the most valuable company in the world constantly claiming they are being victimized by others when in fact they are the ones repeatedly restyling, tweaking repackaging the ideas of others. Apple is not the company who came up with the idea of combing a cell phone, camera, micro-computer, and media player in one device. Apple is the one who copied the work of others in this instance. You think that adding a multitouch input device is a major development. That is also just crazy... there is no other way to put that either.
In 1970 Ford was the first domestic car manufacturer to sell a new car with radial tires as standard equipment. Radial tires have advantages over bias ply tires, mostly notably lessened rolling resistance and improved tread wear. To me this seems very analogous to a phone with a multitouch input device as compared to previous generation touch input devices.
Radial tires didn’t radically improve the characteristics of the Lincoln Continental Mark III. But these days all tires installed on new cars are radials. Essentially the only ones who still put bias plies on cars are vintage car collectors such as my wife and I.
Maybe Ford should have sued all the other domestic manufacturers for stealing “their” idea when they started copying Ford and putting radials on their new cars? Maybe Citroën should have sued Ford for stealing their idea?
I purchased my first drawing tablet that I connected to a desktop computer through a serial port to use with photo editing and other graphics design programs long before the first iPhone was released. And no, you generally do not need to use a stylus to use the touchscreen on earlier drawing tablets, phones or tablets. But a stylus takes better advantage of the greater precision most touch devices had before multitouch. These days professional drawing tablets that I am aware of are still all designed to use a stylus type device for greater precision.