[cma]

>I think Steve Jobs was probably justified in his furious reaction to Android.

iOS was more of a copy of palm (which in turn was a copy of Newton..) than android was a copy of iOS.

The biggest innovation was realizing capactive screens made things much nicer, and made browsing possible. But it is hard to fault Google for copying their browser when Apple themselves based it on LGPLed KHTML; the license dictates that they share.

[ghshephard]

"Copy of Palm?"

I was an continuous palm user from 1998-2006, I owned four different treos, (and a handspring).

Trust me when I say there was almost no relationship (let alone "copy") between the Palm and iPhone. Except, maybe, they could both make phone calls.

I watched the Apple keynote, swearing that under no circumstance would I ever purchase an apple toy - 2 minutes after I touched the iPhone/Google Maps (even with it's crappy GPRS/EDGE network) I was heading to go line up at the Apple Store.

[bradleyland]

I think there's a difference between acknowledging that Steve Jobs was justified in being angry and holding that Google shouldn't have been allowed to do what they did. I think the most certain thing is that both iOS and Android are better off because the other exists. The competition has allowed for a lot of mutual copying, just as we'd seen in the PC market before it, and in just about every other technological development since the stone age.

Steve Jobs is justified in being angry because he feels ownership of his ideas. Is anger is held impotent because we recognize that a healthy degree of copying is good for innovation. Both of those are OK.

[orbitur]

Jobs' anger wasn't at all related to WebKit.

[ebbv]

> iOS was more of a copy of palm

Bullshit. I used tons of Palm devices and iOS has basically nothing in common with PalmOS.

The only thing in common between the initial iPhone and a Palm device is that they have a large touch screen.

[ceejayoz]

Palm's application launcher was very similar to the iOS Springboard.

[Groxx]

"very similar" -> "nearly identical", especially on the first iPhone version before there were multiple pages of apps. At least it was on mine.

The difference was the quality of the apps and hardware. The screen was gorgeous, it had horsepower for web-surfing and youtube, it had multitouch and used it reasonably well, and it cost about the same as a decent Palm since it came with a service agreement.

[pessimizer]

>realizing capactive screens made things much nicer

In what way? Inaccuracy and the inability to use a stylus or wear gloves?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66RBfrBgL2E

edit: surprised at the downvotes. Is there a capacitive screen even remotely comparable to the accuracy and pressure response of a 4 year old resistant N900? I'm open to examples.

[untog]

Inaccuracy and the inability to use a stylus or wear gloves?

Those are edge cases though. On the whole capacitive screens are better, but they do have downsides.

[pessimizer]

What's better about them? Resistant screens are more accurate and pressure sensitive. Capacitive screens are...

[surreal]

...more fluid-feeling. I realise that's not an exact science by any means, but it's what you'll generally hear if you give an iPhone and a <resistive touchscreen phone here> to Doe on the street. These are being sold to your average user. Being able to manipulate what's on screen smoothly without any physical/cognitive effort or a stylus is what makes capacitive screens "better".

[pessimizer]

>...more fluid-feeling.

I don't know what this means, and have yet to experience it. The only difference I've noticed between a capacitive iPhone and a resistive N900 is that my touches frequently don't register at all on the iPhone.

[Sephiroth87]

If only someone could come up with a way to use a stylus on a capacitive screen... Oh wait...

[girvo]

Nah, nowhere near the same.

Look, I love capacitive screens. But nothing beat a stylus for accuracy when you've got a 2.4" QVGA touchscreen, and for certain tasks that was a lot better than a 3.5" capacitive one. That was when I used my M600i (then my P1i) for managing my entire life.

Now, with the advent of 7" tablets I use that instead, for that sort of high info density work :)

Capacitive stylii are terrible. All the downsides of needed to have something in your hand to poke at a screen with none of the accuracy that a stylus with a resistive one had.

[pessimizer]

You can make a stylus for a capacitive screen by making a capacitive stylus. My wonder is why one would make using a stylus a more difficult and expensive proposition in order to have a lower quality screen input.

[Sephiroth87]

How many use cases are there for needing a so precise stylus? Apart from drawing, I can't really think of anything that hasn't benefited from capacitive screens + fingers...

If you need a stylus to read mails, use the web or normal stuff, you'll probably need a better UI, not a stylus

[pessimizer]

Fingers work just as well on a resistive screen as on a capacitive screen.

[micampe]

I bought the Nokia 770, N810 and N900 on release day. Capacitive screens made everything much nicer by being usable.

[pessimizer]

What's unusable about your N900 screen?

[danudey]

Having used resistive screens on phones in the past, they feel much more clunky. Having to physically press down on the screen rather than just brush your fingers over what you want makes you feel less like you're interacting with technology and more like you're interacting with apps.

Per your other posts, you said you were having difficulty with touches registering on the iPhone; if that's the case, I can't imagine any circumstance in which the iPhone would seem better to you, but that's not the typical circumstance (though I do have a friend who has MS and the screen doesn't recognize her either).

Still, for those people who have the typical experience with capacitive touchscreens, the difference is like night and day.