I'm getting pretty tired of these stories and tech companies in general. At the end of the day it's a touch screen that can connect to the Internet and run some software. When will the patent/IP madness end?
And yet somehow they're wildly more successful than tablets were a decade ago. Perhaps there actually is something more to them than a touch screen, an internet connection, and the ability to run software...
Yes, the battery of the previous tablets were much smaller. But don't forget, the previous tablets also cost close to 2k at introduction, had similar speed processors (but running more complex operating systems, with lower responsiveness), had lower quality displays, were thicker, and weighed a lot more.
I don't see any of those improvements as being particularly non-obvious.
Previous tablets were a completely different beast. Microsoft spent 10 years trying to graft a touch-layer on top of a traditional operating system.
The iPad's non-obvious innovation was essentially to roll back PC innovations: they massively pared down the operating system, stripped out the legacy overhead and focused applications on small, tightly controlled and limited, optimized binaries, so they could scale back the hardware to the point where the battery could last more than 20 minutes.
Truly, innovations in hardware allowed them to put more horsepower with a longer running time in the case than MS could have ever achieved in the 90s. But as of 2008, Microsoft was still following the "full PC+touch" strategy. (For that matter they seem intent on continuing to flog that horse even today.)
And let's not forget that what looks obvious now, looked like a failure to most industry observers in 2009. Even the more optimistic observers forecast merely a solid niche product.
Now I'm not arguing that what Apple did should necessarily be protectable under the various forms of IP law, but implying that it was "obvious" seems deeply unfair.
Particularly if the story of the birth of the iPhone was accurate. That is: that the iPad was not born of a project to scale up the iPhone, but that iPhone was born from the idea to shrink an already-under-development iPad. Pushing the iPad concept and strategy back to at least 2005/2006.
>The iPad's non-obvious innovation was essentially to roll back PC innovations: they massively pared down the operating system, stripped out the legacy overhead and focused applications on small, tightly controlled and limited, optimized binaries, so they could scale back the hardware to the point where the battery could last more than 20 minutes.
>And let's not forget that what looks obvious now, looked like a failure to most industry observers in 2009.
All well and good, but what does that make the Crunchpad? Chopped liver? Imagine if they had the backing of a multibillion dollar company or weren't ripped off by their partner with the JooJoo.
And, IIRC, the Crunchpad concept was widely met with doubt and derision as well. A niche within the core geek niche was on board with the idea. But by and large, netbooks were expected to win out.
Arrington's publicizing the concept may speak to whether the invention ought to be legally protectable (depending on whether the iPad did precede the iPhone). But given that no tablet producers were on board, it certainly doesn't somehow invalidate the non-obviousness of the concept.
Certainly, I grant all credit due to Arrington and the FusionGarage folks for recognizing the innovation. I just don't see how their experience is any sort of counterpoint.
I remember a visit to Redmond back in 05 where I saw a large number of Microsoft employees using old "tablet" form laptop computers (those where you'd rotate the screen over the keyboard to use a pen-like pointer). It looked ridiculous, except for being a clever/good use for Microsoft OneNote at the time. There's no way those tablets can be compared to today's tablets, which are a fraction of cost, weight or thickness.
I'll also say that while battery life did make a difference, the actual way you interact with the OS was one of the mian reasons for the tablet tipping point. The clunky mouse pointer (controlled via pen) of yesteryear pales in comparison to what we use today. The fact that the bar for interaction is so high now makes people crave a tablet experience, even if only for experiencing the novelty of touching interfaces they used to only be able to point to, with their full hands.
What kind of internet connection did you people have in those tablets a decade ago? How about the screen? Or the software (that was easily found/bought/installed)?
Multi-touch, flash storage, wifi, and UIs honed over several generations to cater to the specific needs of touch based computing in a small form factor.
I agree with you, but you have to admit Samsung is pretty clearly copying Apple's trade dress. It's the only tablet that could be confused with the iPad at a glance. Especially for non-geeks.
If Apple weren't suing everyone else too they would have a lot more general credibility in my eyes. By suing everyone they just look scared of competition.
Not that I agree that other devices don't look quite like an iPad, but...
Exactly how many possible styles are there for a handheld LCD device with a touchscreen as its primary / only input?
That's what's so utterly ridiculous about this; even if Apple hadn't altered pictures to make the Galaxy tab look more like an iPad, what were Samsung going to do? Make a circular tablet with ridges all over the screen and a fold-out table in the back? Apple have tried to assert that a the look and feel of a device where about the only practical variations are how big it is and which way round it defaults to being held is somehow theirs and theirs alone to exploit.
Exactly how many possible styles are there for a handheld LCD device with a touchscreen as its primary / only input?
Certainly more than one. Just as not every smartphone has to look like an iPhone, not every tablet has to look like an iPad. Even something as simple as rounding the corners differently[1][2] seems to have eluded or been intentionally ignored by the Galaxy Tab's designers. Just as there are limits on practical designs, there are limits of those limits, and we benefit when companies push those limits in a way that Samsung (it is argued) is not presently doing with the Tab.
> I agree with you, but you have to admit Samsung is pretty
> clearly copying Apple's trade dress. It's the only tablet
> that could be confused with the iPad at a glance.
I don't think I have to admit that. Is it really any more iPad like (at a glance) than this:
No, to many non-geeks all tablets appear to be "iPads" and all touch screen phones "iPhones". Apple has had superior marketing and sales but they certainly weren't the first to use a touchscreen display. How many ways can you make a device with a touchscreen display? Can you imagine if this happened to TVs or computer monitors?
Depends on your "at a glance" definition, but yeah, photos don't do it much justice. Both the Xoom and the 2.0 Galaxy look nothing like an iPad 'in real life'. It's like comparing a Vaio to a MacBook, only the form factor is the same.
(I have no idea about the new Galaxy but I suspect it's the same - EDIT: by "the same" I mean different from an iPad)
I don't think the design of Samsung's tablet, accessories and it's packaging is a coincidence. While you can't blame Samsung, or anyone, for the general shape of a tablet, I do think they crossed a line here.
He was talking about admitting that Samsung was copying Apple - which they are. But yes, yes it is more iPad like if you look at it from more angles than a shot from the top. The back is similar too, whereas that on the Xoom is not so much.
