[eckyptang]

No iOS has been done before, as has the iPad. It's nowhere near original.

http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/Computers/NC.html#NewsPAD

Note the features here: ARM CPU, Touch screen, Contextual media app, "Apps" button down the bottom, self contained apps which were modular, integrated into the OS. I know the OS well (RISC OS) and I've had my hands on an actual device.

It was smaller and lighter and less complex than anything else technologically possible at the time.

The basis was an EU funded project to build something like an iPad. Notes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_computer#NewsPad

Arthur C Clarke innovated this particular nugget of technology.

Apple has invented or innovated precisely bugger all there.

Their only innovation is how to make it look pretty and extract money from people.

[gnaffle]

So I guess with your insight Apple could have saved lots of money by not buying FingerWorks, PA Semi etc and just launching a Newton with a color display and make it look pretty. Right?

If you don't see any software innovations in iOS, you're either blinded by Apple hate or unable to see further than checkboxes on feature lists.

[eckyptang]

I don't see how you managed to draw that conclusion. I didn't mention anything about money etc. I see it more like...well:

Sony have been doing this sort of shit for years. Someone invents something, Sony adds turd polish and a decent supply chain and manufacturing capacity, then takes the market share.

Apple just got better at it than Sony. There is no more story.

For ref, I neither hate nor like iOS devices - I've owned a couple and they've been pretty ok but nothing special. I can't see a single feature or innovation that didn't exist already somewhere else. The same applies for my current Windows Phone (the only innovation there is abysmal battery life - no wait my Treo 180G pioneered that in 2002).

Also, if a feature isn't a checkbox on a feature list, why do they market it like that? http://www.apple.com/iphone/ios/

[001sky]

Not to argue with your counter example, but another example re; integration. The Richochet from the 1990s was a 28.8 version of a 3/4G usb modem.

But that's not a tethered iPhone, in terms of is overall ambition and functionality. Similarly, the acorn with 8MB RAM, was not an integrated multi-media device (ipod, phone, etc), limited as it was. Let us not forget the power of the sw (youtube app, for example).[1]

Lastly, the innovation (in part on the business side) of the Ap store and ecosystem should not be completely overlooked. There is seamless delivery/monetization etc (not just collections, but outbound to devlepers).

In short, there is alot of originality in how the puzle is put together. Some of it is like the swiss army example. Some of it is in the conceptualiztion of the user experience. Some of it, quite frankly is execution of the physical product (manufacturing details, etc), as I have argued before. (e.g http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4435490)

I look at an acorn and a blackberry+phone on the desk. And I look at the iPhone. The latter looks like the victorinox, the other items like tools on the table.

EDIT: [1] The internet-integration of the acorn aps, i'm not familiar with; e.g. is not full-time connected online unless it had a built-in richochet or whatever. clearly iOS is meant to fully integrate with live information without compromising its mobility.

[eckyptang]

Actually the connectivity problem was 100% unsolved which is what lead to the end of the device. The supporting technology wasn't available unfortunately.

The basic idea of the NewsPAD was exactly the same though.

They decided to move into the cable/STB market after this as they could deliver the same experience with the connectivity that was already there. They did this successfully for a few years in the late 90's before they marketed themselves into a hole and gave up.

[gnaffle]

The supporting technology was available in 1996: https://www.msu.edu/~luckie/seahorse.html

Apples innovations wasn't in "the basic idea", it was in lots of implementation details that make that basic idea into a usable product. If you don't see this, then there is no point in arguing further.

I could just as well say that there has happened exactly zero innovation in the cell phone industry in the last 30-40 years, since "the basic idea" was shown in a science fiction series in the 60s. By doing this, I would be ignoring all the inventions necessary to make that "basic idea" into a real product.

You are ignoring the inventions needed to make a finger-based multi-touch interface possible on a small device, and accurate enough to leave out a physical keyboard.

[eckyptang]

It wasnt ubiquitous though as is 3G and WiFi which is why iOS works. If they didn't exist it would have had the same fate as the NewsPAD.

[gnaffle]

You said: "Apple has invented or innovated precisely bugger all there.". I was simply trying to see how unreasonable such a statement is considering the companies that Apple bought and the work those companies had done in getting stuff like multi-touch to work right.

If all Apple did was turd polishing, then they could have saved themselves a lot of effort by polishing a turd called Newton (which was also quite advanced for its time) instead of inventing an entirely new user interface.

What I was saying is that listing stuff like you did: "ARM CPU, Touch screen, Contextual media app, "Apps" button down the bottom, self contained apps" and using that as an argument to why iOS has been done before, is to be unable to see further than a check list of features.

Lots of tablets had the same checklist before the iPad, and most of them were completely unusable.

I suspect that you would be just as happy with a WM6 or Symbian device than with an iOS device, since there were no innovations in iOS?

I also don't see how this relates to Sony. They had a lot of innovations, including the Walkman, co-creating the CD, 3.5" diskettes, Video 8, DAT, MiniDisc and lots of other stuff.

[eckyptang]

Apple didn't innovate stuff - they bought it in and stuck it together.

I would be happy with anything, but not necessarily impressed with it. A paradigm shift would be innovation but there isn't one.

I'm using a Windows Mobile 6.5 kernel based device to write this on ironically (WP7.5 Lumia 710).

Sony's ability was to take poor grade American products and package them up with Japanese reliability and quality. I'm considering their television range from the 1970-2000ish primarily. The rest of their "innovations" were turd polish over existing products: Stereobelt, 5.25" floppy disks, Panasonic U-Matic, Mitsubishi ProDigi, Canon Ion Disks...

[gnaffle]

Who had invented Trinitron before Sony?

Or are you saying that Sony copied the basic idea of a television, so that makes it impossible for them to have contributed any innovation to the space of TV sets? If you read the history, the invention of something like Trinitron required a lot of work, a lot of trial and failure to make the basic idea of a single-gun color TV feasible.

That work isn't about "polishing the turd called color television", that's called innovation.

[sbuk]

"Apple didn't innovate stuff - they bought it in and stuck it together."

That's kind of the definition of innovation. Take something that exist and improve upon it.

[lttlrck]

"ok but nothing special"? You clearly didn't own a 1st gen iPhone... It's oh so easy to say that now with the current market.

[eckyptang]

I did. It wasn't that special when you've had several devices like that Treo 600, O2 XDA 2, Psion 5MX etc beforehand and spent several years developing software for such devices.

My wife had it and I went back to an S60 device (Nokia E51).

The iPhone was just prettier and substantially less functional.

[sbuk]

So why, if the iPhone wasn't disruptive and just pretty as you state, has practically every manufacturer followed Apple's lead? I know that a haters gonna hate, but credit where it's due.

[babesh]

You didn't read the article did you? It starts from your argument that a list of ingredients constitutes an invention and tears it down step by step.

[klawed]

The point that keeps being made. Here is that innovation != invention. Inventions tend to be innovative but innovation does not require the creation of new inventions. Otherwise one might argue that there does not exist an innovative chef who does not invent new ingredients.