iPhone vs. LG Prada, Ruckus vs. iTunes
January 24th, 2007 | by Rob Enderle
Shortly after the Apple iPhone was announced, LG electronics, the largest Korean Electronics Manufacturer, announced the Prada which on spec is better than the iPhone and will show up about 4 months sooner and will be more widely available in Europe.
In addition I just became aware of a competing service to iTunes that’s growing like wildfire in schools: Ruckus. With an advertising based model for listening to music off of PCs, and a subscription that allows you to put music on your non-iPod music player, Ruckus costs a reasonable $5 a month for unlimited tracks. Growth is apparently near vertical and from what I’m told; iTunes isn’t even competing for this opportunity.
Finally, right after the iPhone launched there was an iPhone emulator released for the Palm based Treo but Apple’s legal team killed it on a lot of servers. Another programmer created one for the Microsoft Mobile platform and it too was removed after challenge. Given that Apple copied Xerox (another good reference site) and swiped the name for the phone itself we probably should chat a bit about the irony of this and point out that on the web, euthanizing an idea can be incredibly difficult.
iPhone vs. LG Prada
Let’s go down the spec list as we understand it. Both phones have touch screens, both phones have powerful brands (Prada is very powerful in Europe), both phones are 2.5G GSM GPRS EDGE phones and both phones will be on the market this year. I can’t resist saying that the Prada name was legally acquired.
Now realize that for the first half of the year there is only one, the Prada and it’s only in Europe for now. If you are on Cingular (now AT&T) or move to Cingular, you can get the iPhone; the Prada is sold unlocked and so should work with any GSM carrier including Cingular, but without a subsidy it costs more out-of-pocket since no plan is attached.
Both phones are so expensive that I think most of us will forgo the pleasure of this kind of phone for now but prices should drop.
I’d still give the Prada the edge because it doesn’t lock you to Cingular, comes from a company who actually has done phones before, has a removable battery and upgradable memory, and comes to market months ahead of its competitor.
Finally, the iPod came to market as a unique product line that remained largely differentiated through most of its life. Thanks to the Prada phone the iPhone isn’t even unique now and because of the power of the carriers, most of which aren’t Cingular, has a massive uphill battle that the iPod didn’t enjoy.
So while the comparison is kind of fun, the real problem the Prada represents for Apple is it showcases that the cell phone industry is much more capable of running against the iPhone than the MP3 player industry was capable of running against the iPod. More importantly, by creating the iPhone, Apple itself started the move from MP3 players to phones for media and may not be the best positioned to benefit from that move.
Ruckus vs. iTunes
Like any dominant product, iTunes (which is near break even for Apple) is at risk from companies that specifically target smaller audiences. Apple lost education with regard to PCs back in the 90s for much the same reason they lost most corporations - an inability to focus on it and products that largely weren’t competitive.
Now they appear to be facing a similar trend with iTunes and Ruckus is moving around them by focusing on addressing the fears that education institutions have with regard to being held liable for student piracy. By providing a legal way for students to get music for free, the institutions can better argue they are moving against piracy and when they block student access to sites known for piracy, can provide legal alternatives (reducing the desire to work around the defenses).
Ruckus uses the most widely licensed Microsoft DRM and while students could burn CDs and then rip them to their iPods, they can more easily directly transfer them to products that use this same DRM which is virtually any other player than the iPod.
As these students leave school, much like it was for the Mac, they are more likely to not want to support Apple and if Ruckus continues to expand, that represents a long term downward trend to both iTunes and the iPod unless Apple moves directly to provide a similar service and address the need that Ruckus is addressing.
Granted this will take several years to develop and probably won’t become pronounced until 2009 or later but this is how a monopoly is typically taken down, by eating away at the fringes and, in this case, drilling holes in the future market by attacking successfully young consumers.
Death to IPhone Clones: Did Apple Clone Philips?
One of the interesting things that didn’t get much coverage was that (given most of the smart phones already on the market have touch screens and will allow you to install 3rd party software) it was only a matter of hours after the iPhone launched that several programmers had released iPhone clone software that would turn a Treo Palm based or Microsoft Mobile based smart phone into something that looked a lot like the iPhone.
Apple’s legal team sent out this note to those that did the emulators and most now are much harder to find. However in thinking about prior art, one of the defenses in situations like this is past design concepts and I couldn’t help but go back to 1998 when Philips appears to have come up with the idea for the iPhone.
Take a look at these pictures of Philips prototypes and ask yourself, did Apple do the Xerox PARC thing again and simply swipe an idea from a company unable to bring it to market themselves?
All of the phones had touch screens, and the most advanced had a roll up color screen allowing a phone with a large screen to fit into your pocket. In another phone, the screen folded in half, once again providing for a much smaller device with a much bigger screen.

This phone folds open to reveal a large screen

The screen folds open to give you plenty of viewing real-estate
Now do recall this was 1998 and all and the roll-up phones were larger than the iPhone but they also were based around the idea of voice command in addition to touch screen and most had build in cameras pointing at the user for video conferencing.

This phone concept was designed for teleconferencing and business purposes
Note that this was long before the iPod or iTunes so these are much more focused on productivity and communications. Also note that one of the most advanced concepts was an AI Concierge who would respond to your every need through a human-like avatar. In many ways, given the technology of the time, the Philips ideas were ahead of the iPhone a decade before it will arrive.

This phone concept uses an AI based avatar to answer your questions
So is the iPhone Apple 2007 – Philips 1998? Look at the pictures and you decide.
Post Your Comment...Comments
M. Douglas Wray on Jan 25th, 2007 at 6:07 PM:
LOL!
Gerry Kent on Jan 25th, 2007 at 7:47 PM:
Rob, this looks as much as the iPhone as you look like Shaq. Get Real.It is the software that counts. Once more you predict doom for an Apple product. It is getting tiresome.
Carl on Jan 25th, 2007 at 8:09 PM:
Perhaps you should read the book: Revolution in the Valley - The insanely great story of how the mac was made by Andy Hertzfeld. Although high level concepts were lifted from Xerox PARC, to say that Apple stole the interface is just wrong. In the book I referenced, they actually show some polaroids of the evolution of the interface while giving explanations from the people involved in designing it. Tons of original designs which can't be said of Microsoft.
Regarding iPhone, time will tell. I think it will be wildly successful regardless of what the critics are saying now.
Also, I'm not paying for a subscription based music service and I don't know anyone else who is either. Maybe this appeals to the college-age crowd, but I don't think the business model will prove to viable in the end.
RX8 on Jan 25th, 2007 at 8:13 PM:
LOL looks like Rob suckered all of you!!
Here is a link to a newer Philips Rollup screen: http://media.digitaltrends.com/digitaltrends/ces_2... using E-ink.
I think the point here is that the iPhone is nothing revolutionary - it's borrowing concepts and making them better.
And for the idiot Apple zealots, there are captions under the pictures explaining what they are...
Rob Enderle on Jan 25th, 2007 at 8:15 PM:
What I love about the Mac Fans is they put words in my mouth and then call me names for things I didn't actually say. For instance where did I say Apple copied Xerox software or that Apple copied Philips software?
Apple took the idea from Xerox. Xerox sued them and lost because the Statute of Limitations had run out. Links to this were provided above.
Apple is sending out letters to those that copy the look of the iPhone, not the software, to stop these folks from putting the same look on phones that aren't locked like the iPhone (evidently the tools are all over the web so the letters don't seem to have done anything but make the things more desirable).
Philips had a similar idea with their phone 10 years ago. Yes it isn't as cool, it is 10 years old afterall hardware has come a long way. But this was widely shared at the time.
Yes Philips has patents on the flexible screen.
http://www.research.philips.com/password/archive/1...
http://www.tomrafteryit.net/philips-demo-flexible-...
They even have working prototypes.
On the roll out screen the pictures I had weren't good enough so we left them off. There were three other prototypes in on the tape not shown above. Personally I liked the one with the small modular removable phone best. But the one with the small wireless removable camera and GPS was particularly cool.
Ruckus is free to listen to on your computer, full tracks not "samples". If you want to put the music on your Plays for Sure music player it is $5 a month unlimited access. To put the songs on an iPod you have to burn and rip them, I'm told students know how to do that....
Andrew Hedges on Jan 25th, 2007 at 8:15 PM:
You're kidding, right? There's no way you could seriously ask if these ideas even remotely resemble the iPhone. This is the saddest attempt at garnering hits I've seen in a long time. Either that or the worst possible analysis.
Jeffrey on Jan 25th, 2007 at 8:51 PM:
My God, you're a tool.
Margaret Trauth on Jan 25th, 2007 at 9:07 PM:
So where's Phillips' phone with the roll-out screen and the voice-recognition avatar, then? And what, for that matter, does a roll-out screen have to do with the iPhone? All the shots I've seen of it show it as a little flat box with a screen dominating one side.
No, none of the ideas in the iPhone are necessarily unique to it. There've been a bunch of people playing with multi-touch interfaces lately, and people kicking around the ideas. The iPhone is the first device to bring that out of the lab.
Is the Prada phone going to feature a multi-touch interface that lets you pinch and squeeze images to scale them? Is it going to have an IM-style interface to your SMSs? Or will it be the exact same awkward, finicky, twiddly UI that every other phone has? I wouldn't hold my breath; I've never seen anyone praising LG's UI.
Ryan Gray on Jan 25th, 2007 at 9:36 PM:
Okay, let's play the Wikipedia game: "Xerox was given Apple stock in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC)
Those Philips things are not prototypes - they are fake mock ups. How on Earth is that folding screen supposed to work? Did they file a patent for the technology to make that folding screen that has no fold crease visible?
John Stagaman on Jan 25th, 2007 at 10:18 PM:
Rob, why do you continue to write anything about Apple? You rarely say anything of value and just make baseless statements about their products dying off.
Most college students I know have Macintosh computers--they've got a much higher share on college campuses than generally. And every college student I know except one has one or more iPods. If Ruckus won't play on an iPod, supporting the few Plays-for-Sure players that are out there won't make much of a difference.
A few years back you went on and on about how iPod was going to get killed by Plays-for-Sure and it's vast choice of players. But you choose to ignore that people do choose: they choose iPods and choose to ignore the other Plays-for-Sure.
And the Philips thing looks more like a hotpad made in a 3rd grade crafts class than a phone.
Ben Masters on Jan 26th, 2007 at 12:10 AM:
Dude, you're a frickin' joke!
OS9 Author on Jan 26th, 2007 at 4:12 AM:
Enderle still believes that Microsoft wrote the original Mac OS. What do you guys expect?
Ian Eisenberg on Jan 26th, 2007 at 4:49 AM:
Hmmm, weren't those iPhone emulators merely skins?
Loads up the credibility points there Rob. If you can't differentiate between an emulator and a visual theme I think we can ignore the later comparison of the Phillips concept versus the iPhone... oh wait, we can ignore that anyway since it is obviously ridiculous.
F T on Jan 26th, 2007 at 5:04 AM:
Mr. Enderle:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion; I will now give mine:
Reading your article gives me the profound conclusion that you are, in every meaning and sense, an ignorant twit cashing in on iPhone publicity.
The rift between people who adore Apple and the people who abhor Apple are widened by your words, which do nothing to provide a sound comparison between two new cellular phones, two online music stores, and an idea that corporate thievery exists. Your arguments, which potentially interesting and insightful, do nothing to provoke artful thought, but do wonders in polluting an already idiot-filled Internet.
The iPhone and Prada's offering are about as similar as an Ferrari Enzo and a Geo Metro. Yes, they share some similar concepts and hardware. Congratulations for pointing out the obvious, but to ignore the user interface (in lieu of an argument based on carrier network) is a decision I cannot fathom. I would actually like to understand why an unlocked phone is the crux to the comparison between the two - just what percentage of cellular phone customers in the US use (or are aware of) unlocked GSM cellphones? Your point, one of three, escapes me.
The second of your three-pronged plan to garner web traffic was to compare iTunes to this "up and coming" contender, Ruckus. Obviously you have not heard of such companies as Napster. I doubt that any single alternative will take down the monopoly that is the iTunes store. And to use college students as the market that will unravel Apple's iron-clad grip! By the looks of your photo adorning the top of this page, I am under the impression that you are quite far-removed from college - far enough to fail to understand college students' resourcefulness and their willingness to obtain DRM-free media. Shocking, isn't it? College students that don't pay for all their music and movies? What's shocking is that the same DRM you applaud here won't always work on the Zune - and isn't the Zune "virtually any other player than the iPod" as you say? Hm. I'd be virtually shocked to see your predictions come true.
As point number three, you bring to us a shocking cliff-hanger of an idea - are companies stealing ideas from each other?
Yes. Now huddle under your desk, because this might just rock your feeble world.
Companies "steal" ideas from each other all the time.
Your argument though, that the concept "prototypes" derived from the images you provide is thin. None of the pictures even remotely relate to the iPhone. A folding screen? A hand held video conferencing device? None of the hardware, software, or design seems to be echoed in the iPhone, or even the Prada phone, or even a Treo. They all have touch screens. Apparently they are all guilty of pirating Phillips' ideas in your one-man jury.
I understand the almost uncontrollable urge for web journalists to write down something about the iPhone. I've found myself guilty of the same typing-vomit, and have annoyed friends and colleagues already. But please, at least say things with some substance. I've read worse articles, Mr. Enderle, so take heart in that. Just don't ever write again, for the children's sake.
Sincerely,
F T
Ryan Gray on Jan 26th, 2007 at 5:55 AM:
blah, blah, blah, the iPhone is too expensive, blah, blah, blah. Here, I'll prove it with this other phone that seems very similar to the iPhone and I think is even better, blah, blah, blah, and it costs even more ... oh, wait. See this concept mock-up over here, it's , blah, blah, blah.
BigB on Jan 26th, 2007 at 6:08 AM:
Haha Rob! great piece!
I really laughed out loud.
Don't listen to all these Apple Fans, they just don't understand that you're far from a Tech journalist, your a comedy writer. They just have to understand that you're not an expert on anything technical.. then they can appreciate your satire.
Macrohard on Jan 26th, 2007 at 6:22 AM:
Rob, this 'Apple is doomed' rant you're on is getting old. Really. Just stop. It's just getting sad.
Christopher Letzelter on Jan 26th, 2007 at 6:49 AM:
Rob E says: "What I love about the Mac Fans is they put words in my mouth and then call me names for things I didn't actually say. For instance where did I say Apple copied Xerox software or that Apple copied Philips software? "
Well, Rob in the third sentence of your third paragraph you write: "Given that Apple copied Xerox..." This is directly following statements from you about emulators - software imitating the UIs from other companies. UIs are software. The "Apple copied Xerox" statement logically seems to be a continuation of this argument. So...anyone would be right in deducing that you are saying "Apple copied Xerox software."
Quit your backpedalling, Rob. You're bumping into the wall.
DIMEBAG on Jan 26th, 2007 at 7:23 AM:
You're kidding, right?
Jason Howard on Jan 26th, 2007 at 7:59 AM:
Oh how i love these threads...
Brett on Jan 26th, 2007 at 10:29 AM:
LOL Apple Zealots rule, they are like blind lemmings...
That guy that runs Daring Fireball is a moron btw.
Jeff Foster on Jan 26th, 2007 at 10:49 AM:
those "prototypes" (which are actually "concepts") are friggin' hilarious! nice finds.
i dont really understand how they relate at all to the iPhone. ...are they coming to market? are there even working prototypes? ...do they have ANYTHING in common with the iPhone other than just that they are neato handheld devices?
Saying that the iPhone copied these concepts is about as sensical as saying that Apple copied Star Trek because they had pretend handheld thingies that could do stuff.
You know, if you're this desperate for page impressions that you're willing to just troll - you could probably just poop in your hand and smear it on your face, make a video of it and put it on youtube. That'd probably get even more hits.
...i bet people would actually pay to see that. It'll be just about as good for your "tech reputation" as these articles are.
Brett on Jan 26th, 2007 at 11:06 AM:
Jeff Foster,
Do you not get what Rob is trying to say? Did you even read the article? Apple is borrowing "concepts" from other manufacturers I.E. Philips....
C-Hole on Jan 26th, 2007 at 3:17 PM:
Rob Enderle, please read the following:
Do not ever write again. Whatever little credibility and reputation you had before this editorial was written has since been destroyed.
You are an idiot, and everyone thinks so.
Chris M. on Jan 26th, 2007 at 4:12 PM:
Dear C-Hole,
You are addicted to Apple and sound like a moron. Move on please. Your kool-aid is waiting.
Lettuce on Jan 26th, 2007 at 5:18 PM:
I love Rob Enderle.
So jealous of Apple, so lonely and sad.
If he didn't exist, you'd have to invent him.
Jason Smith on Jan 26th, 2007 at 5:21 PM:
Brett, Rob... if you're going to be claiming that using ideas from a non-product, from a film of a concept only is 'stealing', then Philips obviously was a decade late.
I'd point you to the Knowledge Navigator ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Navigator),... a folding screen, avatar-rich, search-assisting system concept that connected wireless over networks even in the middle of a city park. In 1987.
The company that produced the concept videos?
Apple.
Apparently it took Philips nine years to catch on to the idea...
Chris M. on Jan 26th, 2007 at 5:43 PM:
Yup, Apple is 100% original guys...never stole any idea...
BTW the name iPaq was created before iPod....coincedence?
Andreas Pizsa on Jan 27th, 2007 at 6:00 AM:
Your articles seriously make me wonder what it might be that makes you so afraid of Apple? Do you fear Steve Job's world domination? Has anyone ever forced you to use an Apple product?
You know, it might make a bit of sense if your "analysis", "conclusions" and "projections" would include any deep insight, but I'm really having a hard time finding any in your articles. So, there's iTunes and there's some new platform Ruckus, and yes, that's fine! Some people will be happy with iTunes, some will love Ruckus, maybe some will even use both - but what makes you think that either one would be "better" than the other - and how do you measure that? By number of users? I would expect that anyone who calls himself an "analyist" to be aware that one can have a very comfortable place and be very profitable in a niche market. You don't need to be "the biggest" to be the best, kust like Apple is actually a niche player in the PC market place - it's been one for decades. Also, Apple doesn't have to lose in order for Ruckus to win, and vice versa. I really wonder why you are so much into zero-sum thinking. And what really annoys me is that you just seem to be against Apple and are seeking arguments to make your case. That's - excuse me - just cheap, lame and ridiculous...
So, to answer your "iPhone vs.Prada" question: fine, you go buy yourself a Prada phone. That's really cool, seriously. And you'll download songs with Ruckus. Perfect!
Now, what's your point again? "Rob Enderle favors Prada over Apple based on his biased assumptions."? "Rob Enderle wants the world to know he dislikes Apple (but doesn't say why)" ? That's hardly big news - is it?
Regards,
Andreas Pizsa
Network23 on Jan 27th, 2007 at 10:49 PM:
Sir, what a clueless idiot you are.
Smiley on Jan 28th, 2007 at 10:05 AM:
Apple Zeaolots Rule.
Have fun playing all of those available computer games....
hahah poor suckers!
Joe Bush on Jan 29th, 2007 at 8:25 AM:
Rob, can you publish a book on how to get paid for being a complete dumb-ass? I'd really like to make a career change.
Smiley on Jan 29th, 2007 at 11:49 AM:
Rob Bush is a tool.
"I follow the lemmings"
I love making fun of Mac users, they make it soooo easy!! LOL
Dave M. on Jan 30th, 2007 at 8:39 AM:
"Given that Apple copied Xerox (another good reference site) and swiped the name for the phone itself we probably should chat a bit about the irony of this and point out that on the web, euthanizing an idea can be incredibly difficult."
Given that Apple was shown a GUI that Xerox was working on and knew it wouldn't see the light of day, they showed it to Apple. Something that any normal company would never do to protect their IP. Later Xerox attempted to sue Apple. Why? My guess is that they saw that Microsoft was attempting to sue them and figured that they would join the party. Boo hoo for Xerox for all but giving away their GUI idea.
As for the iPhone, are you not aware that Apple owns the trademark iPhone internationally? Cisco had the name iPhone for years and did nothing with it. It wasn't until rumors of Apple creating a phone that made Cisco jump and actually join a product to the name.
I say, we let the lawyers fight over that one and see who wins.
Alex on Jan 30th, 2007 at 9:53 AM:
I see what you mean these non working prototypes are communication devices. Obviously Apple ripped off the idea.
Did someone slip LSD in your tea again?
Danny on Jan 30th, 2007 at 10:34 AM:
Smiley, when you grow up and move out of your parents house and get a real job - then you can post. For Mac users, the number of available games are not important.
Reliability, mission critical applications that actually work, integrated concepts, improved productivity, passion for our work and of course deadlines are important to Mac users. People with those demands demand a computer that only Apple has thus far provided.
We are only Apple zealots because Microsoft hasn't done what Apple has. No matter what spec or idea you point to, your argument is flawed. This is because no other company has had the ability to give it's customers the quality, security and satisfaction that Apple has.
Microsoft locked in the business buck in the early days and Apple has had to play catch up. Now that people see their computer as more than an extension of their office, Macs are making a profound comeback. I help people everyday switch to a Mac. I switched to a Mac and others like me are posting about it. It is more than just a zealots call. It's a tangible trend. Don't be the last to find out what the fuss is all about.
Take Windows Vista, great concept with absolutely the poorest implementation. Implementation is key and the company that creates the best tool for the job gets my vote every time. It's the same reason that iTunes and iPod has ruled for so long. An easy, complete experience is what consumers demand now. No one wants to fuddle with time consuming jerry rigged solutions. We demand it because are lives are more important than our PC's.
Who wants to bother with unfamiliar and confusing UI's when Apple has the elegant and simple iPhone? It would be like buying a toaster that had a keypad instead of the obviously simple lever. Except the later device would actually achieve the desired amount of toasting whereas the complicated keypad toaster would constantly return bad results and only marginally function if not blow up.
Which one would you buy if you had an unbiased or slanted opinion? The only people saying bad things about Macs are the people who don't use them everyday. Yet the people switching to a Mac and becoming a zealot like me have actually used Windows for quite some time. Why would you trust the review of a person who hasn't even used the product for purposes other than finding the flaws?
Smiley on Jan 30th, 2007 at 2:34 PM:
"Smiley, when you grow up and move out of your parents house and get a real job - then you can post. For Mac users, the number of available games are not important. "
So what is important then? That I cannot use an Apple at work for lack of support, that I cannot play games because there are few for it?
I am not paying $2000 for a machine that I would use for a calendar and iTunes, I am sorry...
bob on Jan 30th, 2007 at 3:57 PM:
Slight nit...
Rukus doesn't allow you to burn a CD and the Zune is also not supported (since it can't play 'Plays for Sure' music.
Also Rukus won't run on Macs, even using the windows media player.
Carl (different one) on Jan 30th, 2007 at 10:44 PM:
I'm not sure why Vista came up here, but I think Vista is an awesome operating system. Copied OS X? Sure, and it's about time. They've really listened to their customers and I think it shows. Kudos to Microsoft on this one. It's also damn snappy on my MacBookPro.
If you're looking to discredit a device by finding earlier versions of similar devices then there are actually even earlier developments to the idea of a touch sensitive "tab" (palm-sized computing devices) and prototypes and mockups have existed since the late eighties, especially in universities and places like PARC http://www.ubiq.com/parctab/ )
The multi-touch system was also copied off Jeff Han's research ( http://cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/ ). The idea of contact cards originally was copied off Rolodex. I've worked on audio system navigation and I can tell you that many people have tried (and failed) to convince companies to support a visual navigation system for audio content (visual voicemail as Apple calls it)
These concepts are not new. If Apple is to be faulted for anything, it's for implying that they came up with any of these ideas for the iPhone. That is false and unconscionable.
However, they have assembled them into a package that allows regular consumers to actually use these developments. I work designing interfaces for phones and I'm ecstatic because this may mean that we are now given more freedom to meet and exceed the interface ideas the iPhone is bringing to the table, instead of being constantly forced to copy the same old navigation systems (with shinier icons!) that phones had in the mid nineties.
Danny on Jan 31st, 2007 at 1:53 AM:
"So what is important then? That I cannot use an Apple at work for lack of support, that I cannot play games because there are few for it?
I am not paying $2000 for a machine that I would use for a calendar and iTunes, I am sorry..." -Smiley
I refer you to my earlier post:
"Reliability, mission critical applications that actually work, integrated concepts, improved productivity, passion for our work and of course deadlines are important to Mac users. People with those demands demand a computer that only Apple has thus far provided." ...
... "The only people saying bad things about Macs are the people who don't use them everyday."
If you really care about games them save money and buy a console. Computers are not solely for gaming. Wake up!
Macs are the MOST compatible of any computer I have used. They can run any OS you want and run it well. With OS X, some extra software and it's amazing efficiency you can even do it simultaneously. Have you checked the system requirements to run Vista? Talk about a bloated system. Compare that to Mac OS X. Ultimate requires 40GB of HD space just for the install!!
And I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of Macs below $2000 and 3 of them below $1000. You better get off the couch and learn a bit about the world around you.
To tie this all back to the topic:
When somebody takes inspiration from another's idea and actually improves on it or makes it a real live product shouldn't be sued or harassed. They should be applauded for their innovation. Sitting on technology for the sake of profit is a crime. Consumers, no, the human race has suffered so much from companies being idiotic. Advanced fuel alternatives have been available for decades. Yet car manufactures have sat on the technology for the sake of profits and now they are paying the price with dwindling profits (GM, Ford). Microsoft did the same thing and so have the cellular companies. Obviously this technology was available. But it took a company that likes to "Think Different" to actually implement it. LG should have announced it earlier when they had a chance. But it looks like they were too worried about their melting chocolate.
Can someone give me a valid response please? Smiley's game argument is the most ridiculous I have ever heard.
Smiley on Jan 31st, 2007 at 9:36 AM:
Danny you need to wake up!
I refer you to my earlier post:
"Reliability, mission critical applications that actually work, integrated concepts, improved productivity, passion for our work and of course deadlines are important to Mac users. People with those demands demand a computer that only Apple has thus far provided." ...
Apple is not as reliable as you state. If Apple had the 97% marketshare that Windows had, there would be security issues too ;)
... "The only people saying bad things about Macs are the people who don't use them everyday."
I like Macs, I really do, but they cannot handle everything that I need. I like to game and the Apple systems are not feeding my need.
"If you really care about games them save money and buy a console. Computers are not solely for gaming. Wake up!"
I think you are showing your age here. Maybe you need to remind Dell, HP, VoodooPC, Alienware, Velocity Micro etc about consoles, because apparently gaming on a PC just doesn't make sense to you. I will call Blizzard and the other PC game makers and remind them of this too ;)
You are seriously so blinded by Apple it makes you look crazy.
I would also argue that most Apple users are not very technical people, you need things to be as simple as possible because of your ignorance.
Ross Brown on Jan 31st, 2007 at 5:12 PM:
I love this old argument: "If Apple had the 97% marketshare that Windows had, there would be security issues too ;)"
(the original poster actually said reliability, not security but I'll allow that to pass for now).
How quiet would Mac users get if there was one single in the wild virus for OS X? All it would take is one. But there isn't. A virus for OS X would cause headlines around the world and create a Windows fanboy hero. So the 97% argument doesn't hold much water.
"I would also argue that most Apple users are not very technical people, you need things to be as simple as possible because of your ignorance."
More likely the opposite: as someone once pointed out to me, every Mac user will have had to use Windows, very few Windows users will have used a Mac. Mac users have made a choice therefore to ignore the mainstream. Is this ignorance?
I've worked with Windows since 3.11, Linux on and off and Macs since System 7: I prefer Macs, that's all there is to it. I look the way the OS works, it makes sense to me. I get more done cause things work more 'obviously' to me.
That's my preference, it's not everybody's. Fine. Whatever. You guys enjoy Vista and I'll look forward to Leopard.
Oh - and Mr Enderle, I have never read such an appallingly-researched article on technology in my life. Your understanding of basic concepts is shocking. The connections you make between unconnected elements of the story are tenuous to say the least. And your historical references are distorted to say the least.
I've worked as a journalist on and off for almost 20 years, and I'd have been ashamed to have an article of mine cause such derision.
RB
Danny on Jan 31st, 2007 at 9:30 PM:
Smiley, I think we are at the same point here. You like your PC for gaming and I like my Mac for everything else. I am only 25 and I have a professional career yet I also play some Warcraft when I have time. By the way, you should try the Nintendo Wii. One word: Amazing!
PC Gaming is surely dominated by PC's - I do not dispute this. But to make a decision on your sole OS based off of gaming is a bad idea and narrow minded.
Like I said (paraphrase) before: Once you move out of your parents house and have to get a real job, gaming on your PC will be secondary to your productivity unless, of course, you plan on not succeeding.
I understand where you are coming from. Once I had used Mac OS X for a bit and took my head out of Microsoft's A** I started to realize how much Windows held me back. Except in video games, which is all Windows is good for at this point. Well, that and spreading viruses.
Back on topic though. Apple has actually brought the products to market that others have only dreamed of. The total package and not just a hash of multi-party profit manipulating concepts. I have longed for a phone that didn't try to trick me into spending money on things I never wanted. I constantly struggle to find phones that are easy to use and not weighed down by a ridiculous amount of buttons or overweighed interface. As cool as some phones are, they lack elegant design and thoughtful input. Apple has made the phone I have been searching for. If you want something less than buy something else. As for me I appreciate the amazing effort to build the phone no one else had the courage or ability to build.
Respond on topic please. I am done with the video game argument.
Smiley on Feb 1st, 2007 at 9:34 AM:
Danny,
You obviously have control issues as you are trying to manipulate the arguement - disregard what I say as rubbish, and regard what you say as "on-topic".
First of all, I am a grown man with a family, so I do not appreciate your patronizing comments.
Secondly, I will agree that we both use computers for different purposes. While you may think that Apple has brought to market products that "people dream of" I can assure you that while you may be dreaming of the Apple, 90%+ of the people out there are dreaming of other things.
How has Apple made the phone you are searching for? Have you tried it yet? You act like you have, so let me ask you a few things:
1)How is the call reception?
2)Has it "crashed" on your yet?
3) How responsive is the touch screen? Does it get smudges on it easily?
4) What is the startup time? Does it take a while to boot up?
5) Are the applications easy to use?
The fact that you are blindly in love with an Apple product that is not out yet, tell me that you are not a reliable source of information for anything. You are clearly a big Apple fan, and a biased one at that.
"Once I had used Mac OS X for a bit and took my head out of Microsoft's A** I started to realize how much Windows held me back."
Well it looks like you have gone from sticking your head up one ass, to sticking it up another...let me know how that works out for you! ;)
Jason on Feb 1st, 2007 at 9:46 AM:
I use a mac everyday at work, and I use windows at home.
There are some things I love about the mac and some things that drive me insane. For example, I hate not having keyboard shortcuts for somethings (or I just havent figured them out yet.)
For example, if you are closing an application like textedit and you have a document you've edited. You get the dialog that asks if you want to Save, Not to Save or to Cancel. Save is hilighted, but I dont know the keyboard shortcuts to the others. In windows you can just hit "S", or "Alt+S" for save, and you have other short cuts for the cancel button.
This is just a small example, but little things like that drive me nuts. I come from using the keyboard 80 - 90% of the time on windows doing daily work to being forced to use the mouse more. I'm sure there are ways to do the same thing on a Mac, I just dont know how. There isnt anything that tells me how.
Anyways, I like my mac for productivity in terms of writing code. I hate it for everything else.
I agree with Smiley on gaming. I am a father of two, and when I have time to play games I like to play PC games. Console games dont do it for me unless it's Guitar Hero -\nn/
I like the look/feel of OS X, but vista is really cool too and I think it's leaps ahead of XP.
In any case, you'll always have two camps.
Back to ontopic: THE PHONE.
I like the look and design of the iPhone. I'm really really curious on battery life. I can't imagine something like that having good battery life, and since you can't replace the battery or carry a second one, it could be a pretty bad situation. Another bad situation is not having the phone open to 3rd party apps? Why not. Lord knows OS X needs all the help it can get at times for 3rd party developers. This could be a big boost to people moving to the mac and developing them.
From what I've seen on how you control the phone, it's damn cool.
Marc Edwards on Feb 4th, 2007 at 5:06 PM:
"For example, if you are closing an application like textedit and you have a document you've edited. You get the dialog that asks if you want to Save, Not to Save or to Cancel. Save is hilighted, but I dont know the keyboard shortcuts to the others. In windows you can just hit "S", or "Alt+S" for save, and you have other short cuts for the cancel button."
Enter or return = Highlighted action ("Save" in this case)
Escape = Cancel
Apple + D = Don't Save
Escape and Return/Enter work like that in all apps and Apple + the first letter of the action works quite often.
Regarding the iPhone and other bits: What most people seem to get wrong is that the iPhone really isn't anything new. Calling, SMSing, applications, voicemail, etc, etc, etc... all old news. The reason why the iPhone should be brilliant is because of it's inbuilt software AND corresponding computer software (yep, trust me on this one!).
That's why the iPod is great. The iPod itself is good, but it's iTunes, the iTunes store and the way things work that makes it amazing.
If someone wants to make an iPod killer, they'll have to make an iTunes killer. I wish the Zune was... competition is healthy.
And as for some LG Prada v iPhone comparisons... The LG runs Java apps with Flash for its UI. The iPhone runs OS X with cocoa apps and uses Core Animation for its UI. Even if they looked the same (they don't), it's quite a substantial achievement to use full-featured and world leading techs for a handheld device.
Liquidmark on Feb 6th, 2007 at 5:36 PM:
Rob, Apple had permission to use the GUI concept (I'm addressing the notion of Apple copying [I.E. Stealing from] Xerox). Steve Wozniac seems to disagree.
http://www.woz.org/letters/pirates/12.html
Here's an excerpt:
"WOZ:
Steve Jobs made the case to Xerox PARC execs directly that they had great technology but that Apple knew how to make it affordable enough to change the world. This was very open. In the end, Xerox got a large block of Apple stock for sharing the technology. That's not stealing outright. "
Hmm... >_>
Plus, Xerox Star and the original release of Lisa OS as well as System 1, had fundamental differences.
XEROX Star: http://toastytech.com/guis/star.html
XEROX Alto: http://toastytech.com/guis/alto.html
Lisa OS: http://toastytech.com/guis/lisaos1LisaTour.html
Apple 2 Desktop: http://toastytech.com/guis/a2desk.html
System 1 (Macintosh): http://toastytech.com/guis/macos1.html
Hmm, they don't look alike to me
Not only that, but they used different implementations of the mouse and such.
acriste on Nov 5th, 2007 at 11:03 AM:
It looks like the Mac and PC World War has started up again. And it looks like the battlefield is now in the cellular phone space with occasional skirmishes in the OS space. :)
Gourmet Chocolate on Dec 19th, 2007 at 2:19 PM:
i definately vote for the iphone.
Utkarsh on Feb 1st, 2008 at 12:16 AM:
You know, I AGREE with Rob Enderle. Apple stole the idea from Philips. But what really hurts me is that he failed to mention that when I was in school, I had told my crush on our first date that I wanted to make a phone with a touch screen and ice cream cone icons - so technically philips stole from me and Apple owes me royalty. And Mr. Rob Enderle, you owe me an apology.
Comment on this article
Please keep your comments relevant to this article. Email addresses are not displayed, they are only required to verify you are human.
When you submit your comment, an email will be sent to your email address with a confirmation link. Once you have clicked on that confirmation link your comment will be posted.
HTML is not allowed.

Rob Enderle on Jan 25th, 2007 at 4:16 PM:
Did Apple copy Xerox?
Yes
References:
http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/the2steves92...
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/920526....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft
http://www.stanford.edu/~siegman/interface_history...
http://www.answers.com/topic/apple-computer-inc-v-...