Apple Wins $1 Billion Patent Case
Out of context: Reply #70
- Started
- Last post
- 128 Responses
- 20020
ipod - other mp3 players existed but through design and itunes, it prevailed. I remember buying other mp3 players. hard to use and hated it. got ipod and found out how easy it was to use. the wheel interface which was not a new interface but they applied it to make it work.
iphone - yes other similar devices existed. I hated it at first when i got it. but realized the details and thought it went to design every aspect of it. it was designed from consumer perspective. again, nothing really new.
ipad - remember when everyone else was hot to trot on the tiny computer with limited HD space? Net Book? Yeah. Didnt work out.
I do agree that individually, they didnt invent something new. they added value to them by putting them together as a device and designed it well.
As for Kearns, what you saying is the same thing as what auto industry was stating. it was new, it was eventual. there was nothing new about it. the parts and methods were already existing. he just decided to put that intermittence to a windshield wiper with existing parts and methods.
This is same with apple, they took existing ideas and made it better. made it usable. they is what design is. most of us still think patent as something created out of thin air and no one has ever seen. it is the obviousness that makes the design great. you know it is good right now because it has proven it self.
if everything that apple has used have been invited previously, why didnt those device make it big?
- note: kearns "it wasnt new"2002
- You're regurgitating what I said. They refine and polish better than anyone, for consumers, but create little overall new.ETM
- over all new in terms of broad concepts.ETM
- As to why earlier devices often failed. Two common reasons, needed refinement and/or too soon for consumers.ETM
- Apples's other grand gift is timing. Knowing when a device's time has come, and how to make it consumable.ETM