Live Blogs - Apple Press Event 12 Sep 12

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by afv011

Please remove your apple-tinted glasses, and stop posting false stuff.

LOL where are those tablets now? Do you know a single person who owns one? Have you ever seen one outside of a picture on the Internet?

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

thats not validation

Yes it is.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by afv011

And how is that relevant? Does the fact that they didn't sell that well mean they never existed and hence the iPad was the very first tablet ever created?

Shift.

No, iPad is a collection of form factor and software that is/was unseen before.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by afv011

And how is that relevant? Does the fact that they didn't sell that well mean they never existed and hence the iPad was the very first tablet ever created?

Nobody's saying (AFAIK) that the iPad was "the first tablet"; it self-evidently was not. It wasn't even the first Apple tablet, if you consider the Newton to have been a tablet. What the iPad was, however, is the first tablet which was commercially successful. Rather than trying to make a tablet which was a poor substitute for a desktop or laptop computer, Apple realised that what their customers actually wanted was "an iPod Touch with a big screen", and that's really what an iPad is.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

I cant tell from description if that device spins or not.

Says: ' a circular pad with control buttons. It had controls for skipping tracks forwards or backwards, repeat, random play and for four preset equalizer settings. The LCD displayed the track number being played, but did not display artist or title information.'

Oh, yes, the spinning through your content was a nice innovation, but I was just answering the comment about jog dials themselves being innovative for an mp3 player.

Graham

[foghat]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

No it was not innovative of them, because we used it in cell phones before the iPod, but we called it a jog dial.

I honestly do not know: so the jog wheel would let you glide your finger over it to navigate? Vs. making physical clicks with wheel?

Even if so, you could still make the argument (though not as strong, I admit) that using this on a dedicated music player was innovative. They did something that was completely different navigation wise when compared to other music players at the time. Again not talking about inventing the technology.

And if you look at the ipod as a whole (even if the individual parts themselves would not be considered innovated). Form factor, interface, navigation, eventual integration with itunes, I think there is an argument for it being innovative - you need to compare against what else was out there at the time.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Only Apples first generation usually ever is.

Not even that.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Not even that.

lol

If you say so.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by foghat

We are talking about Innovation, not invention.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster

in·no·vate
1: to introduce as or as if new
2 archaic : to effect a change in <the dictates of my father were … not to be altered, innovated, or even discussed — Sir Walter Scott>

I'm confused. If they didn't introduce something new, then how are they innovative? Please note that this is in a vacuum, I've not mentioned Android superiority in any of these posts.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by foghat

I honestly do not know: so the jog wheel would let you glide your finger over it to navigate? Vs. making physical clicks with wheel?

Even if so, you could still make the argument (though not as strong, I admit) that using this on a dedicated music player was innovative. They did something that was completely different navigation wise when compared to other music players at the time. Again not talking about inventing the technology.

And if you look at the ipod as a whole (even if the individual parts themselves would not be considered innovated). Form factor, interface, navigation, eventual integration with itunes, I think there is an argument for it being innovative.

I have to go along with you on that, since I do not have any first hand knowledge about how they used it. I just remember using it in one of our cell phone designs, and I was not the originator of that idea either.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nobody's saying (AFAIK) that the iPad was "the first tablet"; it self-evidently was not. It wasn't even the first Apple tablet, if you consider the Newton to have been a tablet. What the iPad was, however, is the first tablet which was commercially successful. Rather than trying to make a tablet which was a poor substitute for a desktop or laptop computer, Apple realised that what their customers actually wanted was "an iPod Touch with a big screen", and that's really what an iPad is.

holymadness is implying tablets before the ipad were like a toy and looked nothing like the ipad. I debunked that.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What the iPad was, however, is the first tablet which was commercially successful.

caveat- in the general consumer market. the previous tablet pcs were very successful in the business, goverment and medical markets, while being moderately successful with students/educational institutions. the only thing that held them back from being a hit in the consumer market was the available battery tech of the time

[foghat]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

I'm confused. If they didn't introduce something new, then how are they innovative? Please note that this is in a vacuum, I've not mentioned Android superiority in any of these posts.

Okay, I will concede that innovate can = invent, but to innovate does not necessarily mean to invent. As indicated in the "to introduce as or as if new" portion of the definition.

I really always looked at innovation more as wikipedia does:

Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself. Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Lat. innovare: "to change") rather than doing the same thing better.

And I am not claiming that iOS is or is not better than andriod.

[foghat]

Phew. Finally got caught up. This thread was really hopping for awhile there.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by foghat

Okay, I will concede that innovate can = invent, but to innovate does not necessarily mean to invent. As indicated in the "to introduce as or as if new" portion of the definition.

And that's the crux of it. I've already said multiple times that iTunes is quite nice and the first, that I'm aware of, totally integrated sales channel that hit the market.

However, hardware wise, I don't see anything that Apple even changed for the better. They took existing ideas and rolled them into a polished package, which is still just an amalgamation of prior art.