Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Erm, no. The peole who first made the touch screen, mp3 player, online music store. They are innovators.
Touchscreens were developed in the 70s and bell labs tossed around the concept of entirely touch based interfaces in PARC. The concept of the touch based interface was pioneered over a thousand years ago in mythological literature. You're being intentionally obtuse, no man is an island and no invention is truly new.
Some people are actually innovators. Hey maybe theyre are some intricate things in a few of their products that Apple actually have inovated.
in·no·vate [in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, -vat·ed, -vat·ing.
–verb (used without object)
1.
to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
Seriously. Just stop.
The orignal post I was responding to though stated they are the only company who have made any technological advancements in recent times. Which is untrue on two counts. One being that's not the case. And two , Apple arent that much of an innovator.
Yes, I know what your post was about. I read it.
See now you're just being a douche. Take a break or something.
Says the man whose entire argument is based on the wrong definition of the word innovate.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
I'm not a fan of Mac. Mostly because of when quicktime used to be bundled with itunes and you had to install itunes to watch a video on the internet. That and any mac that I ever tried using crash all the time. Of course it's probably been 6 or 7 years since I've been on a mac.
The ipods are a fairly good design. It is annoying that they don't have a drag and drop interface and you need to use a special program to load then.
I don't really like itunes much, as a program to download music or for a media player. I always like winamp because it's simplicity. I open some folders and hit play. I've always had good naming and organization of my music files so I never needed a program that relied on the tags attached to my files.
As far as iphones go, if I want to go on the internet I can do that at home. Nothing is going to be so important on Dakka dakka that it can't wait a few more hours. I never really used my cel phones when I had them so I can't say that I find the iphones exciting.
Now on the other side of the fence I haven't ever had a bad experience with windows or linux. It can be difficult to get some windows programs to work on linux and a few things just won't work but i've been happy with PC's and laptops with both of those programs on there.
Erm, no. The peole who first made the touch screen, mp3 player, online music store. They are innovators.
Touchscreens were developed in the 70s and bell labs tossed around the concept of entirely touch based interfaces in PARC. The concept of the touch based interface was pioneered over a thousand years ago in mythological literature. You're being intentionally obtuse, no man is an island and no invention is truly new.
Some people are actually innovators. Hey maybe theyre are some intricate things in a few of their products that Apple actually have inovated.
in·no·vate [in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, -vat·ed, -vat·ing.
–verb (used without object)
1.
to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
Seriously. Just stop.
The orignal post I was responding to though stated they are the only company who have made any technological advancements in recent times. Which is untrue on two counts. One being that's not the case. And two , Apple arent that much of an innovator.
Yes, I know what your post was about. I read it.
See now you're just being a douche. Take a break or something.
Says the man whose entire argument is based on the wrong definition of the word innovate.
No seriously, you are being a douche.
Look, yeh I get that all inovations are based on something before. I'm not being as literal as that. If the word innovation is as explicit as you make it no one would use it. The point is apples so called 'inovations' aren't different enough from their original to call them inovations. Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation. That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones
ShumaGorath wrote:
The orignal post I was responding to though stated they are the only company who have made any technological advancements in recent times. Which is untrue on two counts. One being that's not the case. And two , Apple arent that much of an innovator.
Yes, I know what your post was about. I read it.
Then what are you actually arguing against then. Do you agree with the statement that apple have made all the innovations of recent times?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/08/19 00:15:41
You deserve it. You want me to take you out for ice cream and let you down softly when you're absolutely 100% wrong about something and you're wrong because of something so simple as the definition of a common word? I have the five dollars, I'll get you your gellato.
Look, yeh I get that all inovations are based on something before. I'm not being as literal as that.
Not now. Now that you know you're wrong. You certainly were before.
The point is apples so called 'inovations' aren't different enough from their original to call them inovations. Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation.
Yes. Yes it is. Thats the entire point.
That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones.
No, thats an innovation based on the combination of two technologies (capacitive touch and mobile high contrast LCD screens). What you think it isn't is a brand new technology, or perhaps a unique invention. What you think doesn't actually make any sense though, and thats the issue here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/19 00:17:01
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
whatwhat wrote: Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation. That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones
That's a fairly arbitrary standard for what constitutes an innovation. Is the general cell phone you're mentioning simply a combination of batteries and a home phone?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
You deserve it. You want me to take you out for ice cream and let you down softly when you're absolutely 100% wrong about something and you're wrong because of something so simple as the definition of a common word? I have the five dollars, I'll get you your gellato.
Look, yeh I get that all inovations are based on something before. I'm not being as literal as that.
Not now. Now that you know you're wrong. You certainly were before.
The point is apples so called 'inovations' aren't different enough from their original to call them inovations. Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation.
Yes. Yes it is. Thats the entire point.
That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones.
No, thats an innovation based on the combination of two technologies (capacitive touch and mobile high contrast LCD screens). What you think it isn't is a brand new technology, or perhaps a unique invention. What you think doesn't actually make any sense though, and thats the issue here.
What are you actually trying to prove? That apple are "resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use."? Yes that's what I was originally rebutting. You actually believe that. I already have said that Apple may well have made some innovations. That's not what I'm disagreeing with.
whatwhat wrote:
Apple is leading the way into the 21st century with its products while the PC companies like HP, Dell and Sony are making the same crap they did at the turn of the century. Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use:
Computers, phones and music. They are the standard to which all other companies should aspire to.
Apple making advancements in technology? All they are doing, and in fact all they have ever done, is take existing ideas and repackage them in their own branding. The only difference nowadays is their product is actually of a decent quality. Go back ten or so years and the only thing the mac had over the pc for example, was it looked better. At the time it was an inferior piece of kit. They make their money by putting the ideas together. Mp3 players, music library software and online mp3 stores were all well established before apple brought out the ipod, itunes and the connected itunes store all under one branding.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote: Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation. That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones
That's a fairly arbitrary standard for what constitutes an innovation. Is the general cell phone you're mentioning simply a combination of batteries and a home phone?
As I said, if the term innovation is so explicit nobody would use it. And it works both ways.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/08/19 00:22:12
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
The idea of a touchscreen facilitating a operation system was not new. Apple did not innovate that. They just used that on a phone. So they didn't create the touchscreen. Nor did they create what was needed to make the touchscreen work as a keypad. So simply taking what was there and replacing a phone keypad with it. If we are calling that an innovation it certainly isn't much of one. So go ahead. it doesn't take away from my original post.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/08/19 00:30:27
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
The iphone had the phone, (capacative) touchscreen, and the mobile operating system in tandem. Together they create a product that was highly innovative and very much unlike anything competing in the field. Execution matters as much as technology in innovation design for consumer electronics and they put enough things together in one package that the package started to look and feel like something totally new. When the app store was introduced it only compounded the idea that apple was an industry leader in the mobile space.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/19 00:38:22
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
The iphone had the phone, (capacative) touchscreen, and the mobile operating system in tandem. Together they create a product that was highly innovative and very much unlike anything competing in the field. Execution matters as much as technology in innovation design for consumer electronics.
Yeh ok fine. Call it an inovation. Youre the one who brought me into what is and what's not an innovation crap if you want to read back. I still stand by my statement that most of what apple do is branding and most of their ideas aren't new. Which is the point. The statement I was rebuting was..."Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use: " that's advancement in technology. I interpereted that as 'inovation.' now that you've dragged me round the fecking universe about the definititon of innovation. Are you going to disagree that Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use? If so maybe you can appreciate arguing with me about the use of the word innovation wasn't so important to my point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/19 00:41:48
Mr Mystery wrote:Oasis and Blur? Utter pish the pair of them. One set wants to be the Beatles, the other Paul Weller.
Gimme me fringe and make it 90's!
So you dislike oasis and blur and you want to go back to the nineties? You are aware Blur and Oasis were just about the biggest bands of the nineties? ...them and the Spice Girls. Have fun.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
The iphone had the phone, (capacative) touchscreen, and the mobile operating system in tandem. Together they create a product that was highly innovative and very much unlike anything competing in the field. Execution matters as much as technology in innovation design for consumer electronics.
Yeh ok fine. Call it an inovation. Youre the one who brought me into what is and what's not an innovation crap if you want to read back. I still stand by my statement that most of what apple do is branding and most of their ideas aren't new. Which is the point. The statement I was rebuting was..."Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use: " that's advancement in technology. I interpereted that as 'inovation.' now that you've dragged me round the fecking universe about the definititon of innovation. Are you going to disagree that Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use? If so maybe you can appreciate arguing with me about the use of the word innovation wasn't so important to my point.
Actually, one of my posts predated your concerning apples innovation. I noted that within the desktop and laptop space they often times curb innovations found in Unix systems.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
The iphone had the phone, (capacative) touchscreen, and the mobile operating system in tandem. Together they create a product that was highly innovative and very much unlike anything competing in the field. Execution matters as much as technology in innovation design for consumer electronics.
Yeh ok fine. Call it an inovation. Youre the one who brought me into what is and what's not an innovation crap if you want to read back. I still stand by my statement that most of what apple do is branding and most of their ideas aren't new. Which is the point. The statement I was rebuting was..."Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use: " that's advancement in technology. I interpereted that as 'inovation.' now that you've dragged me round the fecking universe about the definititon of innovation. Are you going to disagree that Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use? If so maybe you can appreciate arguing with me about the use of the word innovation wasn't so important to my point.
Actually, one of my posts predated your concerning apples innovation. I noted that within the desktop and laptop space they often times curb innovations found in Unix systems.
And?
You also posted this...
ShumaGorath wrote:Technically a lot of OSX's good attributes are refinements lifted from other unix based platforms and microsoft has done quite a bit to revolutionize the computer space over the last few years. The Ipod and mobile market is basically apples plaything at this point, but their only real advancement in the last few years in the PC OS space is interface driven and fairly iterative. Most of their other side projects are somewhat gimmicky (appletv) but not particularly interesting or inventive.
In reaction to the same comment I was responding to, this:
Apple is leading the way into the 21st century with its products while the PC companies like HP, Dell and Sony are making the same crap they did at the turn of the century. Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use:
Computers, phones and music. They are the standard to which all other companies should aspire to.
Which would suggest we actually agree with each other.
Mr Mystery wrote:Oasis and Blur? Utter pish the pair of them. One set wants to be the Beatles, the other Paul Weller.
Gimme me fringe and make it 90's!
So you dislike oasis and blur and you want to go back to the nineties? You are aware Blur and Oasis were just about the biggest bands of the nineties? ...them and the Spice Girls. Have fun.
Blur I can tolerate. Oasis sound the same now as they did then (i.e. crap Beatles knock offs).
The other bands though, they made the era for me. But of course, you have been on Dakka longer than I, thus must be right, nes pas?
Which would suggest we actually agree with each other.
Huh? Nah, I think they innovate all kinds of things. Every product they release usually has something new or unique about it that the competing industries race to copy. I disagreed that they are the foundation for all advancement. They are simply the foundation for most advancement in the mobile space and in online media distribution (Two of the three businesses they are actually in).
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Mr Mystery wrote:Oasis and Blur? Utter pish the pair of them. One set wants to be the Beatles, the other Paul Weller.
Gimme me fringe and make it 90's!
So you dislike oasis and blur and you want to go back to the nineties? You are aware Blur and Oasis were just about the biggest bands of the nineties? ...them and the Spice Girls. Have fun.
Blur I can tolerate. Oasis sound the same now as they did then (i.e. crap Beatles knock offs).
The other bands though, they made the era for me. But of course, you have been on Dakka longer than I, thus must be right, nes pas?
Oh I'm not arguing, just wondering. Although I would disagree that Oasis are Beatles knock offs. Mcartney and lennon don't sing like they've smoked a thousand ciggarettes in the ten hours beforehand.
Didja know ringo is actually left handed, but they threatened him with death unless he played right handed, so now he plays all funny..By 'now' I mean...After 1965.
whatwhat wrote:
As I said, if the term innovation is so explicit nobody would use it. And it works both ways.
Then you're really just playing a game with connotation, and not the literal meaning of the word.
whatwhat wrote:
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
I don't know about you, but none of the smart phones I've seen confine their touch screen functionality to use as a keypad.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Didja know ringo is actually left handed, but they threatened him with death unless he played right handed, so now he plays all funny..By 'now' I mean...After 1965.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
As I said, if the term innovation is so explicit nobody would use it. And it works both ways.
Then you're really just playing a game with connotation, and not the literal meaning of the word.
Have we not yet established that the use of the word innovation really wasn't that important to my original point. If not, I give in, you can have your brownie points.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
I don't know about you, but none of the smart phones I've seen confine their touch screen functionality to use as a keypad.
ftr. once you have the technology of the touchscreen. All you have to do is write a piece of code to get the rest. i.e. touch here phone does this. drag here this does this. That's not difficult. Give me the commands to interact with the thouchscreen and I can do the above with my very limited programming skills in mx flash.
And you're comparing that to creating wireless communication via a handset?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2010/08/19 01:26:38
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Ringo does! Ciggarettes of whimsy :3