It's not an iphone prototype. It is an ipad prototype. Jobs said they started working on the ipad first... and at one point they told themselves... "we could do a phone" and then back benched ipad development.
The first time I heard him say this was at All Things Digital interview with Walt Mossberg.
would "iDevice prototype" have made your day better?
Maybe, but if you still expect clarity from a headline, you need to learn about critical reading.
We know what Steve said (we all heard it,) but we've all also heard him say a number of things that weren't true/were spun/etc. Do you really think that in the wake of PIMs/cell phones (like the Trio, etc.) that Apple wasn't looking at putting a cell phone in it from day one?
When Jobs spun something (or even outright lied on occasion), there was almost always a reason. The misinformation clearly benefited Apple, so he had a reason to mislead.
The statement about making the tablet first and the phone came out of that was a deathbed statement made long after the fact. What benefit was there for him to lie at that point?
More importantly, if it was a phone, why in the world would they have used a 5x7 screen? That's ridiculous for a phone.
We know what Steve said (we all heard it,) but we've all also heard him say a number of things that weren't true/were spun/etc. Do you really think that in the wake of PIMs/cell phones (like the Trio, etc.) that Apple wasn't looking at putting a cell phone in it from day one?
Apparently they had not made that connection yet. Jobs claimed that it was only after he saw the tablet prototype's touch UI demo, that he suddenly realized it would be great for the iPhone they wanted to do.
As for all the silly Korea remarks in this thread, the irony is that the 2004 Samsung CPU used here was the first ARM to have integrated NAND Flash boot code, and therefore the circuit board would've almost certainly come from the Samsung engineering reference design referred to in its documentation.
Yes, that's right. The electronic design of the original iPad prototype was done by Samsung. Oh, the horror! However, that's a pretty common origin for any new design.
I'm sure Apple experimented with every fucking size, aspect ratio, and design under the sun before they settled with what they released, which they believed was ideal. People act as if it didn't even occur to Apple to use another size, or they're technically unable to. No, whatever you can dream up, I'm sure they tried it.
I'm sure Apple experimented with every fucking size, aspect ratio, and design under the sun before they settled with what they released, which they believed was ideal. People act as if it didn't even occur to Apple to use another size, or they're technically unable to. No, whatever you can dream up, I'm sure they tried it.
They had 20 different models, or so the story goes.
Pity they didn't make it (samdung's thinking), would have solved the issue of multiple iterations in screen size that samdung had to go through to arrive at their current monstrosities.
I dont remember where but i read that when project "Purple" was started (development code name of the iPhone) it was development of a tablet computer. Steve Jobs steered the development away from a tablet computer into what was to eventually become the iPhone.
I think it was in his autobiography.
The original iPhone was a tablet.
Lol sorry for the repeat I didnt see that someone posted the same thing above
When Jobs spun something (or even outright lied on occasion), there was almost always a reason. The misinformation clearly benefited Apple, so he had a reason to mislead.
The statement about making the tablet first and the phone came out of that was a deathbed statement made long after the fact. What benefit was there for him to lie at that point?
More importantly, if it was a phone, why in the world would they have used a 5x7 screen? That's ridiculous for a phone.
Don't be a silly. Whatever you might think of it, he misled people for good, bad, or unknown reasons throughout his life. Just talk to anyone who ever worked or lived with him.
The item shown is clearly a concept exploration prototype—not much past a breadboard. It was big because it was made for testing and experimentation. They wanted to see what it would be like, how the interactions would feel, etc. The size of the prototype doesn't really reflect where the concept was going or even all the features it would have. It's a sketch!
You and your "deathbed statement" obsessions. Try to get a grip.
I say they planned to put cellular in it from the start because they already knew that a mobile computing device without a reliable network connection would be pretty darn boring. Cellular was the obvious choice and if you go that way, it might as will have voice communications as well. Anyone working in this conceptual space at the time (years before actually) understood this very well. The best way to actually do it in a usable, viable, affordable way was still in exploration, but cellular was [the obvious] technology.
Don't be a silly. Whatever you might think of it, he misled people for good, bad, or unknown reasons throughout his life. Just talk to anyone who ever worked or lived with him.
The item shown is clearly a concept exploration prototype—not much past a breadboard. It was big because it was made for testing and experimentation. They wanted to see what it would be like, how the interactions would feel, etc. The size of the prototype doesn't really reflect where the concept was going or even all the features it would have. It's a sketch!
You and your "deathbed statement" obsessions. Try to get a grip.
I say they planned to put cellular in it from the start because they already knew that a mobile computing device without a reliable network connection would be pretty darn boring. Cellular was the obvious choice and if you go that way, it might as will have voice communications as well. Anyone working in this conceptual space at the time (years before actually) understood this very well. The best way to actually do it in a usable, viable, affordable way was still in exploration, but cellular was [the obvious] technology.
I see absolutely no reason to doubt that a tablet was first on the table.
This isn't an Apple prototype anything. The board is an LN2410SBC as sold by LittleChips (littlechips.com); the assembly looks identical their LN2410SBC/LP64 stack with a 6.4" TFT display.
Both the LN2410SBC and the display module are (or were) made by CyberLab (you can see both their name and old URL on the back of the display module).
I dont remember where but i read that when project "Purple" was started (development code name of the iPhone) it was development of a tablet computer. Steve Jobs steered the development away from a tablet computer into what was to eventually become the iPhone.
It was Scott Forestall at the Samsung trial who talked about the original Purple project. He said it was a phone. We know from other histories that they were still using clickwheel iPods as UI design mules in mid 2005.
It was after Jobs saw a touch UI demo on an unrelated tablet prototype, that the production iPhone Purple 2 project was started in earnest in later 2005. But who showed him?
In the Jobs biography, Jon Ive says he was the one who secretly got others to put together a multi-touch UI demo, and that he was the one who sprung it on Jobs alone... otherwise, Jobs would probably have knocked it down, because that's what he always did in a group... and Ive was afraid the entire concept would be dismissed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unlocal
The board is an LN2410SBC as sold by LittleChips (littlechips.com); the assembly looks identical their LN2410SBC/LP64 stack with a 6.4" TFT display.
Would it help if Jobs said that in situations long before his 'deathbed'? Because he did.
That's funny, I heard him say "it started out as a tablet," but I never heard him say that the tablet "wouldn't include cellular networking or communications."
As I said, anyone working in the *mobile* space knew this was where things were going (and indeed, had gone earlier!) At that time, wireless networking wasn't terribly great, but cellular was the proven path. And by that time, even Microsoft had figured out the significance of "the web" and the importance of "the network."
In any case, the configuration of the prototype can't be taken as a literal expression of the goal. You should see some of the functional prototypes of interaction devices I worked on in the conceptual phase (amalgams of plywood, parallax boards, laser printed optical targets, phone parts, plug in transformers, a laptop .etc.) You never really know what your making until you've gone through a few cycles or prototyping. [In fact, I now see that the source in the original article says almost exactly the same thing. *"at that early date no one knew what [the final device] would be," the source emphasized, highlighting the constantly changing nature of Apple's development process.*]
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Made in Korea.
Yeah, "Made in Korea," just like the rooster's crow makes the sun rise!
Quote:
Originally Posted by See Flat
What a stupid tittle.
It's not an iphone prototype. It is an ipad prototype. Jobs said they started working on the ipad first... and at one point they told themselves... "we could do a phone" and then back benched ipad development.
The first time I heard him say this was at All Things Digital interview with Walt Mossberg.
would "iDevice prototype" have made your day better?
[INDENT][IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/21850/width/500/height/1000[/IMG][/INDENT]
It's an engineering development prototype. It's part of the natural development of new technologies. It's a beautiful thing.
When Jobs spun something (or even outright lied on occasion), there was almost always a reason. The misinformation clearly benefited Apple, so he had a reason to mislead.
The statement about making the tablet first and the phone came out of that was a deathbed statement made long after the fact. What benefit was there for him to lie at that point?
More importantly, if it was a phone, why in the world would they have used a 5x7 screen? That's ridiculous for a phone.
Originally Posted by jragosta
…a 5x7 screen? That's ridiculous for a phone.
Funny how so many people here think otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
We know what Steve said (we all heard it,) but we've all also heard him say a number of things that weren't true/were spun/etc. Do you really think that in the wake of PIMs/cell phones (like the Trio, etc.) that Apple wasn't looking at putting a cell phone in it from day one?
Apparently they had not made that connection yet. Jobs claimed that it was only after he saw the tablet prototype's touch UI demo, that he suddenly realized it would be great for the iPhone they wanted to do.
As for all the silly Korea remarks in this thread, the irony is that the 2004 Samsung CPU used here was the first ARM to have integrated NAND Flash boot code, and therefore the circuit board would've almost certainly come from the Samsung engineering reference design referred to in its documentation.
Yes, that's right. The electronic design of the original iPad prototype was done by Samsung. Oh, the horror! However, that's a pretty common origin for any new design.
I'm sure Apple experimented with every fucking size, aspect ratio, and design under the sun before they settled with what they released, which they believed was ideal. People act as if it didn't even occur to Apple to use another size, or they're technically unable to. No, whatever you can dream up, I'm sure they tried it.
They had 20 different models, or so the story goes.
This photo where the iPhone's screen is facing down, makes the thing look like a casket. I'm glad this design was buried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Also from the Ars Technica piece... the iPhone BSG edition? :
The past of the iPhone = The future of Android
This is the look of the SAMSUNG GALAXY pop pocket plus ultra advenced:
- with a do-sexta core SAMSUNG EXYNOS 8 processor at 3,2 Ghz and TDP of 25 W
- 16 GB RAM
- 4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512GB user memory (yeah only 4GB will be sold but don't worry it supports full size SD cards)
- Super active flexible matrix phosphorescent green light emiting diode high definition (yeah still pen-tile)
- Revolutionary S-battery that supports up to 2 hours of video playback (183 Wh)
I dont remember where but i read that when project "Purple" was started (development code name of the iPhone) it was development of a tablet computer. Steve Jobs steered the development away from a tablet computer into what was to eventually become the iPhone.
I think it was in his autobiography.
The original iPhone was a tablet.
Lol sorry for the repeat I didnt see that someone posted the same thing above
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
When Jobs spun something (or even outright lied on occasion), there was almost always a reason. The misinformation clearly benefited Apple, so he had a reason to mislead.
The statement about making the tablet first and the phone came out of that was a deathbed statement made long after the fact. What benefit was there for him to lie at that point?
More importantly, if it was a phone, why in the world would they have used a 5x7 screen? That's ridiculous for a phone.
Don't be a silly. Whatever you might think of it, he misled people for good, bad, or unknown reasons throughout his life. Just talk to anyone who ever worked or lived with him.
The item shown is clearly a concept exploration prototype—not much past a breadboard. It was big because it was made for testing and experimentation. They wanted to see what it would be like, how the interactions would feel, etc. The size of the prototype doesn't really reflect where the concept was going or even all the features it would have. It's a sketch!
You and your "deathbed statement" obsessions. Try to get a grip.
I say they planned to put cellular in it from the start because they already knew that a mobile computing device without a reliable network connection would be pretty darn boring. Cellular was the obvious choice and if you go that way, it might as will have voice communications as well. Anyone working in this conceptual space at the time (years before actually) understood this very well. The best way to actually do it in a usable, viable, affordable way was still in exploration, but cellular was [the obvious] technology.
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
You and your "deathbed statement" obsessions. Try to get a grip.
Would it help if Jobs said that in situations long before his 'deathbed'? Because he did.
I see absolutely no reason to doubt that a tablet was first on the table.
This isn't an Apple prototype anything. The board is an LN2410SBC as sold by LittleChips (littlechips.com); the assembly looks identical their LN2410SBC/LP64 stack with a 6.4" TFT display.
Both the LN2410SBC and the display module are (or were) made by CyberLab (you can see both their name and old URL on the back of the display module).
Originally Posted by unlocal
This isn't an Apple prototype anything.
Right, because Apple would have made everything from scratch on their own, not knowing about how to do any of that¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
I dont remember where but i read that when project "Purple" was started (development code name of the iPhone) it was development of a tablet computer. Steve Jobs steered the development away from a tablet computer into what was to eventually become the iPhone.
It was Scott Forestall at the Samsung trial who talked about the original Purple project. He said it was a phone. We know from other histories that they were still using clickwheel iPods as UI design mules in mid 2005.
It was after Jobs saw a touch UI demo on an unrelated tablet prototype, that the production iPhone Purple 2 project was started in earnest in later 2005. But who showed him?
In the Jobs biography, Jon Ive says he was the one who secretly got others to put together a multi-touch UI demo, and that he was the one who sprung it on Jobs alone... otherwise, Jobs would probably have knocked it down, because that's what he always did in a group... and Ive was afraid the entire concept would be dismissed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unlocal
The board is an LN2410SBC as sold by LittleChips (littlechips.com); the assembly looks identical their LN2410SBC/LP64 stack with a 6.4" TFT display.
Good eye! http://www.littlechips.com/LN2410SBC_TFT.htm
As to thinking about putting cellular on the tablet, sure, there were plenty of data-only radio cards (e.g. GSM/GPRS) available for CF slots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Would it help if Jobs said that in situations long before his 'deathbed'? Because he did.
That's funny, I heard him say "it started out as a tablet," but I never heard him say that the tablet "wouldn't include cellular networking or communications."
As I said, anyone working in the *mobile* space knew this was where things were going (and indeed, had gone earlier!) At that time, wireless networking wasn't terribly great, but cellular was the proven path. And by that time, even Microsoft had figured out the significance of "the web" and the importance of "the network."
In any case, the configuration of the prototype can't be taken as a literal expression of the goal. You should see some of the functional prototypes of interaction devices I worked on in the conceptual phase (amalgams of plywood, parallax boards, laser printed optical targets, phone parts, plug in transformers, a laptop .etc.) You never really know what your making until you've gone through a few cycles or prototyping. [In fact, I now see that the source in the original article says almost exactly the same thing. *"at that early date no one knew what [the final device] would be," the source emphasized, highlighting the constantly changing nature of Apple's development process.*]