Apple nearly scrapped iPhone "multiple times" says designer Sir Jonathan Ive
Apple's head designer Sir Jonathan Ive has related the the company almost gave up on its design for iPhone "multiple times" after running into seemingly insurmountable technical challenges.
Speaking at a British Business conference coinciding with the London Olympic Games, Ive said, "We nearly shelved the phone because we thought there were fundamental problems that we can't solve."
Yesterday, Ive's comments at the same event that Apple is "really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," made headlines.
A report by the Telegraph UK added additional comments from Ive describing the difficulties that nearly derailed the iPhone as a product.
"With the early prototypes," Ive stated, "I held the phone to my ear and my ear [would] dial the number. You have to detect all sorts of ear-shapes and chin shapes, skin color and hairdo...that was one of just many examples where we really thought, perhaps this isn?t going to work.?
Apple subsequently developed a proximity sensor that made the iPhone's screen unresponsive when held close to the face, eliminating the majority of false touches that might interrupt a phone call. Steve Jobs highlighted that technology when introducing the first iPhone in January 2007.
Ive's comments on the often invisible technology advancements Apple developed to produce the original iPhone design are particularly noteworthy now that Apple's competitors, in particular Samsung, are claiming in court that they too had in-house prototypes that resembled the iPhone.
Unlike Apple, Samsung and other makers simply did not productize their full screen concepts by solving some of the same complex issues Apple ran into during its development of the iPhone.
Instead, those companies either put those ideas on hold (as Samsung did), or released half-baked products that may have looked fleetingly like an iPhone, but didn't work like one, causing customers to reject those products in the marketplace (like LG's Prada phone, which was introduced just months before the iPhone but failed miserably as a premium priced, limited functionally device based on Adobe Flash Lite).
Some online blog enthusiasts have been trying to gain traction for the idea that Apple has no legitimate claim to original technical or design concepts of the iPhone because they've been able to find pictures of prototypes with big screens that look similar to the iPhone that Apple successfully brought to market (despite the objection of pundits who complained about its technology choices, such as the idea that its lack of a physical keyboard would likely cause it to fail in the market).
Samsung has included several "who copied whom" internet memes in its defense in the U.S. District Court case now underway in San Jose, California. Yesterday, Samsung's Chief Product Officer Kevin Packingham complained to the sympathetic Wired that he found it "unreasonable that we?re fighting over rectangles, that that?s being considered as an infringement."
Samsung has jumped upon "rectangles" as a simplification of Apple's entire patent portfolio protecting the iPad and iPhone because Apple's design patent for the iPad uses the word "rectangle" in describing its signature shape, a design Samsung has boldly copied so closely that its own lawyers were at one point unable to tell the difference in court.
Samsung hasn't just copied the outside shape of the rectangular iPad, however. It has meticulously copied everything Apple sells down to the shape and design of chargers and accessories to the box the products go in to the lettering and design of the box itself, as well as the software features Apple pioneered to make its iOS devices easy and desirable to use.
Samsung's copying of the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4 series, and the iPad have been so thorough and complete that retailer Best Buy complained to Samsung that customers were returning the Samsung Galaxy Tab because they thought they'd purchased an iPad.
Speaking at a British Business conference coinciding with the London Olympic Games, Ive said, "We nearly shelved the phone because we thought there were fundamental problems that we can't solve."
Yesterday, Ive's comments at the same event that Apple is "really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," made headlines.
A report by the Telegraph UK added additional comments from Ive describing the difficulties that nearly derailed the iPhone as a product.
"With the early prototypes," Ive stated, "I held the phone to my ear and my ear [would] dial the number. You have to detect all sorts of ear-shapes and chin shapes, skin color and hairdo...that was one of just many examples where we really thought, perhaps this isn?t going to work.?
Apple subsequently developed a proximity sensor that made the iPhone's screen unresponsive when held close to the face, eliminating the majority of false touches that might interrupt a phone call. Steve Jobs highlighted that technology when introducing the first iPhone in January 2007.
Ive's comments on the often invisible technology advancements Apple developed to produce the original iPhone design are particularly noteworthy now that Apple's competitors, in particular Samsung, are claiming in court that they too had in-house prototypes that resembled the iPhone.
Unlike Apple, Samsung and other makers simply did not productize their full screen concepts by solving some of the same complex issues Apple ran into during its development of the iPhone.
Instead, those companies either put those ideas on hold (as Samsung did), or released half-baked products that may have looked fleetingly like an iPhone, but didn't work like one, causing customers to reject those products in the marketplace (like LG's Prada phone, which was introduced just months before the iPhone but failed miserably as a premium priced, limited functionally device based on Adobe Flash Lite).
Some online blog enthusiasts have been trying to gain traction for the idea that Apple has no legitimate claim to original technical or design concepts of the iPhone because they've been able to find pictures of prototypes with big screens that look similar to the iPhone that Apple successfully brought to market (despite the objection of pundits who complained about its technology choices, such as the idea that its lack of a physical keyboard would likely cause it to fail in the market).
Samsung has included several "who copied whom" internet memes in its defense in the U.S. District Court case now underway in San Jose, California. Yesterday, Samsung's Chief Product Officer Kevin Packingham complained to the sympathetic Wired that he found it "unreasonable that we?re fighting over rectangles, that that?s being considered as an infringement."
Samsung has jumped upon "rectangles" as a simplification of Apple's entire patent portfolio protecting the iPad and iPhone because Apple's design patent for the iPad uses the word "rectangle" in describing its signature shape, a design Samsung has boldly copied so closely that its own lawyers were at one point unable to tell the difference in court.
Samsung hasn't just copied the outside shape of the rectangular iPad, however. It has meticulously copied everything Apple sells down to the shape and design of chargers and accessories to the box the products go in to the lettering and design of the box itself, as well as the software features Apple pioneered to make its iOS devices easy and desirable to use.
Samsung's copying of the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4 series, and the iPad have been so thorough and complete that retailer Best Buy complained to Samsung that customers were returning the Samsung Galaxy Tab because they thought they'd purchased an iPad.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This is a major difference between corporate philosophies and the trolls that say such-and-such had this-or-that feature first. It's not just about the designs but how it functions.
Exactly. Pima facie, it would seem that these copyists have piggybacked off of Apple's hard work, but now, five years later, have an entrenched product and technology where it all looks obvious.
Who cares if Apple wins on "look and feel" (even though they probably will). The proximity sensor IP -- if it turns out to be a valid one to pursue -- is the sort of thing that Apple should really go after. I truly hope that the current case is only the preliminary salvo on Apple's part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
His doesn't read like a news article, it reads like a fanboy rant. Apple Insider really need to get some decent writers who can write objective pieces based on facts and nothing more.
If anyone is prone to rants, it's you.
For a perfect example, see your post above.
It is very much easier to devise a proximity sensor for your touch screen smartphone if you already have one to look at.
Apple did not have that luxury for that and a hundred other problems with the original iPhone.
So Samsung really benefitted from Apple's work. As far as I know, they have paid nothing for that benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
His doesn't read like a news article, it reads like a fanboy rant. Apple Insider really need to get some decent writers who can write objective pieces based on facts and nothing more.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Seeing that the site is called Appleinsider, it may surprise you to realise it's in the site's own interest to see that Apple Inc remains in good form.
Case in point, visit Palminfocenter after the demise of Palm Inc and HP WebOS.
There are plenty of general tech sites and also those which focus on Windows Android etc.
I suspect the Windows or Android sites don't worry about whether they're covering Windows or Android objectively compared to Apple's products.
Yet Appleinsider is successful enough to continually attract kotatsu with his constant criticism of all things Apple.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
[LIST][*] http://gizmodo.com/5926728/sony-smartwatch-review-maybe-the-worst-thing-sony-has-ever-made[/LIST]
This article fails on several fronts.
1) If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit. They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.
2) The article claims that no one, or more focused Samsung had all 'slate' devices before the iPhone. Regardless of the truth of this statement, which I will focus on in point 3, what was Samsung of anyone else suppose to do? Just keeping making products that eventually nobody would want. The iPhone did revolutinize the phone market and people wanted smart phones now. It wasn't the lack of smartphone before the iPhone, but really a change from marketing to corporate types to consumers directly. And biggest of all EASE OF USE. The iPhone introduced that. But again, was Samsung to quit the phone market? Not respond? When Karl Benz invented the car, should he have been the exclusive maker of cars until his patents expired. Apple may be able to get more money but they have constantly pushed to block phones. This is unfortuantely repeating the history of IE6 and Microsoft in a way. It stops innovation.
3) AppleInsider and other have claimed in the past that the iPhone was unique in its design. This lawsuit seems less about the tech inside and more on the design outside. The fact is Windows Mobile, among others were rapidly going toward this design point. Yes they lacked capacitive display and worked around a stylus. But they were rapidly becoming button free. You had a variety of designs, but there was a subset that had 3 or less buttons with mostly screen real estate. There was a white one I recall back in 2004 that had a home button, and send and end buttons. Sure I won't argue that Windows Mobile was aging especially with its stylus UI. Android in alot of way though is equally copy of Windows Mobile and iOS. It has alot of the power features that Windows Mobile had and the UI changes from device to device. It has a better UI (especially with ICS).
I just don't understand why Apple can't compete on merits, maybe take some license fees like Microsoft has. Apple should be happy they pushed smartphones more towards Easy of Use. Design seems less important to me, especially since most phones were already almost there. They just need refinements like capacitive. In addition its not like Apple has had 3 similar but unique designs. iPhone, iphone 3G & 3GS, and now iPhone 4 & 4S. But even with all the prototypes leaked, to me it just proves if you do a screen focused device there is only so much design variations you can do. You had one that looked very much like the Nokia Lumia 800/900 which many journalists had said was one of the few unique designs... I guess not.
There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices. It could create less innovation. It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.
The first time I saw the Galaxy, I literally cleaned my glasses to make sure it wasn't a mislabeled iPhone 3G. No exaggeration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie
This article fails on several fronts.
1) If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit. They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.
...I just don't understand why Apple can't compete on merits, maybe take some license fees like Microsoft has. ...
There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices. It could create less innovation. It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.
They won't take license fees because it's not about money!
No good banning Samsung? Well, it would force Samsung to design something different, like .... something innovative?
Your points are so easy to defeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
They won't take license fees because it's not about money!
No good banning Samsung? Well, it would force Samsung to design something different, like .... something innovative?
Your points are so easy to defeat.
LOL. They would get more money for banning Samsung than taking license fees. As one iPhone sale would give them more money then one Samsung devices that is licensed. Mostly due to the fact that a very small part of Android is patented by Apple. And don't get me started on the overly broad design patent. I don't think you could make a modern tablet that wouldn't infringe, minus the fact there is prior art.
And how exactly are they suppose to innovate? It is something easy to say. Until you realize that the design and and some of the patents are essential to what consumers want from a smartphone.
Or I guess all the OEMs could switch to Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8. Apple can't sue Microsoft, as they have cross licensing agreement. How innovative... (and I say this sarcasticly as a Lumia 710 WP7 user).
Apple did well to solve their design issues, and now everyone has copied them.
Here is the problem with your argument and similar arguments that claim that Apple should innovate instead of litigate. Having owned a company that also is at the front of their industry, Apple spent the money to be different and innovate. The very nature of a Patent is the right to have a monopolization over your technology. If Apple simply let everyone license it, what benefit really is there? The revenue in licensing is small and doesn't benefit the patent holder unless you are a NPE (non practicing entity). Apple is a practicing entity and wants their products to stand out from the crowd, based on the innovation they invested into. To continue to innovate and allow others to take, leads to no future innovation. Why would anyone spend big investment dollars in creating and honing an idea, if they are doing for the rest of the industry. In addition, Apple is under obligation to their stock holders to litigate. The value of the company is built on many of these patents and the monopolization they offer. Failing to defend IP means the patent is worthless. Yes, Microsoft licenses many things and so does Apple. Some of which are SEP (standard essential patents) (apple's quicktime is a SEP) and some are not. But the crown jewels are never licensed. Case in point: Googles' Algorithmic Search IP, Microsofts Core Office products and Server Software, etc. So, if you really want innovation you should get behind the people that are truly innovating - Stealing ruins the innovation and that is what Google's Android, Samsung and others have done. Sure, it's what people want, but that doesn't mean they can simply take without permission. If the owner of the patent doesn't want to license, sobeit, let Google and Samsung innovate their way to something great - perhaps they can do something original. Now that is when innovation will happen, not the stealing that crushes any companies drive to innovate. If Apple gave up litigating, beyond the problems with shareholders, they would find that their next batch of innovation is copied even faster - thus, they become the Designers for the industry - something they don't want.
I understand what you're getting at but the same can be said of any problem/obstacle, people will follow whatever someone else came up with. Apple greatly benefits from the problems Samsung overcame making the components used in the iPhone.
Well written for a FNG. +1
Ive is lying through his teeth.
It was narrowly reported that Apple was under extreme pressure to come out with a smart phone.
This BS by Ive is just a diversion to make Apple look like it isn't under the grip of its investors(masters).
The article I read a few years back told of a female product manager, so under pressure, that in frustration during the iPhone creation she slammed her door shut so hard the door knob broke off.
Originally Posted by maccherry
Ive is lying through his teeth.
Which you know, because you've provided such immense volumes of proof.
It was narrowly reported that Apple was under extreme pressure to come out with a smart phone.
No, that wasn't the case in the slightest. The entire industry laughed at Apple for thinking they could create a phone of any sort, having no experience in that market whatsoever.
The article I read a few years back told of a female product manager, so under pressure, that in frustration during the iPhone creation she slammed her door shut so hard the door knob broke off.
Well, you'll want to link to it or at least explain what it has to do with anything whatsoever about "pressure to create a phone".
while I do believe samsung has infringed upon apple's patents, I just don't understand how the scenario above actually *takes place*. if you're paying hundreds of dollars for something, don't u make sure u have the correct item *before* paying for it? I'm sorry, but are people really THAT stupid?