[sjs]

Many great ideas are obvious in hindsight. If it was so obvious why had nobody done it?

Would you say, "Oh Amazon? Whatever they're not doing anything new. They're just selling shit except their store is on the web. Big deal, that's not innovative just because they're doing it on a computer."

My mom owned a Nokia slider back in the late 1900s, but the model preceding that one. If Nokia had kept making top-end phones like those were in their day I would probably still be buying Nokias. I swore by them. You could drop them, throw them, soak them, anything. Dry it out, take it apart, and it was fine. About 7-10 years ago, with a lot of their models, the worst case scenario was you bought a new case. And the UI was actually quite good, definitely superior to other phones of the time (that I tried anyway).

I had a Nokia phone from the late 1900s until 2008. The last Nokia product I bought is the n810 and it was not very good. I loved the idea but the execution was poor (and I got the 3rd version). I rarely used it and then never used it once I got an iPhone. The iPhone 3GS was a better browser than the Internet Tablet, better GPS (it's using other location data but I don't care, it's still better), and happened to also be my mp3 player and phone.

It's sad to see Nokia today, I really hope they can turn around but I have less hope for Nokia than I do for webOS :(

[icebraining]

>Many great ideas are obvious in hindsight. If it was so obvious why had nobody done it?

Because it didn't make any sense considering the technical constraints and the physical design. Smartphones before the iPhone had much smaller screens, usually resistive (requiring a stylus to operate properly) and had keyboards, which were much more practical for unlocking. Just look at the best smartphones of 2007: http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6452_7-6600061.html

>Would you say, "Oh Amazon? Whatever they're not doing anything new. They're just selling shit except their store is on the web. Big deal, that's not innovative just because they're doing it on a computer."

Basically, yes. Other people had the same idea, and there were other ecommerce websites launched before or at the same time. It was a matter of understanding sales - particularly mail order - and the Web, which wasn't exactly common.

Was it innovative? Yeah. Was it innovative enough to get a 20 years monopoly over it? No. Is Apple's slide to unlock innovative enough for that? Hell no.

[sjs]

> Because it didn't make any sense considering the technical constraints and the physical design. Smartphones before the iPhone had much smaller screens, usually resistive (requiring a stylus to operate properly) and had keyboards, which were much more practical for unlocking.

Except as I pointed out that sort of thing just doesn't work for a lot of people. "Press this strange combination of keys in the right order and it unlocks" is not a usable solution for the masses. This was the status quo for at least 10 years, I remember the Menu * thing from 1998 and my last Nokia phone in 2008 had it.

Doing something in a different way than the way everyone else had done it for over 10 years prior is innovation. I'm not saying it warrants a patent and I never did say that. You say it's not innovative but it clearly is. As you pointed out the slide to unlock feature is trivial compared to the bigger change of using touch as the main input mechanism.

This is what innovation looks like, the iPhone changed the status quo: http://www.marco.org/2010/08/19/a-smartphone-retrospective

[icebraining]

You're confusing things. Having a big, capacitive touch screen was in fact an innovation. But having that, Slide to Unlock is obvious.

Except as I pointed out that sort of thing just doesn't work for a lot of people. "Press this strange combination of keys in the right order and it unlocks" is not a usable solution for the masses. This was the status quo for at least 10 years, I remember the Menu * thing from 1998 and my last Nokia phone in 2008 had it.

But they did that because they were limited by the keyboard, and Apple did not innovate on "ways to unlock the screen using a keyboard". They innovated on a different part of the phone, which allowed them to take a different approach on phone unlocking.

Doing something in a different way than the way everyone else had done it for over 10 years prior is innovation.

Unless it's obvious, which taking as the starting point the actual innovation - the big capacitive screen - it was.

As you pointed out the slide to unlock feature is trivial compared to the bigger change of using touch as the main input mechanism.

Well, exactly. But the patent, which is what's being discussed, is only about slide to unlock, nothing else.