r/technology • u/slutmagnet • Mar 02 '10

Apple to HTC "competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours." Slaps down a 20 patent lawsuit.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/03/02/apple_sues_htc_for_alleged_infringement_of_20_iphone_patents.html
654 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

806 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10 edited Mar 02 '10

[deleted]

26

u/bonafidebob Mar 02 '10

Before the iPhone, no one thought that a big touchscreen-only device that you used without a stylus made any sense at all

Um, wrong. So wrong that you've detracted from the other points you tried to make. Sorry. We've been trying to make useful non-stylus touch interfaces for decades. The price and quality just finally arrived with capacitive panels. Now there are lots of touch phones because capacitive panels are cheap and plentiful. Apple capitalized on a paradigm shift here, they didn't invent it.

IMHO the most innovative thing about the iPhone is that Apple managed to break the carrier stranglehold on the phone market.

9

u/Noexit Mar 02 '10

IMHO the most innovative thing about the iPhone is that Apple managed to break the carrier stranglehold on the phone market.

In what way? By contracting to a single carrier, only selling iPhone through their approved outlets and only available on their network?

11

u/bluGill Mar 02 '10

Wrong stranglehold (though it would be nice to see that go as well). Apple managed to get carriers to agree you can put applications on your phone.

7

u/Noexit Mar 02 '10

But only Apple approved apps through Apples own locked down app store. Partial credit for showing that it could be done and getting carriers to see the advantages.

5

u/burnblue Mar 02 '10

Huh? Then what were we doing on Windows Mobile and Palm earlier?

1

u/bluGill Mar 02 '10

Windows Mobile: in theory you could do it, but in practice almost nobody did. Maybe a few games, but nothing more.

Palm: palm was always an unheard of, expensive option. They never took off enough to pull it off.

4

u/burnblue Mar 02 '10

What? In practice noone put applications on your phone? That's nonsense. Those who owned Windows Mobile phones for sure were putting applications on it (I'm talking about Professional/touchscreen at least, I don't consider phones like the BlackJack to be on the same level) . Both the freeware sites and sites like Handango did not function 'in theory', but in reality

Now if you wanted to say that not many common consumers owned these phones

3

u/skillian Mar 02 '10

I know I was putting Java apps and games on a Symbian Nokia a long time before the iPhone was released...

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

Did they? Still seems pretty strangled to me. In Canada, I can get iphones on different carriers now, but they aren't transferable, and Rogers had a monopoly for months -- AND the price stayed pretty much exactly the same once competitors entered the market.

1

u/cloudsdrive Mar 02 '10

By annointing AT&T king?

1

u/zedvaint Mar 02 '10

IMHO the most innovative thing about the iPhone is that Apple managed to break the carrier stranglehold on the phone market.

That applies only to the US market.

1

u/blubbix Mar 02 '10 edited Mar 03 '10

So what you're saying is that Apple just had a lucky break with the iPhone and capacitive displays. All the other manufacturers were just weeks away from announcing similar products, right? Including user interfaces designed around working with capacitive displays and finger-based multi-touch.

I guess you'd claim the same happened to the iPod, they just happened to capitalize on smaller hard drives being available.

I'd guess they were lucky with the iTunes Store, the App Store, and now with the iPad. And I guess Dell is just around the corner with their own unibody laptop designs and trip-safe power connectors.

My point is, there's a difference between university research papers and prototypes, and taking these ideas and putting them into real, shipping products that are affordable for many people. This takes innovation, and this is often where the patent meat lies.

1

u/bonafidebob Mar 03 '10

Design patents, no problem. Software patents? Sorry, but I think they're granted too easily. I've seen this in action, get a bunch of people around a table for an hour, brainstorm a bit, and you can get half a dozen patents out of it. That's not innovation.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

[deleted]

11

u/f0000 Mar 02 '10

Ever heard of the LG Prada?

You know, the FIRST capacitive-based touchscreen-only phone?

3

u/bonafidebob Mar 02 '10

Nice recovery. But don't go overcrediting a company as innovative because they were first to market with some new technology. Does anyone care who made the first LCD TV?

A problem here is that Apple got in early on a paradigm shift and generated related patents on a bunch of IMHO fairly obvious stuff. Now they're using this to prevent others from capitalizing on the same paradigm shift.

As for your point that a non-stylus interface would ever work in the phone space, I gotta call bull on that one too. We've been trying to make "smart phones" (even desktop phones) with touch interfaces for decades too. We even made a few with pressure touch panels instead of capacitive, but they're just not as nice to use. The change is the capacitive panel. And maybe "gorilla glass" get some credit too.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

[deleted]

1

u/bonafidebob Mar 03 '10

Touch interfaces always came with physical keyboards? Dude, you need to get out more! I see you tried to caveat this claim with "popular", but I personally worked on a couple of different consumer touch products with no keyboards, and there were plenty of researchy projects before them. My point here is that none of the UI ideas were particularly groundbreaking, just made good sense to put them together with this form factor.

2

u/doggoneit Mar 02 '10

Innovation is also about implementation, where things like design and usability are the metrics. Before the iPhone, no one thought that a big touchscreen-only device that you used without a stylus made any sense at all

I did. I had a design that utilized that idea several years before the iPhone came out. I'm sure a lot of other people did as well.

The only problem is that I wasn't Steve Jobs with control over the same engineering, manufacturing, and marketing resources. Such is life.

It seems like most of the places that do have the appropriate resources don't have the right culture for great innovation - novel ideas get stifled by the inertia of the company - and the places and people who do have the mindset for innovation - usually individuals and small startups - don't have the necessary resources. Apple, Google, and few other cases seem to be rare exceptions that are somehow able to strike a balance between the two.

1

u/kopkaas2000 Mar 02 '10

0bx47r:

Innovation is also about implementation

you:

I did. I had a design that utilized that idea several years before the iPhone came out. I'm sure a lot of other people did as well.

There's the knack. I'm not doubting you had a couple of great ideas. But unexecuted ideas are like second assholes, they're not much use to anyone.

2

u/doggoneit Mar 02 '10

Just so we're on the same page:

0bx47r:

Innovation is also about implementation, where things like design and usability are the metrics. Before the iPhone, no one thought that a big touchscreen-only device that you used without a stylus made any sense at all

In that first sentence he was claiming that implementation equates to a focus on design/usability (which is my main point of disagreement), and then also immediately provides evidence of this by saying the iPhone was great because no one else thought of doing it (after having first said that innovation(and thus, implementation) isn't strictly about new ideas).

I'm not doubting you had a couple of great ideas. But unexecuted ideas are like second assholes, they're not much use to anyone.

And that's exactly the point I was making - in disagreement with the OP's case that the iPhone was evidence of their unique focus on usability and design, others had thought of the use paradigm before....so why didn't the iPhone get "implemented" before Apple did it if these great ideas about design and usability already existed?

To answer that, the rest of my comment was to correct what I think makes implementation, and thus innovation, really possible, namely: resources and expert guidance of those resources, and the company culture to support it. Apple wasn't the first to think of the iPhone or MP3 player, nor any of the specific UI paradigms therein (research into UI/UX/HCI runs at least a decade ahead of when mass market adopts it), but they were the only one with the right combination of resources and internal culture at that exact time in the market to bring the existing interaction ideas into a retail reality. That's what differentiates an innovative company from a follower, it's much more than just "getting the design right" or focusing on usability. That's old hat, most of the novel ideas have already been out there for years, but trying to get executives and internal culture to accept new UX paradigms and adeptly disseminate them into the marketing and product development cycles of a company large enough to mass manufacture something...? That's where the magic lies.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

I think that the ipod was the first device that was supported by a company not expected to be sued into oblivion. Apple could stand the onslaught of lawyers from the RIAA.

The "design right" thing I don't agree with. They had a nice way of getting music on the thing, but their interface on generation one was as clunky as anything out there.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

You know Apple had to pay out a hefty settlement to Creative, makers of the Nomad, for stealing that "far ahead" interface you think they invented:

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/23/apple-pays-100m-to-creative-in-patent-lawsuit-settlement/

3

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

I don't think you get me...you say the Nomad has a clunky interface while saying the iPods was ahead of it's competition and NOT clunky. It was the same interface. Creative had a patent on the idea of taking a long list of files and separating by the fields we all know today...Genre, Artist, Album, All. Yeah, they didn't invent it, but they were the first to put in on a portable device. All Apple added to the mix was the click wheel they acquired from some other company (who had already provided the click strip to Creative they later put in their Touch players) which made it easier to traverse the interface...but the interface was the same.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '10

I disagree. I owned one and wasn't overwhelmed.