Ok, so if Apple is working on a software fix and it will work, wonderful!
My main issue with all of this is Apple's complete and udder silence on the matter. What would be the harm in acknowledging the issue and saying we will have a fix in short order? It wouldn't hurt and most likely would garner Apple more respect.
Thats just the way Apple works. They largely work in secrecy until they launch a major new product or service.
News flash, Apple did not invent touch screens. They were around long before Apple thought about it.
I don't believe Apple invented multi-touch either but what matters is that they have built it into their API as a fundamentally new UI rather than treating a touchscreen as an awkwardly augmented mouse device. A new chapter in UI is being created which is the main reason the iPhone is so cool.
"Newsflash, Nokia did not invent cell-phones. They were around long before Nokia thought about it." Hell, maybe Nokia did invent the cell-phone. I have no idea. But you get the point I'm driving at?
Motorola was the first company to develop the mobile phone.
Motorola DynaTAC 8000X
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby
Didn't Apple buy the touch screens from someone rather than inventing and producing them?
Yes Apple bought a company that specialized in multi-touch screens. It is proprietary technology that no one else has access to.
Motorola was the first company to develop the mobile phone.
Motorola DynaTAC 8000X
Yes Apple bought a company that specialized in multi-touch screens. It is proprietary technology that no one else has access to.
Is that an AMPS phone or GSM? I had something similar. It was a Moto black banana looking thing that you could take the antenna off and screw it back on.
Ok, so if Apple is working on a software fix and it will work, wonderful!
My main issue with all of this is Apple's complete and udder silence on the matter. What would be the harm in acknowledging the issue and saying we will have a fix in short order? It wouldn't hurt and most likely would garner Apple more respect.
I am not sure of the composition of the TS displays on the N800, N810, or the SE P-series but they are all TS devices.
As I said, Apple didn't invent TS but they implemented very well in the iPhone and iPod Touch.
The LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are iPhone-like devices that haptic touchscreen instead of a capacitance so I am thinking that no one has it but Apple.
Is that an AMPS phone or GSM? I had something similar. It was a Moto black banana looking thing that you could take the antenna off and screw it back on.
I'm sure it was AMPS. Bell Labs had been developing AMPS since the 60's. GSM was developed in the 80's. Wasn't in the US until the 90's.
The LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are iPhone-like devices that haptic touchscreen instead of a capacitance so I am thinking that no one has it but Apple.
You could be right. If time permits, I might give a call to a friend of mine at Nokia to see if he can dig up what the screen is made of.
If this was a widespread issue there'd be a lot more comments on this thread by now.
Heh... yeah, if this was a widespread issue you would have heard about it already, on this forum and others, in lots of posts. Oh wait, this has been going on for a couple weeks now.
The LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are iPhone-like devices that haptic touchscreen instead of a capacitance so I am thinking that no one has it but Apple.
Nah, Apple isn't going to allow any other company to have access to Fingerworks IP.
I'm sure it was AMPS. Bell Labs had been developing AMPS since the 60's. I don't think GSM was developed until the 80's. Wasn't in the US until the 90's.
The first GSM network was launched in 1992, about 3 miles from where I live in Helsinki. The standards and specs were in development before that. Not sure on the dates, but it took them a few years to get everything right for the launch in 1992.
I'm sure it was AMPS. Bell Labs had been developing AMPS since the 60's. I don't think GSM was developed until the 80's. Wasn't in the US until the 90's.
I think GSM only went commercial in the early 90's for everyone. But if we want to get pedantic we can date the cell phone to much much earlier.
PS: It wasn't until early tis year that US cellular companies were no longer required to support AMPS. The US actually have more AMPS coverage still active than I would have thought.
Nah, Apple isn't going to allow any other company to have access to Fingerworks IP.
I was thinking more along the lines of finding a competing method that doesn't infrimge on the patents or some method to invalid Apple's patent holdings.
PS: It wasn't until early tis year that US cellular companies were no longer required to support AMPS. The US actually have more AMPS coverage still active than I would have thought.
No need to get pedantic. We can go with the 1992 date for the network launch. Finns are really proud of this so you can ask almost any man, woman or child and they will proudly tell you that in 1992 the first GSM network went hot. Then they tell you how Nokia (the company) stopped making toilet paper and rubber boots and stated making cell phones. Then they tell you that Nokia the town has nothing at all to do with Nokia the mobile phone giant.
As I said, Apple didn't invent TS but they implemented very well in the iPhone and iPod Touch.
And that was the whole point of my comment. Inventing something is not a requirement, or even a guarantee of expertise. For instance, a person or company could invent something, and if others extensively refine / update while the originator does learns nothing new, than the originator may not be an expert any longer.
If a company is currently - as you have said - implementing a technology very well, that logically makes their expertise implied. A technology is nothing if it can't be used.
You seem to be limiting your definition of expertise solely to the ability to produce/manufacture something, which is exceedingly limited and nonsensical in my view.
And that was the whole point of my comment. Inventing something is not a requirement, or even a guarantee of expertise. For instance, a person or company could invent something, and if others extensively refine / update while the originator does learns nothing new, than the originator may not be an expert any longer.
If a company is currently - as you have said - implementing a technology very well, that logically makes their expertise implied. A technology is nothing if it can't be used.
You seem to be limiting your definition of expertise solely to the ability to produce/manufacture something, which is exceedingly limited and nonsensical in my view.
My answer my have been narrow in scope, but I was just point out that I would have hired some guys who's core biz is making phones. This would give Apple a nice jump start in the phone biz.
Comments
News flash, Apple did not invent touch screens. They were around long before Apple thought about it.
You're right....but Apple was the first company to competently use them.
Ok, so if Apple is working on a software fix and it will work, wonderful!
My main issue with all of this is Apple's complete and udder silence on the matter. What would be the harm in acknowledging the issue and saying we will have a fix in short order? It wouldn't hurt and most likely would garner Apple more respect.
Thats just the way Apple works. They largely work in secrecy until they launch a major new product or service.
I have no idea if Apple has a touch screen expertise, they do know how to implement them in their devices quite well though.
In 2005 Apple bought a company called FingerWorks that had pioneered and patented many aspects to capacitance muti-touch displays.
Are there any other companies that use this tech yet?
News flash, Apple did not invent touch screens. They were around long before Apple thought about it.
I don't believe Apple invented multi-touch either but what matters is that they have built it into their API as a fundamentally new UI rather than treating a touchscreen as an awkwardly augmented mouse device. A new chapter in UI is being created which is the main reason the iPhone is so cool.
"Newsflash, Nokia did not invent cell-phones. They were around long before Nokia thought about it." Hell, maybe Nokia did invent the cell-phone. I have no idea. But you get the point I'm driving at?
Motorola was the first company to develop the mobile phone.
Motorola DynaTAC 8000X
Didn't Apple buy the touch screens from someone rather than inventing and producing them?
Yes Apple bought a company that specialized in multi-touch screens. It is proprietary technology that no one else has access to.
In 2005 Apple bought a company called FingerWorks that had pioneered and patented many aspects to capacitance muti-touch displays.
Are there any other companies that use this tech yet?
I am not sure of the composition of the TS displays on the N800, N810, or the SE P-series but they are all TS devices.
As I said, Apple didn't invent TS but they implemented very well in the iPhone and iPod Touch.
Motorola was the first company to develop the mobile phone.
Motorola DynaTAC 8000X
Yes Apple bought a company that specialized in multi-touch screens. It is proprietary technology that no one else has access to.
Is that an AMPS phone or GSM? I had something similar. It was a Moto black banana looking thing that you could take the antenna off and screw it back on.
Ok, so if Apple is working on a software fix and it will work, wonderful!
My main issue with all of this is Apple's complete and udder silence on the matter. What would be the harm in acknowledging the issue and saying we will have a fix in short order? It wouldn't hurt and most likely would garner Apple more respect.
Udder silence?
I am not sure of the composition of the TS displays on the N800, N810, or the SE P-series but they are all TS devices.
As I said, Apple didn't invent TS but they implemented very well in the iPhone and iPod Touch.
The LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are iPhone-like devices that haptic touchscreen instead of a capacitance so I am thinking that no one has it but Apple.
Is that an AMPS phone or GSM? I had something similar. It was a Moto black banana looking thing that you could take the antenna off and screw it back on.
I'm sure it was AMPS. Bell Labs had been developing AMPS since the 60's. GSM was developed in the 80's. Wasn't in the US until the 90's.
The LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are iPhone-like devices that haptic touchscreen instead of a capacitance so I am thinking that no one has it but Apple.
You could be right. If time permits, I might give a call to a friend of mine at Nokia to see if he can dig up what the screen is made of.
If this was a widespread issue there'd be a lot more comments on this thread by now.
Heh... yeah, if this was a widespread issue you would have heard about it already, on this forum and others, in lots of posts. Oh wait, this has been going on for a couple weeks now.
The LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are iPhone-like devices that haptic touchscreen instead of a capacitance so I am thinking that no one has it but Apple.
Nah, Apple isn't going to allow any other company to have access to Fingerworks IP.
I'm sure it was AMPS. Bell Labs had been developing AMPS since the 60's. I don't think GSM was developed until the 80's. Wasn't in the US until the 90's.
The first GSM network was launched in 1992, about 3 miles from where I live in Helsinki. The standards and specs were in development before that. Not sure on the dates, but it took them a few years to get everything right for the launch in 1992.
I'm sure it was AMPS. Bell Labs had been developing AMPS since the 60's. I don't think GSM was developed until the 80's. Wasn't in the US until the 90's.
I think GSM only went commercial in the early 90's for everyone. But if we want to get pedantic we can date the cell phone to much much earlier.PS: It wasn't until early tis year that US cellular companies were no longer required to support AMPS. The US actually have more AMPS coverage still active than I would have thought.
Nah, Apple isn't going to allow any other company to have access to Fingerworks IP.
I was thinking more along the lines of finding a competing method that doesn't infrimge on the patents or some method to invalid Apple's patent holdings.
Udder silence?
Why, what did you expect? Noisy udders?
I think GSM only went commercial in the early 90's for everyone. But if we want to get pedantic we can date the cell phone to much much earlier.PS: It wasn't until early tis year that US cellular companies were no longer required to support AMPS. The US actually have more AMPS coverage still active than I would have thought.
No need to get pedantic. We can go with the 1992 date for the network launch. Finns are really proud of this so you can ask almost any man, woman or child and they will proudly tell you that in 1992 the first GSM network went hot. Then they tell you how Nokia (the company) stopped making toilet paper and rubber boots and stated making cell phones. Then they tell you that Nokia the town has nothing at all to do with Nokia the mobile phone giant.
As I said, Apple didn't invent TS but they implemented very well in the iPhone and iPod Touch.
And that was the whole point of my comment. Inventing something is not a requirement, or even a guarantee of expertise. For instance, a person or company could invent something, and if others extensively refine / update while the originator does learns nothing new, than the originator may not be an expert any longer.
If a company is currently - as you have said - implementing a technology very well, that logically makes their expertise implied. A technology is nothing if it can't be used.
You seem to be limiting your definition of expertise solely to the ability to produce/manufacture something, which is exceedingly limited and nonsensical in my view.
And that was the whole point of my comment. Inventing something is not a requirement, or even a guarantee of expertise. For instance, a person or company could invent something, and if others extensively refine / update while the originator does learns nothing new, than the originator may not be an expert any longer.
If a company is currently - as you have said - implementing a technology very well, that logically makes their expertise implied. A technology is nothing if it can't be used.
You seem to be limiting your definition of expertise solely to the ability to produce/manufacture something, which is exceedingly limited and nonsensical in my view.
My answer my have been narrow in scope, but I was just point out that I would have hired some guys who's core biz is making phones. This would give Apple a nice jump start in the phone biz.