You were responding to a challenge to come up with prior technology. I did a search on Google for 4.3" MP4 player with your specifications in 2006 and multiple Chinese MP4/DVD players came up that had that appearance and had slots for full SD cards. . . and were black (among other colors) and had that 4.3" screen. I perhaps made an assumption. My apologies. . . but it DID have the 4.3" touch screen control you specified.
My overall point, however, still remains; you point to non-responsive technology that is NOT EQUIVALENT that you throw out as somehow germane to the issue when they are not at all of use to the discussion and are just red herrings providing no value and just obfuscating the discussion. That is something you repeatedly do. . . and that was what your MP4 game playing/ music/ photo viewer was, non-equivalent and not responsive to the challenge I had made to you to show technology that was functionally equivalent to the multitouch screens of the 2007 iPhone. You tossed that anecdote out as somehow useful to your argument.
I could not find a 2006/2007 listing for just an MP4 player for the period meeting your criteria, but Google is getting less and less useful for searches of that type. Again, my apologies for misconstruing your anecdotal description.
And, fireman15, I see you are still harping on "big icons," and "shiny, black with round corners" as if that was something dispositive about the design patent Apple has on the iPhone. This is exactly the "know nothing" nonsense I expect from posters who are completely ignorant of the actual facts of these issues. . . and you always go right to the standard talking points of those anti-Apple "know nothings" and parrot the myths and propaganda that I have been shooting down for years. Repeating those false claims shows you have no concept of what, or how, design patents work or how they are described. Apple did not patent rounded corners, etc. as the Samsung lawsuit propaganda they spread claiming they did when Apple filed the infringement suit. That language was merely part of the narrative in the legally required description of what the patent looked like. . . and really had NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WAS PATENTED, which is only how the device is designed to appear.
In fact, Fireman, Samsung itself has U.S. design patents that include that EXACT SAME LANGUAGE, because they have design patents that have rounded corners and look similar but is different enough to protect with a design patent!
In the trial, the judge told Samsung's attorneys to quit claiming those words as meaning anything probative and prohibited their attorneys from mentioning it because it had no legal meaning. On the other hand, the layout and design of the icons were copyrighted and were supposed to be included in the suit, but Judge Koh forced Apple to drop those in the interests of expediting the suit. All you are doing is showing your ignorance of facts.
“When the original iPhone first launched in 2007 it was little more than an iPod Touch with calling functionality added. There was no 3G connectivity, no multitasking and the hardware was pretty low-end and a hefty price tag.”
Like every Apple product, the company’s new headquarters is a monolith meant to be worshiped at sight and by touch. Just don’t ask too many questions about how it works in practice. And work it surely will. Borg-like, the black, glass Apple mothership, with its perfect ceiling panels and regulated wood veneers, will shroud its engineers in the safe comfort of an unperturbed gait, such that they might yet craft the identical, future devices that shall still inspire the indistinguishable software that will yet run on them, so you and I might rejoice in their splendor.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/the-myth-of-apples-great-design/516093/
The near-religious devotion Apple achieved, perhaps has less to do with the magical qualities of the technologies it sold and more to do with mythic qualities of the brand. One fact stood out in the film for me: if Jobs had gone to prison for a financial scandal involving back-dating options (allegedly a real possibility considering the circumstances, though, Apple instead let two other executives take the fall), analysts suggested the company would have immediately been worth billions less.
Back to incrementalism. I don’t understand why Cannold — and plenty of others — think that it’s at odds with Steve Jobs’ legacy. For every great leap forward Apple ever made, it accomplished at least as much through small steps that made its products easier, faster, thinner, lighter, more polished and/or more useful. Apple’s most important products may have been the game-changers, but its best products, always, have been those that benefited from smart, evolutionary improvements. And as far as I remember, Jobs never seemed guilty about the profits they brought.
http://techland.time.com/2013/09/24/the-myth-of-steve-jobs-constant-breakthroughs/
In this study, we introduce the notion of a brand cult in an effort to better understand the extreme devotion consumers have toward certain brands. We use historical images plus interviews and observations with current Macintosh computer users to explore the cultic quasi-religious aspects of this consumption. We find several key sustaining myths, including a creation myth, a messianic myth, a satanic myth, and a resurrection myth. The accompanying video offers an account of what it means when a brand becomes a religion to its true believers.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10253860500160403?src=recsys&journalCode=gcmc20
“”You have the hero myth of Jobs, who kind of ran the company into a negative place, and then he came back and saved it,” she said. “It’s been written about that he supposedly came to one of the early Christmas parties dressed as Jesus. ... It’s kind of urban legend.”
Microsoft, too, has a role in the story — as the “satanic” enemy, she said. “
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/religion-apple-dose-divine/story?id=11300758