By your definition, the concept of originality doesn't exist.
It is hard to be original these days as so much has already been done.
Apple has done some great things but I'm at a loss at what they have done that is truly original I did some research and come up with the following:
iPod. No. The MPman was done 4 years earlier in 1997
iTunes Music No. Ritmoteca.com was out 5 years earlier in 1998
iTunes Player No. Winamp was around in 1997
iPhone. No. Palm Kyocera 6035 was around 6 years before the iPhone (2001)
App Store. No. Handago/InHand was 5 years earlier than the App Store (2008)
iPad No. Nokia 7770 Internet tablet was released in 2005.
Siri. No. Google Voice Search was available a year earlier (though the search was not personafied as Siri is)
Maps. No. Mapquest, Google Maps, etc...
GUI No. Xerox with the Alto PC (not sold commercially) and the Star.
All-in-one
Computer. No. HP put out the first all in one computer in 1972 though Apple turned the concept into commercial successes with the Macintosh and the iMac.
So what I've learned from this little research exercise was that while Apple may not have come up with the idea at first, they are extremely good at improving it and making it attractive to the average consumer. I don't know the innards of Apple history like some people do on this board but I'm open to hearing about Apple's inventions.
By your definition, the concept of originality doesn't exist.
It is hard to be original these days as so much has already been done.
Apple has done some great things but I'm at a loss at what they have done that is truly original I did some research and come up with the following:
iPod. No. The MPman was done 4 years earlier in 1997
iTunes Music No. Ritmoteca.com was out 5 years earlier in 1998
iTunes Player No. Winamp was around in 1997
iPhone. No. Palm Kyocera 6035 was around 6 years before the iPhone (2001)
App Store. No. Handago/InHand was 5 years earlier than the App Store (2008)
iPad No. Nokia 7770 Internet tablet was released in 2005.
Siri. No. Google Voice Search was available a year earlier (though the search was not personafied as Siri is)
Maps. No. Mapquest, Google Maps, etc...
GUI No. Xerox with the Alto PC (not sold commercially) and the Star.
All-in-one
Computer. No. HP put out the first all in one computer in 1972 though Apple turned the concept into commercial successes with the Macintosh and the iMac.
So what I've learned from this little research exercise was that while Apple may not have come up with the idea at first, they are extremely good at improving it and making it attractive to the average consumer. I don't know the innards of Apple history like some people do on this board but I'm open to hearing about Apple's inventions.
Why is it these executive level people that always get the credit? It's probably some low level genius engineer's obscure decision that he didn't tell anyone about (and if he had, this guy probably would have been against it because it delays delivery 1 week) that is the reason the chip runs 25% faster than the competition and causes the product to be more of a success.
It seems like Apple's business strategy is largely consisted of stealing Samsung's business partners (Intrinsity, Anobity) or stealing employees from Google Maps or Samsung's semi team. Can Apple do anything original?
Maybe they can steal you to save us reading your troll posts.
By the way why are you on here ?
No I wouldn't
Phones? Yes, billions of them. Smartphones? Yes, millions of them sold. Like I said, Apple evolved what was current available.
Changing the world? That isn't what you said, you said orignal products, have you finally realised what you said?
Done what? Your original claim, or the one you have changed to now?
There were billions of types of different phones ? Really !
In your warped logic nothing is original ?
You are wrong on so many levels, even you can't believe yourself and keep a straight face.
So the word invention is meaningless ? You kill me with your brilliant logic.
There were billions of types of different phones ? Really !
In your warped logic nothing is original ?
You are wrong on so many levels, even you can't believe yourself and keep a straight face.
So the word invention is meaningless ? You kill me with your brilliant logic.
1. I didn't say types, that was you
2. I have already answered that question, read the thread before making false assumptions
3. If I am wrong on so many levels please explain, if you can't, why?
4. What? Why are you confusing the word invention, with the word original? They are different, if you don't understand that, maybe that is why logic escapes you??
This is a really good point, but in my experience, the number of folks running parallels (or any kind of Windows virtualisation), on their Mac is dropping off quite a bit lately. I only see one of these setups every three or four months lately whereas I used to have to deal with them all the time. I think a lot of folks did the virtualisation thing only as a way of justifying the fact that they were leaving Windows behind, which they eventually did.
Would it be possible to have some kind of co-processor box that runs through Thunderbolt?
Not one of Apple products etc are original, they are evolution of an existing product or service. Don't confuse a successful item with an original item
By your logic if a scientist comes up with a cure for baldness in a form of a pill, he did not invent anything because pills existed before that. All he did was improve on a existing product such as tylenol. That is great logic. How can anyone ever again be an inventor in your world? The iPhone wasn't just an improvement on existing products it was a revolution and very original. Go back and look at the history of apple and take a look at the products they came out with only to have the industry follow in their foot steps (sometimes to close *cough* *cough* Samsung *cough* *cough*).
Samsung isn't a slouch, of course they come out with better products year after year because technology improves so that's a given but you can't possibly say they are on Apple's level for creativity. Samsung slavishly copies whatever the new technology fad is, Apple the majority of the time starts those fads.
We get it though, you hate Apple, but give credit where credit is due.
jfanning you sir are an idiot. I don't like to insult people but I'm making an exception this one time. You need to know it so you can maybe think before you say things. By your logic if a scientist comes up with a cure for baldness in a form of a pill, he did not invent anything because pills existed before that. All he did was improve on a existing product such as tylenol. That is great logic. How can anyone ever again be an inventor in your world? The iPhone wasn't just an improvement on existing products it was a revolution and very original. Go back and look at the history of apple and take a look at the products they came out with only to have the industry follow in their foot steps (sometimes to close *cough* *cough* Samsung *cough* *cough*).
Samsung isn't a slouch, of course they come out with better products year after year because technology improves so that's a given but you can't possibly say they are on Apple's level for creativity. Samsung slavishly copies whatever the new technology fad is, Apple the majority of the time starts those fads.
We get it though, you hate Apple, but give credit where credit is due.
Haters let hatred affects their judgement, you know.
Now, we like to throw the word 'trolling' around a lot, and it's mostly valid, sometimes not.
Explain how the content of this post is not anything but pure, unacceptable lying. This is not a request.
Intrinsity was a Samsung partner that developed the Hummingbird soc for Samsung. Apple bought Intrinsity after they had worked for Samsung. So what he said is not a lie, unless you want to redifine the term, which wouldn't surprise me.
The very topic of this article involves Apple poaching talent from Samsung, as he stated, so if he's lying, so is this AI article.
Intrinsity was a Samsung partner that developed the Hummingbird soc for Samsung. Apple bought Intrinsity after they had worked for Samsung. So what he said is not a lie, unless you want to redifine the term, which wouldn't surprise me.
The very topic of this article involves Apple poaching talent from Samsung, as he stated, so if he's lying, so is this AI article.
Intrinsity was not 'poached', it was bought. It was a company, a separate entity from Samsung.
Apple didn't hire Google Map engineers; they hired 'ex' Google map engineers. This implies they weren't working for Google when Apple approached them, so again, there was no poaching.
And of course, the IT press will use the word 'poached' because it makes hit-worthy copy. In reality, he probably saw an ad in a trade journal, sent his resume, went for an interview, was offered a job, and left Samsung. That's what 95% of the population does.
Maybe you should read the rules of this site then, personal insults are not permitted, but if that is the only way you can argue something, then what do I expect?
We get it though, you hate Apple, but give credit where credit is due.
That's right this is Appleinsider, what is it, Rule 99? If you disagree you are labelled a hater? Now of course I could reply to this, but someone will pop up another AI rule that rubbishes what I say.
I don't hate Apple, I don't like lies used as truth.
Maybe you should read the rules of this site then, personal insults are not permitted, but if that is the only way you can argue something, then what do I expect?
That's right this is Appleinsider, what is it, Rule 99? If you disagree you are labelled a hater? Now of course I could reply to this, but someone will pop up another AI rule that rubbishes what I say.
I don't hate Apple, I don't like lies used as truth.
I'm going to have to agree with Jivanile on this one, fanning.
What you're wafting our way doesn't smell very nice.
I've seen some pretty staggering claims on this site but, as a rule, generally the person making the claims actually believes what they are saying. But to openly claim lack of recognition of what the iPhone did? Nobody could be that stupid.
Could they?
And what would be the point of discussing anything with a person with such an incredible lack of perception?
If they couldn't see that, they're never going to see anything.
Yes it does, but to claim that Apple is creating "original" items, and Samsung isn't is purely naive.
I don't want to be mean to you, but you're understanding of mobile technologies pre-iPhone era seams to be pretty narrow.
Apple greatest strength always has been it's abilities to take heavy and experimental technologies and bringing it to mass market. Apple has done it countless times upon is +30 years of existence with many of their products.
Now, was the iPhone is in the same innovation league of the nuclear bomb? Sure not, but looking back of the past 30 years, the iPhone is still a undoubtful hallmark in the still short computer's history.
I don't want to be mean to you, but you're understanding of mobile technologies pre-iPhone era seams to be pretty narrow.
Narrow? Nope, at a guess I would assume it is well in excess of your understanding. To claim that there wasn't phones before the iPhone is naive, to claim there wasn't smartphones before the iPhone is naive, to claim there wasn't touch screen phones before the iPhone is naive.
Apple has evolved the smartphone, touchscreen, they are not an original device.
To compare it would be like Samsung releasing a new TV and everyone claimed it was original, it can't be, they are have around for decades, they are just evolving previous ones.
Apple greatest strength always has been it's abilities to take heavy and experimental technologies and bringing it to mass market. Apple has done it countless times upon is +30 years of existence with many of their products.
What does that have to do with someone claiming all Apple products are original?
Now, was the iPhone is in the same innovation league of the nuclear bomb? Sure not, but looking back of the past 30 years, the iPhone is still a undoubtful hallmark in the still short computer's history.
Again, do you understand what the work original means?
Let's look at the Apple dictionary…
original |??r?d??n(?)l, ?-|
adjective
1 present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest: the original owner of the house | the plasterwork is probably original.
2 created personally by a particular artist, writer, musician, etc.; not a copy: original Rembrandts.
3 not dependent on other people's ideas; inventive or novel: a subtle and original thinker.
Well for number 1, nope, number 3, nope. Number 2, well I suppose you could throw Apple in there, but then every company that creates something can be called original (afterall Samsung made the oven I have)
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You're hilarious.
By your definition, the concept of originality doesn't exist.
It is hard to be original these days as so much has already been done.
Apple has done some great things but I'm at a loss at what they have done that is truly original I did some research and come up with the following:
iPod. No. The MPman was done 4 years earlier in 1997
iTunes Music No. Ritmoteca.com was out 5 years earlier in 1998
iTunes Player No. Winamp was around in 1997
iPhone. No. Palm Kyocera 6035 was around 6 years before the iPhone (2001)
App Store. No. Handago/InHand was 5 years earlier than the App Store (2008)
iPad No. Nokia 7770 Internet tablet was released in 2005.
Siri. No. Google Voice Search was available a year earlier (though the search was not personafied as Siri is)
Maps. No. Mapquest, Google Maps, etc...
GUI No. Xerox with the Alto PC (not sold commercially) and the Star.
All-in-one
Computer. No. HP put out the first all in one computer in 1972 though Apple turned the concept into commercial successes with the Macintosh and the iMac.
So what I've learned from this little research exercise was that while Apple may not have come up with the idea at first, they are extremely good at improving it and making it attractive to the average consumer. I don't know the innards of Apple history like some people do on this board but I'm open to hearing about Apple's inventions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You're hilarious.
By your definition, the concept of originality doesn't exist.
It is hard to be original these days as so much has already been done.
Apple has done some great things but I'm at a loss at what they have done that is truly original I did some research and come up with the following:
iPod. No. The MPman was done 4 years earlier in 1997
iTunes Music No. Ritmoteca.com was out 5 years earlier in 1998
iTunes Player No. Winamp was around in 1997
iPhone. No. Palm Kyocera 6035 was around 6 years before the iPhone (2001)
App Store. No. Handago/InHand was 5 years earlier than the App Store (2008)
iPad No. Nokia 7770 Internet tablet was released in 2005.
Siri. No. Google Voice Search was available a year earlier (though the search was not personafied as Siri is)
Maps. No. Mapquest, Google Maps, etc...
GUI No. Xerox with the Alto PC (not sold commercially) and the Star.
All-in-one
Computer. No. HP put out the first all in one computer in 1972 though Apple turned the concept into commercial successes with the Macintosh and the iMac.
So what I've learned from this little research exercise was that while Apple may not have come up with the idea at first, they are extremely good at improving it and making it attractive to the average consumer. I don't know the innards of Apple history like some people do on this board but I'm open to hearing about Apple's inventions.
Maybe they can steal you to save us reading your troll posts.
By the way why are you on here ?
Show the proof.
That's right you can't.
Now back to your troll den to hibernate until you next think up some more utter garbage.
Pardon? When did I claim anything of the sort?
No I wouldn't
Phones? Yes, billions of them. Smartphones? Yes, millions of them sold. Like I said, Apple evolved what was current available.
Changing the world? That isn't what you said, you said orignal products, have you finally realised what you said?
Done what? Your original claim, or the one you have changed to now?
There were billions of types of different phones ? Really !
In your warped logic nothing is original ?
You are wrong on so many levels, even you can't believe yourself and keep a straight face.
So the word invention is meaningless ? You kill me with your brilliant logic.
1. I didn't say types, that was you
2. I have already answered that question, read the thread before making false assumptions
3. If I am wrong on so many levels please explain, if you can't, why?
4. What? Why are you confusing the word invention, with the word original? They are different, if you don't understand that, maybe that is why logic escapes you??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is a really good point, but in my experience, the number of folks running parallels (or any kind of Windows virtualisation), on their Mac is dropping off quite a bit lately. I only see one of these setups every three or four months lately whereas I used to have to deal with them all the time. I think a lot of folks did the virtualisation thing only as a way of justifying the fact that they were leaving Windows behind, which they eventually did.
Would it be possible to have some kind of co-processor box that runs through Thunderbolt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Not one of Apple products etc are original, they are evolution of an existing product or service. Don't confuse a successful item with an original item
By your logic if a scientist comes up with a cure for baldness in a form of a pill, he did not invent anything because pills existed before that. All he did was improve on a existing product such as tylenol. That is great logic. How can anyone ever again be an inventor in your world? The iPhone wasn't just an improvement on existing products it was a revolution and very original. Go back and look at the history of apple and take a look at the products they came out with only to have the industry follow in their foot steps (sometimes to close *cough* *cough* Samsung *cough* *cough*).
Samsung isn't a slouch, of course they come out with better products year after year because technology improves so that's a given but you can't possibly say they are on Apple's level for creativity. Samsung slavishly copies whatever the new technology fad is, Apple the majority of the time starts those fads.
We get it though, you hate Apple, but give credit where credit is due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jivanile
jfanning you sir are an idiot. I don't like to insult people but I'm making an exception this one time. You need to know it so you can maybe think before you say things. By your logic if a scientist comes up with a cure for baldness in a form of a pill, he did not invent anything because pills existed before that. All he did was improve on a existing product such as tylenol. That is great logic. How can anyone ever again be an inventor in your world? The iPhone wasn't just an improvement on existing products it was a revolution and very original. Go back and look at the history of apple and take a look at the products they came out with only to have the industry follow in their foot steps (sometimes to close *cough* *cough* Samsung *cough* *cough*).
Samsung isn't a slouch, of course they come out with better products year after year because technology improves so that's a given but you can't possibly say they are on Apple's level for creativity. Samsung slavishly copies whatever the new technology fad is, Apple the majority of the time starts those fads.
We get it though, you hate Apple, but give credit where credit is due.
Haters let hatred affects their judgement, you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Now, we like to throw the word 'trolling' around a lot, and it's mostly valid, sometimes not.
Explain how the content of this post is not anything but pure, unacceptable lying. This is not a request.
Intrinsity was a Samsung partner that developed the Hummingbird soc for Samsung. Apple bought Intrinsity after they had worked for Samsung. So what he said is not a lie, unless you want to redifine the term, which wouldn't surprise me.
The very topic of this article involves Apple poaching talent from Samsung, as he stated, so if he's lying, so is this AI article.
Here is the AI article about Apple hiring Google Maps engineers to fix their own mess: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/23/apple_allegedly_luring_ex_google_maps_engineers_to_work_on_ios_6_maps
Quote:
Apple confirms Anobit acquisition: A strategic hit to Samsung?
...
But perhaps worryingly for Samsung -- an Anobit customer
As a moderator, you should not be slandering people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Intrinsity was a Samsung partner that developed the Hummingbird soc for Samsung. Apple bought Intrinsity after they had worked for Samsung. So what he said is not a lie, unless you want to redifine the term, which wouldn't surprise me.
The very topic of this article involves Apple poaching talent from Samsung, as he stated, so if he's lying, so is this AI article.
Here is the AI article about Apple hiring Google Maps engineers to fix their own mess: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/23/apple_allegedly_luring_ex_google_maps_engineers_to_work_on_ios_6_maps
Intrinsity was not 'poached', it was bought. It was a company, a separate entity from Samsung.
Apple didn't hire Google Map engineers; they hired 'ex' Google map engineers. This implies they weren't working for Google when Apple approached them, so again, there was no poaching.
And of course, the IT press will use the word 'poached' because it makes hit-worthy copy. In reality, he probably saw an ad in a trade journal, sent his resume, went for an interview, was offered a job, and left Samsung. That's what 95% of the population does.
It's called 'getting a better job'.
Maybe you should read the rules of this site then, personal insults are not permitted, but if that is the only way you can argue something, then what do I expect?
That's right this is Appleinsider, what is it, Rule 99? If you disagree you are labelled a hater? Now of course I could reply to this, but someone will pop up another AI rule that rubbishes what I say.
I don't hate Apple, I don't like lies used as truth.
I'm going to have to agree with Jivanile on this one, fanning.
What you're wafting our way doesn't smell very nice.
I've seen some pretty staggering claims on this site but, as a rule, generally the person making the claims actually believes what they are saying. But to openly claim lack of recognition of what the iPhone did? Nobody could be that stupid.
Could they?
And what would be the point of discussing anything with a person with such an incredible lack of perception?
If they couldn't see that, they're never going to see anything.
Try not to 'blow' so much in the future, fanning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Yes it does, but to claim that Apple is creating "original" items, and Samsung isn't is purely naive.
I don't want to be mean to you, but you're understanding of mobile technologies pre-iPhone era seams to be pretty narrow.
Apple greatest strength always has been it's abilities to take heavy and experimental technologies and bringing it to mass market. Apple has done it countless times upon is +30 years of existence with many of their products.
Now, was the iPhone is in the same innovation league of the nuclear bomb? Sure not, but looking back of the past 30 years, the iPhone is still a undoubtful hallmark in the still short computer's history.
Narrow? Nope, at a guess I would assume it is well in excess of your understanding. To claim that there wasn't phones before the iPhone is naive, to claim there wasn't smartphones before the iPhone is naive, to claim there wasn't touch screen phones before the iPhone is naive.
Apple has evolved the smartphone, touchscreen, they are not an original device.
To compare it would be like Samsung releasing a new TV and everyone claimed it was original, it can't be, they are have around for decades, they are just evolving previous ones.
What does that have to do with someone claiming all Apple products are original?
Again, do you understand what the work original means?
Let's look at the Apple dictionary…
original |??r?d??n(?)l, ?-|
adjective
1 present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest: the original owner of the house | the plasterwork is probably original.
2 created personally by a particular artist, writer, musician, etc.; not a copy: original Rembrandts.
3 not dependent on other people's ideas; inventive or novel: a subtle and original thinker.
Well for number 1, nope, number 3, nope. Number 2, well I suppose you could throw Apple in there, but then every company that creates something can be called original (afterall Samsung made the oven I have)
What a surprise
When reading this all I can picture is someone with their hands over their ears shouting "nah nah nah I can't hear you"
So Apple used to have spy in samsung's ground?