Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 251
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I have a hard time with that. They've certainly adapted a few ideas (like the mouse) but they have also created a lot of new ideas. And I say that as someone that doesn't buy their stuff...

    Here is Apple's iPad patent, filed shortly after Steve-O told everyone they weren't interested in making phones or tablets... In 2005!

    Electronic device - Google Patent Search
    I'd consider this patent rather "revolutionary" when/if the technology actually surfaces: Apple Wins their First Solar Powered Patent for Portables - Patently Apple
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    I'd consider what you're talking about more along the lines of a "push screen". Touching it merely does nothing unless the screen is 'pushed'. There's a huge difference between capitative and resistive screens.
    The old Treo resistive TOUCH screens were actually very sensitive to touches. There's actually no perceptable difference (at least for me) in capacitive vs resistive touch sensitivity. I tried very hard to "touch" my treo's screen without eliciting input. Its pretty damn hard. I also believe the main push for capacitive over resistive was multi-touch. Resistive screens were perfectly fine for what they did.
  3. #203  
    ^^ that ^^
  4. #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    I'd consider what you're talking about more along the lines of a "push screen". Touching it merely does nothing unless the screen is 'pushed'. There's a huge difference between capitative and resistive screens.
    That may be what you consider it to be, but that's not what constitutes a touch screen. Sorry guys, but if you get to redefine phrases to suit your needs, then obviously any claim is true.

    Go look up "touch screen", you'll find that capacitive and resistive are both touch screens.
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by SirataXero View Post
    The old Treo resistive TOUCH screens were actually very sensitive to touches. There's actually no perceptable difference (at least for me) in capacitive vs resistive touch sensitivity. I tried very hard to "touch" my treo's screen without eliciting input. Its pretty damn hard. I also believe the main push for capacitive over resistive was multi-touch. Resistive screens were perfectly fine for what they did.
    It's also probably worth noting that many of the apps for PalmOS used large buttons so you did not have to take out the stylus, a prime example was the phone app.
  6. #206  
    i do miss the handwriting, we used to have customers sign their bill right on the treo.
    Palm prē-ist.
  7. #207  
    I constantly used only my finger on my Palm Zire. You could even, gasp!, drag cards from one stack to another, using your finger, in solitaire! It's amazing how the iPhone gets all of this credit for stuff. What did it really do? It put out a phone with the Apple logo on the back so all the hipsters bought one and started bragging about it and then others, who wanted to be cool too, also bought one. Really, all it did was bring a more modern interface and multi-touch. Beyond that it wasn't really innovative.

    Quite frankly, had Palm gotten off their butts and modernized the OS 5 years ago, without dumping compatibility with their old apps, Palm would probably still be the dominate smartphone maker.
  8. #208  
    OK, yet another duplicate post and I only hit submit once. What is up with this forum in the 5:30-6 time frame?
  9. #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I have a hard time with that. They've certainly adapted a few ideas (like the mouse) but they have also created a lot of new ideas. And I say that as someone that doesn't buy their stuff...

    Here is Apple's iPad patent, filed shortly after Steve-O told everyone they weren't interested in making phones or tablets... In 2005!

    Electronic device - Google Patent Search
    The mouse existing before apple "adapted" it. Tablets existed before the iPad.

    I see no invention in either of your examples.

    And that's not to say that apple hasn't actually invented certain things but there's no need to stretch the true between invention and derivation.
  10. #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by falconrap View Post
    I constantly used only my finger on my Palm Zire. You could even, gasp!, drag cards from one stack to another, using your finger, in solitaire! It's amazing how the iPhone gets all of this credit for stuff. What did it really do? It put out a phone with the Apple logo on the back so all the hipsters bought one and started bragging about it and then others, who wanted to be cool too, also bought one. Really, all it did was bring a more modern interface and multi-touch. Beyond that it wasn't really innovative.

    Quite frankly, had Palm gotten off their butts and modernized the OS 5 years ago, without dumping compatibility with their old apps, Palm would probably still be the dominate smartphone maker.
    I'll grant the person that started this little tangent this one - the iPhone's OS was written using one's finger in mind, and the PalmOS was not. But I don't really think that was, in and of itself, revolutionary, nor do I think they were the first.

    But the notion that Apple beat Palm with a phone by two years? Laughable!
  11. gbp
    gbp is offline
    gbp's Avatar
    Posts
    2,506 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,543 Global Posts
    #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You're spot on.

    He would be more accurate if he had said beat them to a touch screen phone and optimized OS.
    Yes Sir, a real "Smartphone" is a better word.
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by gbp View Post
    Yes Sir, a real "Smartphone" is a better word.
    Disagree there as well. There's nothing besides presentation that the iPhone did that was not already being done on the Treo linup.
    • Apps - already done.
    • Touchscreen - done
    • Music player - done
    • Browser - done
    • email - done
    • Messaging - done
    • Video streaming - done
    • Calendar - done
    • Address book - done
    • Camera - done
    • Video camera - done

    Of course, one major difference between the Apple's introduction and what Palm had been doing for years was that fact that you couldn't add third party apps unless you hacked it.

    So, other than refining what was already done, what made Apple's introduction somehow a "real" smartphone.

    Oh yeah, popularity. That must be it. The iGottaHaveItToo crowd defines what's "real".

    To some.
  13. gbp
    gbp is offline
    gbp's Avatar
    Posts
    2,506 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,543 Global Posts
    #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Don't think so. The Treo had a touch screen, optimized OS is pretty vague - optimized for what.
    Yes, the iPhone changed touchscreen phones for everyone (no mo stylus), but my Treo was definitely touch screen.
    iPhone brought real web browsing and mutltouch to the masses. Not to belittle the "youtube" app which changed the way we consume phones. The Teo stylus though great was irrelevant by the time iPhone came to market.
  14. gbp
    gbp is offline
    gbp's Avatar
    Posts
    2,506 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,543 Global Posts
    #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Disagree there as well. There's nothing besides presentation that the iPhone did that was not already being done on the Treo linup.
    • Apps - already done.
    • Touchscreen - done
    • Music player - done
    • Browser - done
    • email - done
    • Messaging - done
    • Video streaming - done
    • Calendar - done
    • Address book - done
    • Camera - done
    • Video camera - done

    Of course, one major difference between the Apple's introduction and what Palm had been doing for years was that fact that you couldn't add third party apps unless you hacked it.

    So, other than refining what was already done, what made Apple's introduction somehow a "real" smartphone.

    Oh yeah, popularity. That must be it. The iGottaHaveItToo crowd defines what's "real".

    To some.
    Here is where PALM failed badly
    • Apps - PALM had no tight control over apps.
    • Touchscreen - size is too small.
    • Browser - not a desktop grade browser.


    And most importantly the "General" public did not like the size of it. The treos were not "desirable" like the current touchscreen phones. They were not thin.The material looks plasticky. The screens were horrible.

    To be successful the phone has to look "Great" first. While I stubbornly refused to buy the first iPhone and kept my Treo, I used to appreciate the way iPhone looked.
  15. gbp
    gbp is offline
    gbp's Avatar
    Posts
    2,506 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,543 Global Posts
    #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by falconrap View Post
    Quite frankly, had Palm gotten off their butts and modernized the OS 5 years ago, without dumping compatibility with their old apps, Palm would probably still be the dominate smartphone maker.
    +1
    that and beautiful design would have saved Palm. Remember Palm brand never reached the general public. Palm users were tech savvy. Other than techie folks I never saw common folks buying Palm Treos.

    What was interesting is folks who stubbornly refused to buy a smartphone because of the extra costs for internet jumped on the iPhone thing.
    Why ? because it is a smartphone for non techie people while the Palm treo and Windows mobile phones were for techie (smart :-)) people. And BTW, the iPhone looked great compared to other phones when introduced.
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by gbp View Post
    iPhone brought real web browsing and mutltouch to the masses. Not to belittle the "youtube" app which changed the way we consume phones. The Teo stylus though great was irrelevant by the time iPhone came to market.
    I'm going to repeat - there was no stylus required on the Treo. I will completely acknowledge that the Treo was not designed for use with a finger, and the iPhone was not designed for use with a stylus.

    I will not acknowledge (because all are factually inaccurate) that Apple beat Palm to the phone by 2 years (which was the original assertion), that the Treo did not have a touch screen, or that Apple invented the concept on a phone.
  17. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by gbp View Post
    Here is where PALM failed badly
    • Apps - PALM had no tight control over apps.
    • Touchscreen - size is too small.
    • Browser - not a desktop grade browser.


    And most importantly the "General" public did not like the size of it. The treos were not "desirable" like the current touchscreen phones. They were not thin.The material looks plasticky. The screens were horrible.

    To be successful the phone has to look "Great" first. While I stubbornly refused to buy the first iPhone and kept my Treo, I used to appreciate the way iPhone looked.
    No real argument from me. There was nothing said about "success" (though by any standards, the Treo was successful) - what started this tangent was nonsense that Apple beat Palm by two years with their phone, and that the Treo wasn't a smartphone.

    You've offered compelling argument that Apple did it better, but I haven't seen anything offered that supports the notion that the beat Palm to the phone, Apple invented it, or that the Treo wasn't a smartphone.
  18. #218  
    My old WinMo phones does everything the iPhone does, but the iPhone made it easier. Finally my wife had a phone she could easily use. Apple is known for simplifying things. Sometimes that means they remove features. This sometimes offends the power users, but makes life easier for everyone else.

    Everyone is also forgetting that at the time of the original iPhone release, Apple owned the media player market (still does). Apple was able to build off of the media player success. Basically apple said to people, instead of spending $200 on an iPod, why not spend $300-$500 on an iPhone that can be your iPod and your phone (just carry one device). Other companies tried this, but did not have the marketing blitz and sexy device. BB, Palm and MS were instead trying to woo the corporate market. I imagine they did not think they could get normal consumers to spend $250+ on a phone.
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by danwendell View Post
    Apple is known for simplifying things.
    not really

    is iPhone's notification handling easy?
    is iPhone's multitasking as easy as Pre's?
    is iPad easy to carry than a galaxy tab?
    is dropping calls a easy for users?
    is turning wifi on/off easy on iPhone?

    iOS is not easy, and apple is best known for marketing and looks of its products.
  20. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by clevin View Post
    not really

    is iPhone's notification handling easy?
    is iPhone's multitasking as easy as Pre's?
    is iPad easy to carry than a galaxy tab?
    is dropping calls a easy for users?
    is turning wifi on/off easy on iPhone?

    iOS is not easy, and apple is best known for marketing and looks of its products.
    So why do they always come out head and shoulders above other Oses for customer satisfaction (note I don't own or use any apple products besides a classic)?

    We have some good interesting conversation here but the rather childish and naive outlook a lot of people bring to the table about Apple and it's products is disappointing; and saying that Apple's success is down to solely marketing and nice looking products is childish and naive.
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions