Home > Wireless > The CrunchPad is Proof the iPad was Obvious

The CrunchPad is Proof the iPad was Obvious

Wireless 121 Comments

The CrunchPad (and its eventual consumer incarnation the JooJoo) is often presented as proof of obviousness in the iPad’s design. For the first time, we have an interesting insider view on this matter – Nik Cubrilovic was involved with Micheal Arrington’s CrunchPad project from the very beginning, and has written a lengthy blog post about how the CrunchPad really is proof the iPad’s design was obvious.

Most of the time, arguments surrounding prior art and obviousness come from lawyers and their drummed up experts in court cases. It’s also pretty common for us regular folk to discuss these matters. What isn’t common, however, is to have someone who actually worked on a product that makes up prior art and/or proof of obviousness in important and possibly far-reaching legal cases provide his or her view.

Nik Cubrilovic worked on the CrunchPad project (he even built prototypes), and thus, can offer interesting insights into this matter. “[The CrunchPad] was an attempt to build a cheap tablet computer and we started the project a full two years before the iPad was announced. Apple is attempting to patent protect features of a design that we had published years before the iPad was announced. Our own designs were inspired by previous tablet designs, and minimalism in a tablet wasn’t first seen with Apple and the iPad,” he details, “We had no idea about the iPad, nor the patents, and I would consider us to be ordinary observers, and the design we came up with is exactly like what iPad became.”

It’s hard to disagree with Cubrilovic’s conclusion here. I had forgotten just how much even the earliest mock-up of the CrunchPad looks like an iPad, and the first mock-up was released a full 18 months before Apple announced the iPad.

Thomas Baekdal has written an excellent article taking apart the iPad’s “design”, based on information coming from the various court cases between Apple and Samsung. Look at the list of options Apple has given to Samsung so Samsung can avoid Apple’s design patent wrath:

  • Front surface that isn’t black.
  • Overall shape that isn’t rectangular, or doesn’t have rounded corners.
  • Display screens that aren’t centered on the front face and have substantial lateral borders.
  • Non-horizontal speaker slots.
  • No front bezel at all.
  • Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface.
  • Profiles that aren’t thin.
  • Front surfaces with substantial adornment.
  • Cluttered appearance.

The funny thing is – all these things, supposedly now the property of Apple, are present in the very first CrunchPad mock-up, and all the prototypes that followed, all the way up to the Joo Joo, which was released four months before the iPad. Sure, the Joo Joo sold like three times, but that doesn’t matter. Success is irrelevant in these matters.

I’m not arguing that Apple copied the CrunchPad or the Joo Joo – no, they where designed at the same time, in the same time frame. And lo and behold, without Apple ever releasing any information about the iPad, a completely separate group of people comes up with the exact same design. Any engineer, software or hardware, will tell you this is not uncommon – give a group of engineers a problem to solve, and many will come up with similar solutions.

All this serves to illustrate why I have so many issues with the way companies like Apple abuse the broken patent system. What if the CrunchPad had been a success? Would the people involved have been able to withstand Apple’s patent wrath?

Is this really the technology world we want to live in?

About The Author

Thom Holwerda

Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]

121 Comments

  1. 2011-12-09 11:56 pm
    Punktyras

    <…> is often presented as prof of obviousness <…>

    prof -> proof

  2. 2011-12-10 12:30 am
    Licaon_Kter

    Evolutionary ideas are not unique: http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/nov/16/idea-time-c…

    • 2011-12-10 1:30 am
      bnolsen

      Tell that to the judges and lawyers. Can you just imagine how much money is getting tossed to lawyers over all of this?

  3. 2011-12-10 1:50 am
    redshift

    Long before Apple’s iPhone and iPad saw the light of day, I saw plenty of people describing what the though apple should make on fan sites. There were some that suggested very similar things to what Apple made.

    That said… putting it all together in the right way at the right time is really what made made the difference. An original idea is not enough on its own with out the right timing and execution.

    • 2011-12-10 4:07 am
      bnolsen

      Apple proved your point by bringing a compelling product to market first., initially grabbing a lion’s share. The problem is that Apple doesn’t want to have to compete in an open market with increasing competitors so they are trying to close it down.

      Edited 2011-12-10 04:08 UTC

      • 2011-12-10 6:25 pm
        tupp

        Apple proved your point by bringing a compelling product to market first.

        Actually, the Crunchpad/JooJoo went to market before the Ipad.

        • 2011-12-10 10:33 pm
          MOS6510

          Well, he did say compelling product. The Joojoo was anything but, unlike the iPad.

          • 2011-12-10 10:49 pm
            tupp

            Well, he did say compelling product. The Joojoo was anything but, unlike the iPad.

            The JooJoo preceded the Ipad to market and it had rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel, just like the Ipad later had.

            What exactly do you mean by compelling? Exactly what was not compelling on the JooJoo that was compelling on the Ipad?

          • 2011-12-10 11:51 pm
            MOS6510

            Bnolsen said Apple brought the first compelling tablet to market. You said the Joojoo came before it.

            I think it’s pretty obvious the Joojoo wasn’t a compelling product, like all pre-iPad tablets.

          • 2011-12-11 12:19 am
            tupp

            Bnolsen said Apple brought the first compelling tablet to market. You said the Joojoo came before it. I think it’s pretty obvious the Joojoo wasn’t a compelling product, like all pre-iPad tablets.

            As I figured, your statement was based on assumption, not fact.

          • 2011-12-11 6:29 am
            MOS6510

            Compare sales figures and reviews of the Joojoo and iPad.

            One was crap and didn’t sell, one is great and does sell.

            Your hatred of Apple must be pretty big if you think the Joojoo was a more compelling device than the iPad.

          • 2011-12-11 7:04 am
            tupp

            Compare sales figures and reviews of the Joojoo and iPad. One was crap and didn’t sell, one is great and does sell.

            Reviews of the JooJoo were great. Do you have any reviews that show otherwise? If so, be precise and exact about what was better or worse about either item.

            Your hatred of Apple must be pretty big if you think the Joojoo was a more compelling device than the iPad.

            Your blind adoration of Apple must be enormous if you can’t back up your assertions with exact points or evidence.

          • 2011-12-11 7:16 am
            MOS6510

            Don’t be silly, the Joojoo was a portable webbrowser and a bad one.

            Here’s the first review hit:

            http://m.engadget.com/default/article.do?artUrl=http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/04/28/joojoo-linux-tablet-hits-uk-tod…

            Edited 2011-12-11 07:17 UTC

          • 2011-12-11 7:24 am
            Moredhas

            If the Joojoo was just a web browser, what is the iPad? I sold my iPad because it turned out to be nothing but a web browser. Granted, I knew what I was getting into when I bought it, but I didn’t anticipate just how inconvenient Apple’s iron-fist approach to computing would be for me.

          • 2011-12-11 7:33 am
            MOS6510

            My son uses it to play games and watch video.

            My wife uses it for surfing, show pictures to friends and banking (not via the webbrowser).

            I use it to surf, watch video, stream music, play games, read ebooks, email.

          • 2011-12-11 7:56 am
            MOS6510

            And I forget what I use it most for: reading news (RSS reader, Flipboard, Zite)

            Oh, and Facebook & Twitter.

          • 2011-12-11 9:59 pm
            Moredhas

            At it’s best, the iPad is just an advertising vector. Those games, some are free and ad supported, others aren’t, and you probably bought them thanks to advertising. I still maintain the only useful function of the iPad is web browsing, and the only way to make the iPad useful for anything else is with apps Apple didn’t make (have you tried using Pages for anything important?).

            I read books on mine for a while, and then went back to my e-ink ebook reader that didn’t have an eye-stabbing backlight, and I used to play games on it, but got sick of buying things Android owners got for free, and still being advertised at for the privilege of giving Apple more money. The iPad is frankly useless junk, and the only reason it sold is because of the Apple logo on it. When it was announced, all the pundits were expecting a tablet Mac, what they got was a giant iPod Touch, and just because Apple is more a religion than a tech company, people, including me, handed over fistfulls of cash for it.

          • 2011-12-11 11:20 pm
            brichpmr

            At it’s best, the iPad is just an advertising vector. Those games, some are free and ad supported, others aren’t, and you probably bought them thanks to advertising. I still maintain the only useful function of the iPad is web browsing, and the only way to make the iPad useful for anything else is with apps Apple didn’t make (have you tried using Pages for anything important?).

            I read books on mine for a while, and then went back to my e-ink ebook reader that didn’t have an eye-stabbing backlight, and I used to play games on it, but got sick of buying things Android owners got for free, and still being advertised at for the privilege of giving Apple more money. The iPad is frankly useless junk, and the only reason it sold is because of the Apple logo on it. When it was announced, all the pundits were expecting a tablet Mac, what they got was a giant iPod Touch, and just because Apple is more a religion than a tech company, people, including me, handed over fistfulls of cash for it.

            Dozens of employees in my enterprise have been issued iPads in place of their Dell laptops. Most would heartily disagree with assertion that the iPad is useless junk.

          • 2011-12-11 5:16 pm
            tupp

            Don’t be silly, the Joojoo was a portable webbrowser and a bad one.

            Here’s the first review hit:

            http://www.engadget.” rel=”nofollow”>http://m.engadget.com/default/article.do?artUrl=

  • 2011-12-11 5:57 pm
    MOS6510

    You are changing the subject. You claimed the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet and the iPad wasn’t.

    What sucked about it:

    Battery life at 5 hours

    Screen viewing angle

    Web browser

    Its email client, it had none

    Its video player, it had none

    Its music player, it had none

    Its calendar, it had none

    Its address book, it had none

    For the same price you could buy an iPad, which did have all those features. This alone would make a JooJoo not compelling.

    Sales show this as only 64 were sold.

    The iPad set record sales and still does. This proves it is a compelling product and by far the most compelling tablet ever.

  • 2011-12-12 9:00 pm
    tupp

    You are changing the subject. You claimed the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet and the iPad wasn’t.

    Huh? I am trying to get you to stick to the subject.

    You are once more deluded if you maintain that I claimed that “the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet and the Ipad wasn’t.” Please give a link to a post in which I made such a claim.

    I am not suggesting that the JooJoo is more or less compelling than the Ipad — I am simply saying that the JooJoo preceded the Ipad to design and market, and there is nothing remarkably superior/inferior about either item.

    Battery life at 5 hours

    A matter of degree.

    Five hours is less than the Ipad, but it doesn’t suck. The JooJoo had almost twice the screen space.

    Also, battery life is not an issue involved in the Ipad obviousness case.

    Screen viewing angle

    Also, a matter of degree.

    A wide screen viewing angle can be good or bad, depending on what is important to the user. A narrower angle is good if privacy is a concern, and several people could watch a JooJoo simultaneously without any trouble — so, the Joojoo’s viewing angle didn’t suck, especially for anyone who wants privacy.

    Also, screen viewing angle is not an issue involved in the Ipad obviousness case.

    Web browser

    Huh? The JooJoo sucked because it had a web browser?

    Regardless, “Web browser” is not an issue involved in the Ipad obviousness case.

    Its email client, it had none

    Of course, one could access any web-based email with the default Joojoo software.

    However, the Joojoo OS was Linux. So, there are examples of people easily installing Linux email clients on the Joojoo.

    At any rate, lack of a default email client is not an issue involved in the Ipad obviousness case.

    Its video player, it had none

    Of course, one could play almost any video within the default Joojoo interface, including Flash video, of which the Ipad was incapable.

    However, the Joojoo OS was Linux. So, it is very easy to install any number of Linux video players on the Joojoo.

    Furthermore, lack of a default, dedicated video player is not an issue involved in the Ipad obviousness case.

    Its music player, it had none

    Of course, one could play almost any music file within the default Joojoo interface.

    However, the Joojoo OS was Linux. So, it is very easy to install any number of Linux music players on the Joojoo.

    Nonetheless, lack of a default, dedicated music player is not an issue involved in the Ipad obviousness case.

    Its calendar, it had none

    Not sure about this claim. I think there was a default calender.

    Anyway, one could access any web-based calendar with the default Joojoo software.

    However, the Joojoo OS was Linux. So, it is very easy to install any number of Linux calendars on the Joojoo

    Also, lack of a default, dedicated calendar would not be an issue involved in the Ipad obviousness case.

    Its address book, it had none

    Of course, one could access any web-based calendar with the default Joojoo software.

    However, the Joojoo OS was Linux. So, it is very easy to install any number of Linux address book clients on the Joojoo

    Likewise, lack of a default, dedicated address book would not be an issue involved in the Ipad obviousness case.

    Also, I would like to remind you that for all the apps that you say that the JooJoo lacked, any web-app version of on app could easily run offline on the JooJoo.

    For the same price you could buy an iPad, which did have all those features. This alone would make a JooJoo not compelling.

    Except there are built-in features that the JooJoo had, that the Ipad didn’t, rendering the Ipad less compelling. The Ipad:

    -didn’t have Flash video;

    -didn’t have a camera;

    -didn’t have a built-in USB port.

    The software that the JooJoo lacks by default can be easily installed and remedied, but lack of essential hardware is a huge problem for the Ipad, and how do you get around the lack of Flash in such a proprietary, walled garden? Those are unsolvable problems that truly suck for an Ipad owner.

    So, the Ipad is crappier than the JooJoo.

    Sales show this as only 64 were sold.

    So, what?

    The iPad set record sales and still does. This proves it is a compelling product and by far the most compelling tablet ever.

    Yes. Just as Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber are more compelling than the Beatles.

  • 2011-12-12 10:02 pm
    MOS6510

    You are changing the subject. You claimed the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet and the iPad wasn’t.

    Huh? I am trying to get you to stick to the subject.

    You are once more deluded if you maintain that I claimed that “the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet and the Ipad wasn’t.” Please give a link to a post in which I made such a claim.

    bnolsen: Apple proved your point by bringing a compelling product to market first.

    tupp: Actually, the Crunchpad/JooJoo went to market before the iPad.

    MOS6510: Well, he did say compelling product. The Joojoo was anything but, unlike the iPad.

    tupp: What exactly do you mean by compelling? Exactly what was not compelling on the JooJoo that was compelling on the iPad?

    This started the whole “compelling” discussion, wether the JooJoo or the iPad was the fist compelling tablet.

    A narrower angle is good if privacy is a concern, and several people could watch a JooJoo simultaneously without any trouble — so, the Joojoo’s viewing angle didn’t suck, especially for anyone who wants privacy.

    This is very funny if you think what the odds are of several people watching a JooJoo.

    [Software]

    No, it didn’t have a calendar, nor any way to install software. Perhaps if you are a hacker type you could manage it, which leaves out 99.99% of the average customer.

    I mentioned the JooJoo browser as a bad point, not because it had one, but because the one is had sucked. It didn’t even remember your credentials which makes it very cumbersome. My iPad makes a noise and puts up an unread number when I receive mail. The JooJoo makes you log in manually to see if you have any new mail.

    Flash sucked on the JooJoo reducing battery life even more and making the device very hot. Sure the iPad does’t have it, but does it matter? I don’t miss it, like most iPad users don’t (just like the USB port, why would you want to attach anything to a mobile device making it immobile?). You can still watch YouTube or YouTube embedded clips on websites. Most non-YouTube clips also play. I can’t even remember when I last had a missing flash moment.

    Just as Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber are more compelling than the Beatles

    Your fascination of Justing Bieber is disturbing. The question isn’t who is more compelling, but who was the first to be compelling which are the Beatles by a long shot.

  • 2011-12-13 5:43 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    “Flash sucked on the JooJoo reducing battery life even more and making the device very hot. Sure the iPad does’t have it, but does it matter? I don’t miss it, like most iPad users don’t (just like the USB port, why would you want to attach anything to a mobile device making it immobile?)”

    These arguments don’t make any sense. It’s better to have a choice than to make excuses for not having a choice.

  • 2011-12-13 5:50 pm
    MOS6510

    I guess like not having a car or having one that drives very slowly on the high way yet burning fuel at an alarming rate.

    Apple chose it was better not to have an experience than giving you a bad one.

    Sure, it may have been nicer if you could chose for yourself, but honestly I don’t miss Flash. Java is also missing, which was something I wasn’t sure off for a while because that’s also something that doesn’t come up very often while surfing.

    I’d rather have Java than Flash on my iPad.

  • 2011-12-13 7:11 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    “I guess like not having a car or having one that drives very slowly on the high way yet burning fuel at an alarming rate.”

    There was a local law being contemplated to ban outdoor patio heaters on the grounds that they were inefficient, however it was proven that they actually heated the patios rather efficiently. In other words, the goal of heating outdoor space is inefficient, while the means to do so may be technically efficient.

    In the same vein, having interactive apps on web pages may indeed consume more power than not having them, but if it’s intentional, then what’s really the point in banning them? Of course, the guzzling car and patio heater are ecologically unsound, hence the motivation to ban them, however I doubt any normal person would use this argument against interactive browser apps.

    Apple’s true reason for banning interactive web technologies like flash, java, silverlight, etc: they compete with apple’s store. This is old news.

    Maybe you don’t mind apple making choices for you, but your argument that a competitor was worse because they gave users a choice doesn’t make sense.

  • 2011-12-13 7:29 pm
    MOS6510

    I guess a JooJoo running flash could heat a patio.

    But seriously, why Apple bans certain stuff is speculative. Sure they don’t want stuff bypassing the app store. But it is also well known that Flash doesn’t run well on mobile devices and it isn’t like Steve to ruin a beautiful device with crappy Flash performance. Perhaps he’d rather have complaints about not having Flash than complaints about the performance of Flash.

    In my view Flash is only used for intro’s (which I skip), video’s and games. I don’t play games in a browser and most video’s work. More and more website are iPad aware and don’t serve video that can’t be played on it. Really, I can’t remember when I last couldn’t see something because Flash was missing (or Java, Silverlight, Air).

    Had the iPad been able to play Flash websites kept serving Flash stuff, draining batteries, overheating devices and crappy performance. This awful performance on non-iPad devices makes Apple’s decision not to include it on the iPad pretty plausible.

    But would you keep using Flash if it had bad performance? If I watch a movie that keeps stuttering I wouldn’t finish it.

    From a JooJoo review:

    “But what about Flash? This is supposed to be the big differentiator, right? The iPad killer! In an interesting move, Fusion Garage coupled the Atom processor with NVIDIA’s Ion graphics to aid in playing full screen Flash video (or for doing… something). Unfortunately, the software just isn’t there yet. Currently the device is running Flash 10.1 beta 1, and won’t have hardware-accelerated Flash video for a good while now (the timing is partly reliant on Adobe support, and is labelled as a “work in progress” by JooJoo). That means some regular-sized YouTube and Hulu works, as decoded by the CPU, but full screen Hulu is jittery, and a 720p YouTube clip is like watching a slideshow. In one of the biggest moves of irony, JooJoo has actually implemented a hack for YouTube where you can view a video in Flash or in “JooJoo” mode which is a straight playback of the MPEG video file every YouTube video harbors. What does this remind us of? HTML 5, albeit with a less elegant implementation. This of course only works on YouTube right now, though JooJoo says it plans on supporting other sites in the future. Watch the video below for yourselves to see all this Flash tragedy play out.

    The worst part about the Atom / Ion combo is that it results in those original issues we had when we reviewed all those Ion netbooks. First, it causes the entire tablet to get quite warm (especially when playing Flash video) and then it murders its battery life. The JooJoo’s integrated three-cell battery repeatedly lasted 2.5 hours (just as we predicted!) during our moderate use, which included surfing the Web and playing short videos. JooJoo claims you can get 5 hours if you avoid Flash entirely, but that sort of defeats the purpose, right? In the end we don’t understand why they didn’t just go with an ARM processor like NVIDIA’s Tegra or a more current Intel Atom N450 processor paired with Broadcom’s Crystal HD solution. Both options would have enabled HD video playback and resulted in some more juice. We will take this moment to non-tactfully remind you that the iPad lasts over 10 hours on a charge.”

    This doesn’t really make the JooJoo sound very positive, nor makes it compelling to buy a JooJoo if you want a Flash playing device.

  • 2011-12-13 8:19 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    I think you missed the point of the patio heater illustration. Yes of course playing flash games in the browser uses more power than browsing a static page, but this a given if you *want* to play games in the browser. If you don’t want to, then simply don’t, the choice would still be yours if apple hadn’t already taken it away.

    And of course it’s not just flash games either, but all portable applications that users would benefit from side-loading.

    The argument that other devices are worse for providing a choice is absurd. This is one of those cases where Apple products are obviously inferior, accept it and move on. The only aspect left to debate is whether the lack of choice will drive customers away in the long term. That I can’t say, but it’s dependent upon what apple’s competitors do. I sure hope open technologies will win out over closed ones, whoever is behind them.

  • 2011-12-13 8:30 pm
    MOS6510

    I think we’ll end up agreeing we disagree.

    I’ll summarize my opinion. I don’t miss Flash, should Apple secretively add it to iOS it may take me some time to notice it. I don’t seem to run in to sites requiring Flash. I don’t see it as a lacking feature, just like the missing USB port or SD card slot.

    Personally I’d rather not have something than have something that doesn’t work well and become annoying. If your car had a radio that had a lot of noise and often couldn’t hear what people were saying you’d probably end up not using the radio. If Flash messes up your battery, turns the device hot and is a hit or miss experience I wonder how that would influence your mood. I’d get annoyed and not be all smiles because my device “supports” Flash.

  • 2011-12-13 9:32 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    I can certainly understand that you may not care about missing features, but it’s ridiculous to spin these as pros for apple. If your ipad supported an sd card or flash or java or side loading, none of that would make your ipad worse if you chose not to install/use them. The features would certainly make the ipod better for many of us. The jailbreaking community do demonstrate that there is some resentment towards apple’s control. (Have you jailbroken your devices?)

    A more accurate car analogy would be the manufacturer removing the radio dock entirely. Sure, a radio can produce annoying static, but sometimes drivers still *want* to use a radio. You’re car’s inability to connect a radio doesn’t make it superior.

    You can disagree if you want, but it just shows that your too proud to publicly admit that apple products are sometimes inferior.

  • 2011-12-13 9:53 pm
    MOS6510

    I didn’t spin lack of Flash as a pro, I just stated I don’t miss it. I did spin Flash on the JooJoo as a con. It just didn’t work well. Some companies don’t mind to ship unfinished stuff (like the JooJoo and PlayBook for example), but if it doesn’t work well I view it as a con.

    No, I haven’t jailbroken any of my iOS devices. I see no reason for it, don’t want to endure the hassle and have a problem when a new iOS update comes. I did jailbreak someone else’s iPhone on his request. Well, first I had to de-brick it which was the main reason he gave me his iPhone.

    I don’t think jail breaking is any proof for resentment towards Apple. People might do it for fun, to install pirated/illegal stuff. If you really resent Apple just don’t buy their stuff.

    I don’t mind calling some Apple stuff “inferior”, but I do think stuff is labeled inferior a bit quick sometimes. For example my iPad doesn’t have a SD card slot, I don’t miss it. A friend has a Sony tablet with a SD slot and he was complaining to me about all kinds of issues he, well Android had with stuff being in the main memory vs on the SD card. Is it fair to call the iPad inferior because it lacks something leaning towards the luxury status while the “superior” products does have this feature, but it causes problems and annoyance?

    (my mobile phone for work is a BlackBerry, which also has an sd slot, yet all apps are installed in the main memory, which is now full even though I have a few apps on it)

    My wife is watching X-Factor now on an Apple TV. It doesn’t play all kinds of media formats. Sure, on that front it is inferior to other media players. When we wanted to buy a media player as a present for someone I didn’t want to go for the Apple TV because that person might not like the converting hassle. We couldn’t find a better media player, mainly because it needed to be wireless. All media players didn’t have WiFi, they needed some add-on, making them way more expensive than an Apple TV. Now I know there are a few great wireless media players, just not in the shops we visited.

    Still, personally I’d buy an inferior Apple TV because it integrates best with all my other Apple stuff.

    Ah, I did have a dvd/hard disk recorder that could also play all kinds of media, even from my Mac. Only did this once as it was pretty cumbersome.

  • 2011-12-13 10:32 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    I think you’re in denial. people have many legitimate reasons to do more with their ipads than apple allows them to do. People can simultaneously like apple’s devices while disliking apple’s grip. Every last jailbroken apple device represents a defection against apple’s control among real apple users who, all things being equal, would prefer to buy their apple devices without apple restrictions.

    If apple sold two devices at the same price, one where the ipad is what it is today, and another version that has an SD Card, side loading, etc, I can assure you that you would be in the minority if you opted for the more restricted model. People often tolerate restrictions, but only a fanboy denies that it is a con.

  • 2011-12-13 10:41 pm
    MOS6510

    The problem is both devices wouldn’t be the same price. And there are 2 different devices already, with and without 3G. I bought the one without 3G, because it was cheaper and I’d figure I’d rarely make use of 3G as I’d use the device either at home or at work where there is WiFi. So Far it has been the right choice.

    Apple decided not to include a number of features and was able to sell the iPad for $499 (cheapest version) and it turned out to be a very competitive price. Had they included extra bells and whistles the price would have gone up while little was gained.

  • 2011-12-13 11:33 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    You are deliberately missing the point, but I’m guessing that’s because you agree with me that people prefer an unrestricted model over a restricted one. Why is it so difficult to extract such obvious truths from fanboys?

    I guess we should admire your tenacity, promoting feature-restricted technologies…that can’t be easy. But if you want my opinion, you should spend more energy on why restrictions don’t matter rather than pretending that unrestricted devices are inferior. It’s very difficult to maintain any credibility after that.

    Edited 2011-12-13 23:35 UTC

  • 2011-12-14 12:03 am
    MOS6510

    People don’t care about restrictions, people want stuff that works and is easy to operate. You call Apple stuff restricted, yet it sells a lot. iPhones and iPads lead the pack by far when it comes to customer satisfaction.

    My point is that I don’t want functions that don’t work or don’t work well. I only want them if I need them and they work.

    You’re apparently happy if your stuff has many features, even if they don’t work or are crap and are even willing to pay for that freedom. That’s fine if you like that. I’d prefer stuff that works and if it doesn’t I don’t want it.

  • 2011-12-14 2:43 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    Jailbreakers are proof that you are mistaken. Deny deny deny. You yourself said “If the entire industry turned in to a collection of walled gardens, even if all of them are nice, I think that would be a disaster.” However it’s a double standard, one where apple is without blame. I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would consider a technology company as sacred as a deity. Take the red pill and open your mind to the real world, or take the blue pill and remain blissfully ignorant. The choice is yours.

  • 2011-12-14 3:03 pm
    MOS6510

    Contrary what a number of people here think people who buy Apple products aren’t by default lunatics, under mass hypnosis, victims of the RDF or unaware of non-Apple products.

    Less is more, it just works, user experience, etc… that is why Apple sells a whole load of hardware. If people like you designed these devices they’d have a few billion features (most useless), be totally confusing to operate and cost too much for a common person. And people like you did design media players, tablets. They were crap and not very compelling.

    Jailbreaking isn’t a protest against Apple oppression, it’s a way to circumvent the system that enforces a good user experience. No one forces you to buy Apple stuff. If you do you will probably understand why Apple products rank top of customer satisfaction ratings. It beats me why you can’t believe people are happy with Apple products.

    Why do users jailbreak their device? It’s not because they are rebels fighting the empire, it’s because they want to install cracked software. It’s the same reason they mod their game console (free games), install a bit torrent client (free warez ‘n’ media) and buy blank cds/dvds (free music ‘n’ movies).

    It makes no sense to buy yourself into something you don’t approve of and are then forced to break yourself out of this situation.

  • 2011-12-14 3:48 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    Apple do many things right. Many/most apple users aren’t lunatics…so what? This should have no bearing on whether apple can be criticised. As a linux or windows user I can accept criticisms of those platforms without pissing myself, why can’t you?

  • 2011-12-14 3:54 pm
    MOS6510

    I can too, I just prefer not to have some feature as opposed to a crappy implementation of it and not to pay for features I don’t want or need.

    I have been a Linux user too and when I switched to a Mac in 2005 it was running OS X Panther and I didn’t like it that much. I did love the iPod Mini that came along with it. I started liking OS X when Tiger arrived.

    I also liked my iPod touch at first, but soon found it very limiting. Then web apps were allowed and I never liked any. Only when real apps arrived did I start liking my iPod touch again.

    I did not buy the first iPhone, because it didn’t have GPS and I didn’t buy in to Steve’s WiFi triangulation system.

  • 2011-12-14 6:02 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    “I can too, I just prefer not to have some feature as opposed to a crappy implementation of it and not to pay for features I don’t want or need.”

    You say you can, but so far you’ve denied the criticism with pathetic excuses rather than accept it. Letting users install their own radios (to use your metaphor), regardless of how crappy you believe their radios to be, doesn’t detract from the oh so awesome radioless experience going on in your car. My god, how many neurons does it take to understand that you wouldn’t have to install anything you didn’t want just because apple permits others to install it. It’s a reoccurring problem with your arguments. Instead of fixing your logic, you just pile on more denial. It’s dogma at its worst.

    Neither of us are contributing anything to the article, so I’m going to sign out here.

  • 2011-12-14 6:40 pm
    MOS6510

    For all the features the iPod/iPhone/iPads lack they sell like hot cakes and lead user satisfaction rankings with a clear lead. So your claim Apple product users are captives trying to escape doesn’t match reality.

    You keep insiting it’s better to have crappy and useless features than only working ones. The consumer disagrees.

  • 2011-12-11 12:44 pm
    brichpmr

    Bnolsen said Apple brought the first compelling tablet to market. You said the Joojoo came before it. I think it’s pretty obvious the Joojoo wasn’t a compelling product, like all pre-iPad tablets.

    As I figured, your statement was based on assumption, not fact.

    You could aim a cruise missile at a crowd at the World Cup and be hard pressed to hit anyone who knew what the hell a joojoo was…let alone ever purchased one.

  • 2011-12-11 5:22 pm
    tupp

    You could aim a cruise missile at a crowd at the World Cup and be hard pressed to hit anyone who knew what the hell a joojoo was…let alone ever purchased one.

    Fame sales are fleeting and have nothing to do with whether or not something is compelling or whether or not it is original.

    More World Cup fans listen to Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber over the Beatles, so, according to your logic, Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber are more compelling than the Beatles!

  • 2011-12-11 1:22 pm
    Laurence

    Bnolsen said Apple brought the first compelling tablet to market. You said the Joojoo came before it.

    I think it’s pretty obvious the Joojoo wasn’t a compelling product, like all pre-iPad tablets.

    If you can’t substantiate a claim then please don’t push it as fact.

  • 2011-12-11 1:30 pm
    MOS6510

    compelling |kəmˈpeliNG|

    adjective

    evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way: his eyes were strangely compelling | a compelling film.

    If you only sell 64 units I can’t see how you could call the JooJoo “compelling”. It was dwarfed in sales and media attention by the iPad.

  • 2011-12-11 1:42 pm
    Laurence

    compelling |kəmˈpeliNG|

    adjective

    evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way: his eyes were strangely compelling | a compelling film.

    If you only sell 64 units I can’t see how you could call the JooJoo “compelling”. It was dwarfed in sales and media attention by the iPad.

    Nice try, but you raised that point /AFTER/ you dodged the original question, hence my comment.

    However, and as you raised the point of sale figures, I think sales figures alone are a poor benchmark for a products appeal when you’re comparing a product by an unknown technology company to a product by the biggest technology company in the world. Particularly when you factor in just how much advertising and hype every product release by Apple gets (even the mundane ones are splashed across every newspaper and website!)

    It’s a little like saying IE must be a more compelling web browser than Opera because more people use it. Or Ford must make more compelling cars than Porsche.

    If you really wanted to show an educated and impartial judgement, then you would compare them, feature for feature. However it’s pretty clear you’ve never used a JooJoo and thus your opinion is based entirely on how much you love your iPad; which ultimately leads to a biased opinion and why people are arguing against the way you brand said opinion as if it’s undeniable fact.

    Edited 2011-12-11 13:50 UTC

  • 2011-12-11 1:54 pm
    MOS6510

    I didn’t dodge the question, I thought the question was too absurd and the answer too obvious.

    I don’t know what happened to the JooJoo after it was released, but the claim is “a compelling product (tablet) before the iPad”. So we must judge the JooJoo on what it was when it arrived a few days before the iPad.

    In that state it was basically a browser. That makes it kind of hard/easy to compare it to an iPad, because there isn’t much to compare. The iPad wins the browser comparison, battery life and physicality. The JooJoo doesn’t have any apps for email, video, music, address book, calendar, etc… I’d say both aren’t even in the same product class: one is a single function device (web browser), one a multifunction tablet computer.

    For the same money you could buy an iPad which does have all of that and much much more via the app store.

    Even if there was no iPad I seriously doubt anyone spending that kind of money just to be able to browse the web. Why not use a netbook/laptop for that?

    They sold 64 of them so I guess 64 people on this planet didn’t know the iPad was coming. Even HP sold more WebOS tablets even though at that moment in time the assumption was that it was going to be discontinued.

  • 2011-12-11 2:23 pm
    Laurence

    I didn’t dodge the question, I thought the question was too absurd and the answer too obvious.

    Either way, it was a pretty non-constructive reply to his question.

    In that state it was basically a browser. That makes it kind of hard/easy to compare it to an iPad, because there isn’t much to compare. The iPad wins the browser comparison, battery life and physicality. The JooJoo doesn’t have any apps for email, video, music, address book, calendar, etc… I’d say both aren’t even in the same product class: one is a single function device (web browser), one a multifunction tablet computer.

    For the same money you could buy an iPad which does have all of that and much much more via the app store.

    JooJoo supports apps too. So you’re basically saying that the iPad was more compelling because the iPad supported Apple’s app store. This is fine to explain a personal preference for one device over another, however it’s a very poor reason to describe one device more compelling than another as it just demonstrates favouritism.

    Even if there was no iPad I seriously doubt anyone spending that kind of money just to be able to browse the web. Why not use a netbook/laptop for that?

    That’s exactly what most people said about the iPad before it was released!

    I, myself, was very vocal about how I couldn’t see the point of an iPad when netbooks and eReaders already have the market covered. People still buy tablets though.

    They sold 64 of them so I guess 64 people on this planet didn’t know the iPad was coming.

    Sorry, but that comment is just retarded. If you want to come across as an ignorant fanboy, then please continue posting this way, but don’t complain when people ignore you once you start trying to make constructive factual comments.

    Even HP sold more WebOS tablets even though at that moment in time the assumption was that it was going to be discontinued.

    Again, you’re comparing sales figures from an unheard about intendant manufacturer against one of the biggest names in IT.

    I’ve already corrected the flaw in your argument here in my last post so please don’t make it a hat-trick.

  • 2011-12-11 3:09 pm
    MOS6510

    Can’t you present facts most people didn’t see the need for the iPad?

    Fact is the iPad flew out of the stores once it became available.

    But let’s ask you the question: Why should the JooJoo be considered “compelling”? And if it was, why didn’t it sell?

    The PlayBook is still considered a failure, while it has sold way more than the JooJoo.

  • 2011-12-11 4:04 pm
    _txf_

    What gives?

    It doesn’t matter if a product is more compelling than another for its basic functionality. At question is here is the design and whether apple can claim to have invented it.

    They certainly developed/evolved it, but cannot claim to have invented a black bezel with rounded corners, or a thin frame. Nor can they claim that a combination of all of those are solely the purview of apple. The reason that they cannot claim this is because it was done before.

    The predecessors didn’t sell as well, or get traction from the public but this does not mean that they should be ignored. As the poster above said, just because IE has more users does not make it better (or even that MS invented the modern web browser).

  • 2011-12-11 6:50 pm
    MOS6510

    I was replying to the statement that the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet. So far no one has given any hint why it might have been compelling while it’s value for money and sales figures give indication it’s anything but compelling.

    Regarding Apple’s claim to the black shape:

    I don’t think they should be the only ones to use black rectangles. What I do think is that The Others modeled their products after the iPad. Despite claims it is the only natural way to do it tablets before the iPad didn’t look anything like it, they did after the iPad.

    Samsung, however, did not just take the black rectangle, they did their best to make every aspect of their products (tablets, phones) to look like Apple ones.

    So Apple went after them by any means necessary.

    Is Apple overreacting? Yes, I think they are. Are they right? Well, I think they are right Samsung is ripping them off, but I don’t think they are right claiming black shapes.

  • 2011-12-11 7:48 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    “I was replying to the statement that the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet. So far no one has given any hint why it might have been compelling while it’s value for money and sales figures give indication it’s anything but compelling.”

    You were using market share as an indication of a product’s being “compelling”, but you haven’t defended this logic. If history is any indication, often times less worthy products end up winning in the market. If you want to say earlier products were “less compelling”, you’ll have to use something other than market share to make that claim.

    It would be ignorant for someone to assume that a local store is of inferior quality to a walmart store BECAUSE walmart has a larger market share. Walmart has a lot of power to put others out of business even if it were selling knock-off products.

    Just saying, it’s wrong to assume a product wasn’t compelling. Maybe all it lacked was the backing of a recognisable consumer brand and more funding. Identity and funding are significant when it comes to success. Heck, the ipad itself may have been a flop if it were backed by the wrong company.

    Edited 2011-12-11 20:03 UTC

  • 2011-12-11 8:10 pm
    MOS6510

    This thread starting with someone stating the iPad was the first compelling product (tablet wise) and someone else claimed it was the JooJoo.

    If you look at the tablet market before the iPad not much was going on. It was boring, the tablets were expensive and not much use.

    Then came the JooJoo and nothing happened. Three days later the iPad arrived and Apple sold every one if them.

    The question is, which tablet was the first compelling tablet? In this case quality plays a factor in determining if the JooJoo could even be considered compelling, not taking in to account brand popularity and marketing budget. I don’t see it. If other people do they certainly didn’t buy one.

    Quantity plays a factor when judging the iPad for the title of first compelling tablet. Since it sold so many and many more than any previous (and later) tablet I think you can say it was indeed the first compelling tablet.

    Of course you are right that quality and quantity don’t determine whether something sells or is any good. But that’s another topic, this topic is about what tablet started the tablet fire.

  • 2011-12-11 10:11 pm
    Moredhas

    The JooJoo, or CrunchPad as it was known at the time, was fompelling because tech journalists were blogging about it. It didn’t sell because all but the earliest of early adopters took a wait and see approach. It was first because it was first out with mockups and even made it to market before a whif of the iPad made it out of the rumour mill (by rumor mill, I of course mean “fanboys dreaming”). First and Compelling, first compelling tablet. Quad Erat Demonstratum.

    Of course, more garments today are made by automated machines in factories than ever were made by hand at a loom, so obviously the makers of looms stole ideas from the future, and the the makers of these machinese deserve patents on weaving fabrics together!

  • 2011-12-11 11:25 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    “Quantity plays a factor when judging the iPad for the title of first compelling tablet. Since it sold so many and many more than any previous (and later) tablet I think you can say it was indeed the first compelling tablet.”

    Again, you’re still using market success to define what products are compelling. By this logic, MAC OS isn’t as compelling as windows because it has a tiny market share. Obviously whether MAC OS is compelling or not is A) a matter of opinion, and B) not subject to MAC OS market share. I think the only reason you are pursuing this faulty logic is because you have made up your mind that apple made the first compelling tablet, and you are trying find ways to justify your *opinion* to others.

    I’m not trying to change your opinion about apple/ipad. On the contrary, I’m just hoping that you’ll recognise that success in business is much more complicated than just building a compelling product. That’s a part of it, but it’s not sufficient on it’s own. Smaller players are routinely crushed because they don’t have buying power, they don’t have brand recognition, they don’t have free media coverage, they don’t have access to sufficient credit, they don’t have alternative sources of revenue to carry initial costs, they can’t depend on large masses of developers to join the ecosystem at launch, they can’t impose a 30% tax on top of third party software, they don’t have defensive/offensive patent portfolios, their development costs are distributed across a much smaller customer base. In short, there are tons of reasons why companies can fail, it doesn’t mean their products weren’t good.

  • 2011-12-12 12:37 am
    Laurence

    I couldn’t agree more.

    There’s so many cases in history of compelling products falling out of favour with the mass market:

    * Dreamcast was the most compelling console of it’s generation yet it epically lost the console wars

    * Windows 3.1 was the least compelling of all the WIMP OSs of that era, yet it was by far the most successful.

    Just because something sells well, it doesn’t mean it was the most compelling product to come to market and nor does something that sells badly indicate that it wasn’t a compelling product.

  • 2011-12-12 6:10 am
    MOS6510

    I agree totally with you!

    The JooJoo could be compelling and sell 64 units, but no one has been able to point out why a JooJoo could be considered compelling and more important more compelling than an iPad as that’s how this discussion started.

    Remember the tablet market wasn’t going anywhere until the iPad took it in a new direction. From stylus operated Windows heavy bricks to touch input sleek devices.

    Regarding operating systems, OS X has compelling points, but so does Windows 7 and even Linux.

    But this discussion started with someone claiming the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet and not the iPad. I think there have been compelling operating systems before OS X. Consumer wise I’d nominate Windows 95 as the first compelling operating system.

    The iPhone broke records. Sure it’s a game changer, an iconic device, a benchmark. Is it the first compelling smart phone? No, I don’t think it is. The smart phone market was already alive, unlike the tablet market.

  • 2011-12-13 5:19 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    “The JooJoo could be compelling and sell 64 units, but no one has been able to point out why a JooJoo could be considered compelling and more important more compelling than an iPad as that’s how this discussion started. Remember the tablet market wasn’t going anywhere until the iPad took it in a new direction. From stylus operated Windows heavy bricks to touch input sleek devices.”

    Honestly, what do you think the market would be like without apple?

    I find it rather laughable that apple deserves serious credit over obvious trivial little things like form factor, touch, weight, cost, etc. IMO these are obvious and inevitable developments – no apple magic here.

    Personally I think the biggest wave apple will have caused in the tablet market is the promotion of closed walled gardens. I question whether any other company would have been “cool enough” in the eyes of consumers to offset the negatives of selling such restrictive devices. It doesn’t stop at apple tablets either, now many other manufacturers are eagerly trying out this business model for themselves, and even starting to push it to the desktop. This might set computing back many years and result in the end of independent innovation.

  • 2011-12-13 6:07 pm
    MOS6510

    I have no idea what the market would be without Apple. We know what it was before Apple came along in the tablet, phone and media player market.

    Apple pushed the phone market in a new direction, setting a norm for user-friendliness. If it hadn’t Android would have been a BlackBerry clone and we’d still be stuck with crappy interfaces and confusing phones.

    Building on this Apple did the same for tablets, which until then were running Windows, using a stylus and not selling. Apple gave us the iPad and suddenly a large number of companies make tablets that look and work like the iPad, because suddenly it’s the only obvious and seemingly even possible way.

    (last weekend I saw an Android tablet in a toy store. it’s selling point was that it had better specs, but the same sharp price. better than what it didn’t say. it had a background that looked a lot like the original iPad’s, the settings icon was nearly identical, as was the video icon. it also had these dots indicating on which page you were and on the left of these was a looking glass, just like on iOS devices)

    Most companies just go where there seems to be money to be made. Apple tries to find those places before others do. Stuff they did or do may be obvious to you and others, but Apple did them while others didn’t. Hadn’t Apple done this they would have been a marginal player, like most companies.

    Closed walled gardens are not bad if they are nice gardens. I’m trying not to sound too much like a fanboy, but Apple makes nice gardens and that is their aim as their selling an experience, not a product. Other companies are selling a product and just want to make money with little effort.

    There is nothing wrong with a walled garden if you can opt in and out when you want to and have a choice of other options.

    If the entire industry turned in to a collection of walled gardens, even if all of them are nice, I think that would be a disaster.

    Personally I don’t mind for phones and tablets, for me they just need to work. I live in Apple’s garden and I don’t feel restricted or limited. Computers are a different thing, if Macs become walled gardens I wouldn’t sell mine, but I will set up a permanent non-Mac system (probably running Linux).

  • 2011-12-13 7:36 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    “Most companies just go where there seems to be money to be made. Apple tries to find those places before others do. Stuff they did or do may be obvious to you and others, but Apple did them while others didn’t.”

    The vast majority of us don’t have the means to commercially pursue our ideas, apple is a huge corp who can. They deserve credit for being a success, but they don’t deserve credit for ideas that others had before them. Apple used alot of other’s ideas to develop the tablet, they had to. It’s not a deficiency on their part, it’s always a good thing to use good ideas.

    The problem I have with apple here is that they’re trying to exclude competitors from the market. Moreover, they are trying to assert exclusive rights to designs that weren’t originally theirs. If apple stuck to building and selling the most compelling products they could to genuinely compete in the market, then the majority of us here would not have a problem with them. IMO, the lawsuits reveal that internally, apple are worried that their products aren’t as compelling as they’d like everyone to believe.

    “Closed walled gardens are not bad if they are nice gardens. I’m trying not to sound too much like a fanboy, but Apple makes nice gardens and that is their aim as their selling an experience, not a product.”

    I’d believe that if and only if they gave users an explicit choice. The fact that they force users to use their products shows that they have something to loose if they allowed users to do what they wanted.

  • 2011-12-13 8:40 pm
    MOS6510

    Well, I agree with that. I don’t think Apple should be suing everybody. I understand why they went after Samsung, because they did go very far copying stuff. Then again Apple makes so much money they really don’t need to extra few dollars.

    Steve said he was willing to spend all of Apple’s cash fighting Android. Honestly, as an Apple fanboy ( http://tinyurl.com/ccjudce ), I think the board should have made retract that threat. Apple is a public company, not Steve’s, thousands of people work for Apple and they have families, Apple is their income. Around Apple also a lot of businesses and people make their living thanks to Apple. Steve’s personal feeling can’t turn in to a vendetta that would risk blowing Apple up and putting all those people without a job.

    When he introduced the iPhone he said Apple was aiming for 1% of the market. To me that seemed that 1% would be enough to make a profit. They got much more than 1%, so they don’t need to fight competitors that hard. The Mac never had a very large market share and it made them loads of money. I’m sure they can sell much less iPads and turn in a profit.

    Going after other tablets based on their shape is silly, the shape does’t really make a tablet hot or not, the OS and performance matters much more. Well, I think the shape thing is just an excuse to sue Samsung. They just try anything to go after Samsung.

    And that’s nuts, because Samsung is a big supplier of Apple.

    I’d rather have them all be friends and build cool stuff.

  • 2011-12-11 6:45 pm
    Alfman verbose=1

    MOS6510,

    “But let’s ask you the question: Why should the JooJoo be considered ‘compelling’? And if it was, why didn’t it sell?”

    Believe it or not, even compelling products can struggle without sufficient backing. Pushing products to the market is extremely expensive/risky, especially in small companies where money/credit is tight/non-existent and pre-existing market recognition is nil. Conversely some huge companies sell notoriously crappy products.

    Hypothetically, I would assert that apple could have taken an unknown product like the JooJoo, rebranded it as their own, and sold it successfully on the market because of their identity.

    It’s a cruel reality that sometimes identity is more important than substance; look at hollywood if you need any convincing of this.

  • 2011-12-11 6:59 pm
    MOS6510

    The Rokr was a flop, despite Apple’s involvement. In fact Apple has quite a list of flops and not so successful products. But sure I agree that sometimes crap stuff can still sell based on who sells/promotes it or for example acts in it.

    But even so, what would make the JooJoo compelling? If one considers it’s way inferior to the iPad yet sold for the same price. It doesn’t have any special or stand out features. It’s not even made by a well known brand to make it a rare collectable.

    Besides we are talking about a compelling product, meaning as a whole it needs to be compelling, not just out-spec the rest at something. Not as a whole, nor at any part is it any special. Okay, it looks nice, but the iPad looks nicer.

    It’s sad the company behind it didn’t do better and paid the price for rushing an unfinished product that was too expensive for what it did.

  • 2011-12-11 7:23 pm
    Laurence

    Can’t you present facts most people didn’t see the need for the iPad?

    1) I didn’t say “most people didn’t see the need”, I said “I didn’t see the point”. That’s a huge difference as I’m talking from my perspective only.

    2) I didn’t say it was fact, it was quite clear that was my opinion and one that has since been proven wrong by the success of the iPad. The reason I raised that point was because you argued exactly the same point about a very similar device. Thus we can both either be right or both be wrong, but you can’t argue that against one device and then claim the opposite case for the iPad (which is what you were doing).

    3) and finally, i did evidence my case. If you actually bothered reading what I posted then you’ll notice that I very clearly gave a summary as to why I came to that opinion.

    Fact is the iPad flew out of the stores once it became available.

    You’re completely missing my point. Nobody was arguing the iPad isn’t a success. In fact the whole reason I raised that point was to show that you can’t argue that JooJoo type devices have no need when you look at the success of the iPad, as the JooJoo and iPad are similar devices.

    I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of your previous statement but now you’ve seem to turn it around as if I’m trying to suggest that the iPad as been a flop – which couldn’t be further from the point.

    But let’s ask you the question: Why should the JooJoo be considered “compelling”?

    Like you, I haven’t had much exposure to the JooJoo. So I was actually hoping you could give me an informed breakdown. Sadly it seems you’re as ignorant about the device as I am (which is why I got annoyed when it became clear that you were promoting your own personal bias as irrefutable facts)

    And if it was, why didn’t it sell?

    I think contributing factors would have been:

    * lack of house hold name branding (eg HP, Apple, Samsung)

    * lack of advertising (nobody except us geeks really knew it existed)

    * it wasn’t iOS nor Android (people used to be quite fickle about mobile OSs but these days I think the tables have turned).

    * Possibly the price. But then I personally think even the iPad isn’t worth it’s price tag given what I’d use it for. So I’m not really the best qualified to comment there

    The PlayBook is still considered a failure, while it has sold way more than the JooJoo.

    Hasn’t the playbook only been out a month? To be honest I thought that had been well received.

    The Playbook and the touchpad (which I do own) were the two tablets that did appeal to me. So I’d like to see the Playbook succeed.

  • 2011-12-11 7:42 pm
    MOS6510

    Can’t you present facts most people didn’t see the need for the iPad?

    1) I didn’t say “most people didn’t see the need”, I said “I didn’t see the point”. That’s a huge difference as I’m talking from my perspective only.

    You wrote:

    “That’s exactly what most people said about the iPad before it was released!”

    as a reply to what I wrote:

    “Even if there was no iPad I seriously doubt anyone spending that kind of money just to be able to browse the web. Why not use a netbook/laptop for that? “

    My comment about the flying iPads was to illustrate it was (a compelling and (b people did see, or thought they saw, the need for one. Whatever the reason the iPad was the first tablet that really sold, not the JooJoo.

    I have read the JooJoo reviews which made me come to the conclusion it wasn’t compelling. Besides, if it does way less than an iPad and what is does like the iPad it does worse why buy one if for the same price you can get an iPad?

    Indeed, no one has one (save for 64 people, if they didn’t return it), most people never heard of it, the ones that did didn’t want one and there is not much going for it anyway. So how can someone here state the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet?

    The RIM PlayBook was released on April 19 2011 (at least in the US, perhaps only recently in the UK). Like the JooJoo it is a rushed and unfinished product.

    http://desktops.cbronline.com/news/rim-takes-a-us485m-write-down-on…

  • 2011-12-12 12:26 am
    Laurence

    You wrote:

    “That’s exactly what most people said about the iPad before it was released!”

    as a reply to what I wrote:

    “Even if there was no iPad I seriously doubt anyone spending that kind of money just to be able to browse the web. Why not use a netbook/laptop for that? “

    Ahh sorry, I can see where our wires crossed there now.

    Yeah I did say most people. I agree it wasn’t the best way for me to phrase it, but I guess it’s done now ;)

    My comment about the flying iPads was to illustrate it was (a compelling and (b people did see, or thought they saw, the need for one. Whatever the reason the iPad was the first tablet that really sold, not the JooJoo.

    You keep making this correlation that sales == a compelling product, this is simply not true and every single person in this thread has tried to explain that to you.

    I have read the JooJoo reviews which made me come to the conclusion it wasn’t compelling.

    Nothing like forming an opinion 3rd hand ;)

    Seriously though, you’ve still failed to quantify why it’s not compelling aside the fact that it’s not an Apple product.

    Besides, if it does way less than an iPad and what is does like the iPad it does worse why buy one if for the same price you can get an iPad?

    Perhaps because someone doesn’t want an iPad?

    I personally think iOS is horrible. I’m not saying that it’s a technically inferior OS; I’m just saying that I’ve tried it and really didn’t get on with it.

    You seem to have this opinion that everyone should agree with you that the iPad is a shining beacon that everyone should admire, but all the tablets I’ve liked the look of have been very much different to the iOS/iPad approach.

    Indeed, no one has one (save for 64 people, if they didn’t return it), most people never heard of it, the ones that did didn’t want one and there is not much going for it anyway. So how can someone here state the JooJoo was the first compelling tablet?

    For crying out loud: ***SALES ARE NOT AN ACCURATE INDICATOR FOR HOW COMPELLING A PRODUCT IS***

    Please, for the love of God, take note because I’m sick to death of you repeating the same old bullshit.

    The RIM PlayBook was released on April 19 2011 (at least in the US, perhaps only recently in the UK). Like the JooJoo it is a rushed and unfinished product.

    http://desktops.cbronline.com/news/rim-takes-a-us485m-write-down-on…

    Oh, that’s a shame. The Playbook had so much going for it ;)

  • 2011-12-12 5:58 am
    MOS6510

    Ahh sorry, I can see where our wires crossed there now.

    Yeah I did say most people. I agree it wasn’t the best way for me to phrase it, but I guess it’s done now ;)

    And you are forgiven!

    You keep making this correlation that sales == a compelling product, this is simply not true and every single person in this thread has tried to explain that to you.

    I know sales doesn’t determine if a product is compelling or not. However I think it does in this case.

    If we look at the facts we can see that the tablet market wasn’t exciting. stuff didn’t sell, no one really wanted heavy cumbersome devices with a crappy interface.

    Then the iPad was announced. It allowed you to do computer stuff on the couch. But hey, so does a laptop. People already had laptops, desktops. As a computer the iPad can’t match a laptop, let alone a desktop.

    So you could state an iPad was a luxury device. You don’t need it.

    Yet it sold millions. Why would it sell so many if a netbook/laptop can do more? I think because it was so compelling, the ease of use to do stuff while holding it. If it wasn’t compelling I could never have sold so many units (as a luxury device).

    I have read the JooJoo reviews which made me come to the conclusion it wasn’t compelling.

    Nothing like forming an opinion 3rd hand ;)

    Seriously though, you’ve still failed to quantify why it’s not compelling aside the fact that it’s not an Apple product.

    It’s not like you could get any 1st hand experience with a JooJoo. :-p

    I think I have already indicated why it’s not a compelling device, but I can do it again:

    It’s just a browser and not a very good one at that. And it was introduced at the same time as, well let’s not call it an Apple iPad, another tablet shaped device that had a better browser and could do a lot more.

    If we take away the brands/names and even how good/bad the software is:

    Product A, $499: Browser, 5 hour battery life

    Product B, $499: Browser, email, video, music, calender, address book, weather, stocks, etc…, 10+ hour battery life

    Even if you don’t consider product B to be compelling, how could product A be?

    I personally think iOS is horrible. I’m not saying that it’s a technically inferior OS; I’m just saying that I’ve tried it and really didn’t get on with it.

    Well, we are talking about the period in time that saw the JooJoo and iPad arrive. If you didn’t like iOS there wasn’t much else to chose from.

    You seem to have this opinion that everyone should agree with you that the iPad is a shining beacon that everyone should admire, but all the tablets I’ve liked the look of have been very much different to the iOS/iPad approach.

    I don’t think I have been promoting the iPad as such, I merely state it’s better than a JooJoo. And no one has managed to come up with an argument why a JooJoo could be considered compelling.

    Oh, that’s a shame. The Playbook had so much going for it ;)

    Even though I can’t imagine what I won’t ask. :-p

  • 2011-12-12 12:40 pm
    Laurence

    I know sales doesn’t determine if a product is compelling or not. However I think it does in this case.

    No it doesn’t it makes even less sense in this case as you’re comparing an unheard of device against a heavily promoted device. I keep telling you this

    If we look at the facts we can see that the tablet market wasn’t exciting. stuff didn’t sell, no one really wanted heavy cumbersome devices with a crappy interface.

    Then the iPad was announced. It allowed you to do computer stuff on the couch. But hey, so does a laptop. People already had laptops, desktops. As a computer the iPad can’t match a laptop, let alone a desktop.

    So you could state an iPad was a luxury device. You don’t need it.

    Yet it sold millions. Why would it sell so many if a netbook/laptop can do more? I think because it was so compelling, the ease of use to do stuff while holding it. If it wasn’t compelling I could never have sold so many units (as a luxury device).

    Personally I think the iPad sold well because it was so well promoted. People didn’t really think they wanted a tablet until Apple convinced them that they did.

    Thus I think if the JooJoo was sold by Apple, the JooJoo would have sold too.

    It’s not like you could get any 1st hand experience with a JooJoo. :-p

    I think I have already indicated why it’s not a compelling device, but I can do it again:

    It’s just a browser and not a very good one at that. And it was introduced at the same time as, well let’s not call it an Apple iPad, another tablet shaped device that had a better browser and could do a lot more.

    The JooJoo supported apps too. It just didn’t support Apple’s apps.

    If we take away the brands/names and even how good/bad the software is:

    Product A, $499: Browser, 5 hour battery life

    Product B, $499: Browser, email, video, music, calender, address book, weather, stocks, etc…, 10+ hour battery life

    Fair point on the battery life. However the JooJoo supported all those apps too.

    Well, we are talking about the period in time that saw the JooJoo and iPad arrive. If you didn’t like iOS there wasn’t much else to chose from

    Which is why I didn’t buy anything ;)

    I don’t think I have been promoting the iPad as such, I merely state it’s better than a JooJoo. And no one has managed to come up with an argument why a JooJoo could be considered compelling.

    The CrunchPad started the buzz for tablets and thus paved the way for the iPad. That alone is the very definition of “compelling”.

    [q]Even though I can’t imagine what [the Playbook had going for it] I won’t ask. :-p[q]

    The fact that it could run both RIM applications and Android apps side by side made it a huge interest to me.

    I could have full Android compatibility while still having a device that was a little bit more unique to the general fodder of Android tablets.

  • 2011-12-12 1:12 pm
    MOS6510

    No it doesn’t it makes even less sense in this case as you’re comparing an unheard of device against a heavily promoted device. I keep telling you this

    It seems the JooJoo had more exposure (despite the general public not noticing) than the secretive upcoming Apple device and it even came to market first.

    Still, by promoting a product it can become compelling too. If people don’t know it’s there people can’t be compelled by it.

    Personally I think the iPad sold well because it was so well promoted. People didn’t really think they wanted a tablet until Apple convinced them that they did.

    Thus I think if the JooJoo was sold by Apple, the JooJoo would have sold too.

    Apple has had its share of flops, stuff that didn’t sell because it was crap, too expensive or a combination of both. I for one wouldn’t pay $499 for a tablet shaped web browser, nor did I buy one of the first generation iPods because of the price.

    But I’ll grant you Apple would have sold more than 64.

    The JooJoo supported apps too. It just didn’t support Apple’s apps.

    From http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/05/fusion-garage-joojoo-review/ :

    The user interface on the JooJoo can best be described as a Monet – very attractive from afar, but a total mess up close. Very much like Dell’s version of Ubuntu, the Linux browser-based OS is centered around rectangular shortcuts like Twitter and Hulu which are divided into different categories, including News, Social, and Entertainment. When selected they simply just launch the respective site in the browser. The homepage shortcuts are certainly helpful if you are looking to go to one of the preloaded sites, but there’s no simple browser shortcut if you just want to put in your own URL. Instead you’re stuck opening one of the shortcuts and changing the address. Counterintuitive, to say the least. And that’s all there really is to the entire OS – there aren’t any onboard applications for viewing pictures or music — the only other screen is just a settings section for adjusting the WiFi or brightness.

    Fair point on the battery life. However the JooJoo supported all those apps too.

    Perhaps it did later, but it sure didn’t out of the box when it arrived and that point in time is what were are discussing here, it being or not being the first compelling tablet.

    Well, we are talking about the period in time that saw the JooJoo and iPad arrive. If you didn’t like iOS there wasn’t much else to chose from

    Which is why I didn’t buy anything ;)

    And I’m a fanboy, so I had someone bring me one from the States! 😀

    The CrunchPad started the buzz for tablets and thus paved the way for the iPad. That alone is the very definition of “compelling”.

    But we’re talking about the JooJoo as a product, not as a buzzer. As no one ever heard of it (generalizing a bit) how could it have started the buzz? When the JooJoo came to light Apple was already working on the iPad so it didn’t buzz them.

    The JooJoo sales didn’t buzz or soar either. The iPad did, causing other companies to notice money can be made with tablets.

    The fact that it could run both RIM applications and Android apps side by side made it a huge interest to me.

    I could have full Android compatibility while still having a device that was a little bit more unique to the general fodder of Android tablets.

    Nah, a JooJoo would be truly unique!

  • 2011-12-13 12:45 am
    tomcat

    Apple proved your point by bringing a compelling product to market first., initially grabbing a lion’s share. The problem is that Apple doesn’t want to have to compete in an open market with increasing competitors so they are trying to close it down.

    Well, on the one hand, you can see why. They lost the desktop market to clones. But, on the other, you have to realize that the iPad is nothing more than an integration of a variety of technologies that have been around in separate forms for the past couple decades. The design patterns aren’t going to hold up. There’s too much prior art and independent thinking to prevail on that. What Apple really wants is to just slow down competitors until its products reach a PC-like critical mass, where customers have become dependent on its application ecosystem and it has a lock.

    That’s not going to happen, though. First, there’s nothing inherently special about iOS. Nor are the applications. There are no platform-exclusive applications that require the iPad. Most popular applications are available everywhere. The economics actually *encourage* developers to develop for multiple platforms. Second, Apple’s competition is going to beat them on price, and the supposed differences in quality aren’t going to matter. We’re reaching a point where “good enough” will be able drive a market of hundreds of millions of units. Android is proof enough of that.

  • 2011-12-10 1:54 am
    pcunite

    Thank goodness Apple didn’t come up with the first monitor … they are all the same … who cares!

  • 2011-12-10 2:00 am
    jackeebleu

    Why didn’t Samsung, Microsoft, Joo Joo et al do it first and do it right?

    If it was so obvious, why does Samsung’s USB connector look like a carbon copy to Apple’s? I mean, Amazon, made their own unique design, as did others, but why Samsung had to be inspired by their design is what? Obvious?

    Edited 2011-12-10 02:00 UTC

    • 2011-12-10 9:21 pm
      ichi

      Why didn’t Samsung, Microsoft, Joo Joo et al do it first and do it right?

      Crunchpad did it first. Whether it did it right or not is irrelevant since Apple isn’t suing around for the differentiating bits that made their product successful, but for design features that where right there in previous products (form factor, rounded corners, etc…).

  • 2011-12-10 2:07 am
    Windows Sucks

    Thought this was OSnews? Now it’s become the bash apple site. Microsoft is doing the same stuff and has been for years and yet no bashing there (but for me). But Apple? Bash, bash, bash.

    Very interesting is all I can say.

    • 2011-12-10 2:25 am
      JAlexoid

      Because Apple is all in headlines these days. Microsoft gets it share too.

    • 2011-12-10 4:05 am
      bnolsen

      Apple is blatant in their abuse of multiple patent systems.

      MS is sneakier about it and uses patents as one of many tools to get leverage on its competitors, and keeps this stuff under the table. B&N is a case where MS has no leverage and that went public.

      • 2011-12-10 10:20 am
        Windows Sucks

        Apple is blatant in their abuse of multiple patent systems.

        MS is sneakier about it and uses patents as one of many tools to get leverage on its competitors, and keeps this stuff under the table. B&N is a case where MS has no leverage and that went public.

        ? Everyone knows that:

        HTC pays MS

        Samsung pays MS

        Amazon pays MS

        Tom Tom pays MS

        Etc, etc.

        Only difference is that MS chooses to make direct money off its patents instead of protecting them for their products. Maybe Apple should of taken that route.

        Almost every company Apple is beefing with so is MS.

    • 2011-12-10 6:40 pm
      tupp

      Thought this was OSnews? Now it’s become the bash apple site. Microsoft is doing the same stuff and has been for years and yet no bashing there (but for me). But Apple? Bash, bash, bash.

      The criticism of Apple does not constitute “bashing” as long it is true.

      Microsoft has done a lot of bad “stuff,” too, and its underhanded tactics are almost always criticized in this forum.

      However, the Microsoft “stuff” is not the same as the Apple “stuff.” Microsoft is more sinister and devious, while Apple (and its fanboy legion) is mostly just deluded. Lately, Apple has started a lot of oppressive legal action based on its delusions.

      Ask not whether the criticism of Apple constitutes “bashing” — ask if it is true.

      • 2011-12-10 6:57 pm
        Windows Sucks

        Thought this was OSnews? Now it’s become the bash apple site. Microsoft is doing the same stuff and has been for years and yet no bashing there (but for me). But Apple? Bash, bash, bash.

        The criticism of Apple does not constitute “bashing” as long it is true.

        Microsoft has done a lot of bad “stuff,” too, and its underhanded tactics are almost always criticized in this forum.

        However, the Microsoft “stuff” is not the same as the Apple “stuff.” Microsoft is more sinister and devious, while Apple (and its fanboy legion) is mostly just deluded. Lately, Apple has started a lot of oppressive legal action based on its delusions.

        Ask not whether the criticism of Apple constitutes “bashing” — ask if it is true.

        The question of true is a matter of opinion. If you take the same story to an Apple shareholder I am SURE they would not spin the story in a bad light wether its true or not.

        The fact of Apple doing something like suing a company does not mean Apple is evil. My point of saying “bashing” is from the point of view of everything that is now posted on this site about Apple is spun (or posted) as negative.

        • 2011-12-10 7:24 pm
          tupp

          The question of true is a matter of opinion.

          No. Not really.

          The design of the Ipad has appeared in prior art for over for decades. That fact has been established countless times on this forum, and the fact is that Apple did not invent the rounded-cornered, shiny-black-flush-bezeled configuration.

          Not only has extensive prior art for the design thoroughly been established, but the design is so obvious, that it appeared as a prop in a blockbuster film in 1968 (eight years before Apple computer even existed) and it appeared as a mock-up in a video by a publishing company.

          So, there can be no question that Apple did not originate the tablet design for the Ipad. Apple have no claim to such a design and it should not have received a patent for it.

          Just because Apple’s lawyers (and fanboys) deny this fact it does not mean that such truth is “relative.”

          If you take the same story to an Apple shareholder I am SURE they would not spin the story in a bad light wether its true or not.

          Of course. The RDF affects shareholders, too.

          The fact of Apple doing something like suing a company does not mean Apple is evil.

          Apple is wrong to sue others as if it is the originator of the Ipad design.

          My point of saying “bashing” is from the point of view of everything that is now posted on this site about Apple is spun (or posted) as negative.

          It’s not “bashing” if the criticism is (currently) valid.

          • 2011-12-10 10:05 pm
            Windows Sucks

            No. Not really.

            The design of the Ipad has appeared in prior art for over for decades. That fact has been established countless times on this forum, and the fact is that Apple did not invent the rounded-cornered, shiny-black-flush-bezeled configuration.

            Not only has extensive prior art for the design thoroughly been established, but the design is so obvious, that it appeared as a prop in a blockbuster film in 1968 (eight years before Apple computer even existed) and it appeared as a mock-up in a video by a publishing company.

            So, there can be no question that Apple did not originate the tablet design for the Ipad. Apple have no claim to such a design and it should not have received a patent for it.

            Just because Apple’s lawyers (and fanboys) deny this fact it does not mean that such truth is “relative.”

            Of course. The RDF affects shareholders, too.

            Apple is wrong to sue others as if it is the originator of the Ipad design.

            It’s not “bashing” if the criticism is (currently) valid.

            Interesting. You say there is prior art in a blockbuster movie (I am assuming like Samsung tried to say was 2001: A Space Odyssey) I am assuming that you have never watched the movie because there is no tablet in the movie. I see you have fallen for the RDF that Sammy is putting out.

            Also you can’t claim that Apple is a BAD company because no one else took the time to actually file a patent for something they already made if they made it to be what Apple has made it to be. A tablet to be used like the iPad is. Any company before Apple could of done it but didn’t. Why? Because no one else thought of it at that time to make an actual product like Apple did. (A mock up is not a product)

            Its also interesting that as soon as the iPad came out everyone else came out with iPad like tablets. Before the iPad all tabs were Windows tablets that were thick and bulky.

            Even the Joo Joo tablet which is bigger and thicker the original iPad and designed to be held in landscape mode which the iPad is comfortable in both landscape and book mode is not prior art.

            That is why no one has thrown out Apples patents yet. Because Apple is the company that patented and made a product. Not vapor ware or mockups.

            If the courts throw it all out, invalidate the patents etc then yes it will be fact. But that has not happened.

          • 2011-12-10 11:38 pm
            tupp

            You say there is prior art in a blockbuster movie (I am assuming like Samsung tried to say was 2001: A Space Odyssey) I am assuming that you have never watched the movie because there is no tablet in the movie.

            No tablet in “2001: A Space Odyssey?”

            I can’t wait to hear your entertaining explanation of what those flat things are that are sitting on the table playing video in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3949GAIokg

            Also you can’t claim that Apple is a BAD company because no one else took the time to actually file a patent for something they already made if they made it to be what Apple has made it to be.p

            No one else bothered to patent the design because the design was so utterly obvious and fraught with prior art.

            Only Apple was deluded enough and arrogant enough to patent such a notion.

            A tablet to be used like the iPad is.

            Is this passage a sentence/point?

            Any company before Apple could of done it but didn’t. Why? Because no one else thought of it at that time to make an actual product like Apple did. (A mock up is not a product)

            The Joojoo preceded the Ipad to both concept and market and in design. Not only had a lot of people already thought to make such a product, they made such a product and sold it before Apple sold the Ipad (not that first to market is some sort of admirable accomplishment).

            Furthermore, not just other companies were gearing up for such tablets prior to the Ipad, but even Apple fanboys were speculating on the Apple tablet design, before it was introduced (sorry for the ad): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0MFoW-_y78

            So, the design was so obvious, that even the tard fanboys were coming up the tablet designs before the Ipad that were almost identical to the Ipad.

            Its also interesting that as soon as the iPad came out everyone else came out with iPad like tablets. Before the iPad all tabs were Windows tablets that were thick and bulky.

            No. Apple fanboys have short memories.

            The Crunchpad/JooJoo appeared and sold before the Ipad. Many non-Apple tablet rumors were buzzing prior at the time.

            Furthermore, I would like to reiterate a point that fanboys always seem to forget: thinness/miniaturization is not an innovation — it is a matter of degree that diminishes naturally as a result of fundamental technological progress. And Apple has contributed absolutely nothing to fundamental technological progress.

            Also, the Crunchpad/JooJoo was very thin, and others often beat Apple in the relentless thinness/miniaturization race.

            Even the Joo Joo tablet which is bigger and thicker the original iPad and designed to be held in landscape mode which the iPad is comfortable in both landscape and book mode is not prior art.

            You’re kidding right (you’re not that deluded)?:

            http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/cbd2.jpg?w=640

            http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/cbd3.jpg?w=640

            That is why no one has thrown out Apples patents yet. Because Apple is the company that patented and made a product. Not vapor ware or mock-ups.

            Again, the Crunchpad/JooJoo preceded the Ipad to concept and market, and no one bothered to patent the concept and design, because it was so utterly obvious.

            If the courts throw it all out, invalidate the patents etc then yes it will be fact. But that has not happened.

            Regardless of what happens in the courts, the Ipad design and concept is obvious and had tons of prior art. Apple did not originate the Ipad.

          • 2011-12-11 12:45 am
            Windows Sucks

            can’t wait to hear your entertaining explanation of what those flat things are that are sitting on the table playing video in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3949GAIokg

            Interesting. I don’t see them picking those things up (Since they are attached to the table) I also don’t see ANYTHING on them but TV. I would agree with you if they even picked them up and carried them around, but they don’t. Good try though.

            Only Apple was deluded enough and arrogant enough to patent such a notion.

            So then why did no one contest them filing and getting the patents if its so obvious. And why has no court yet invalidated the patents any place on earth??

            Companies get design patents in Europe all the time. Its a common thing, yet no one did it.

            The Joojoo preceded the Ipad to both concept and market and in design. Not only had a lot of people already thought to make such a product, they made such a product and sold it before Apple sold the Ipad (not that first to market is some sort of admirable accomplishment).

            Furthermore, not just other companies were gearing up for such tablets prior to the Ipad, but even Apple fanboys were speculating on the Apple tablet design, before it was introduced (sorry for the ad): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0MFoW-_y78

            So, the design was so obvious, that even the tard fanboys were coming up the tablet designs before the Ipad that were almost identical to the Ipad.

            Hello, because EVERYONE that pays attention to Apple knows that Apple had been talking about tablets for years before the iPad came out. If you read the Steve Jobs bio you will see that the iPad idea came way before the iPhone. The iPhone came as a later idea after the iPad. Just because Apple keeps its ideas secret does not mean they have not been working on them for years and years. So back to the Joo Joo which came out after the iPhone. If the iPad idea came before the iPhone and the iPhone came out before the JooJoo. Who was working on a tablet first. People act as if a company can’t have an idea and wait till the market is right to put it out. From what you are saying even though Apple long had the idea but never came out with the device because of things like multi touch issues, battery life, wack UI etc, they can’t take credit for all the R&D they did in house and patents they filed over the years based on that etc. That doesn’t even make sense.

            http://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/06/02/steve-jobs-the-ipad-concept-…

            No. Apple fanboys have short memories.

            No people who follow apple just happen to pay attention to the fact that Apple had tried to do this in the past already and had been talking about it since the late 80’s when they came out with the Newton.

            The Crunchpad/JooJoo appeared and sold before the Ipad. Many non-Apple tablet rumors were buzzing prior at the time.

            Furthermore, I would like to reiterate a point that fanboys always seem to forget: thinness/miniaturization is not an innovation — it is a matter of degree that diminishes naturally as a result of fundamental technological progress. And Apple has contributed absolutely nothing to fundamental technological progress.

            Also, the Crunchpad/JooJoo was very thin, and others often beat Apple in the relentless thinness/miniaturization race.

            Here is the kicker to all this. Apple filed its main design patent for the iPad in….. Wait for it, wait for it…. 2004!

            http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d…

            So Apple already had a patent pending on the iPad design before the JooJoo was even thought of! WAY before that non selling piece of Junk was thought of. OHHHH. So who had idea and design first?? According to the patent that would be Apple.

            Oh yes and if you look at Apples patent it cites other companies who did patent tablet designs, they just happen to be different then Apples design!

            And another fact is that people plead guilty to leaking internal info about the iPad a ways before it came out. Part of which led to a lot of the rumors etc.

            How quick everyones memory seems to fade. But you claim fanboys have the bad memories?

            http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/executive-pleads-guilty-to-l…

            Regardless of what happens in the courts, the Ipad design and concept is obvious and had tons of prior art. Apple did not originate the Ipad.

            So if there is so much prior art then it should be easy to prove and Apple should have no case?

            But in actuality regardless of what YOU and I say Apple right now is the patent holder and is enforcing its patents. The fact that you don’t like it is OPINION. LOL!

          • 2011-12-11 12:22 pm
            MOS6510

            In the Steve Jobs book he even in the early 80s said one day he’ll have computer that fits in his hands. I think he even held a book as a visual demonstration.

            BTW 2001 is a great movie. It’s a shame they never pick up those tablet computers, because now some people think they couldn’t be picked up or even used as more than just a TV screen embedded in a table. Oh well, like most “prior art” concerning the iPad none of it is actually a (real) tablet computer. But it is cool Samsung decided to model their products after SciFi movie props after the iPad did it as well and Samsung didn’t before the iPad, so ehm…

            At least people don’t claim (yet) Siri is crap, because HALL was much more clever.

          • 2011-12-11 5:23 pm
            JAlexoid

            Interesting. I don’t see them picking those things up (Since they are attached to the table) I also don’t see ANYTHING on them but TV. I would agree with you if they even picked them up and carried them around, but they don’t. Good try though.

            I just knew that you would say it. Just a perfect deflection. The devices are portable, because you can see the tables not having them later in the movie. And should I remind you, that this whole mess is not about a utility patent, it’s about a design patent. Where the actual function of the device is not relevant at all.

            So then why did no one contest them filing and getting the patents if its so obvious. And why has no court yet invalidated the patents any place on earth??

            Because people have better things to do, other than reading through millions of applications USPTO and other patent organisations receive…

            As for invalidation, NL judge didn’t even consider the CD as a valid defence for Apple, but had no authority to strike it down.

            Companies get design patents in Europe all the time. Its a common thing, yet no one did it.

            Because it’s easy. It costs 400 Eur for the paperwork and there is no validation of originality of the design.

            Hello, because EVERYONE that pays attention to Apple knows that Apple had been talking about tablets for years before the iPad came out. If you read the Steve Jobs bio you will see that the iPad idea came way before the iPhone.

            And Apple was involved with the Kinght-Ridder tablet 10 years before they filed their patent.

            That doesn’t even make sense.

            Do you know what does not make sense? You saying that a mockup is not a valid defence to a design patent and two posts down defending Apple’s right to defend it’s own mockups and renders from 2004.

            So if there is so much prior art then it should be easy to prove and Apple should have no case?

            A) Trials take time. Re-examination also takes time. The patent only recently surfaced.

            B) You do know what the comments from the judge were on this case? That Knight-Ridder is prior art.*

            * http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/812969/ECF_Redacted_Order_in_Appl… See page 39 for explanation by the judge.

            PS: Don’t even try bringing Newton into this, because this is all about the design. It has, quite literally, nothing to do with Newton.

          • 2011-12-11 7:04 pm
            MOS6510

            I just knew that you would say it. Just a perfect deflection. The devices are portable, because you can see the tables not having them later in the movie.

            So what if they filmed the tables without the “tablets” first and then embedded TVs in them?

            Or do you think that just for this scene they actually build tablets? I mean, a flat screen tablet PC with a color screen, in 1968, just for a few seconds in a non eventful scene?

          • 2011-12-11 7:31 pm
            Windows Sucks

            I just knew that you would say it. Just a perfect deflection. The devices are portable, because you can see the tables not having them later in the movie. And should I remind you, that this whole mess is not about a utility patent, it’s about a design patent. Where the actual function of the device is not relevant at all.

            Again interesting because this defense (The 2001 video) was NOT even mentioned in the court order that you have now linked because no one knows what it was meant to be in the movie, how do you know they were not flipped under the table, put a way etc. Point is you are giving opinion, for me I see TV set because all that was displayed is a TV show. You see “tablet” because thats what you want to see. In the end no one but you and Samsung actually take that serious! Does not say in the book or movie that the “devices” are tablets or even portable.

            Because people have better things to do, other than reading through millions of applications USPTO and other patent organisations receive…

            As for invalidation, NL judge didn’t even consider the CD as a valid defence for Apple, but had no authority to strike it down.

            Well interesting enough you don’t have to do any searches, there is a web site that tells you when almost ANY Apple patent is filed called patently Apple. Been in place for years. On top of that they filed these same patents all over the world not just in the US.

            Because it’s easy. It costs 400 Eur for the paperwork and there is no validation of originality of the design.

            And its just as easy to contest the patent if you think its invalid.

            And Apple was involved with the Kinght-Ridder tablet 10 years before they filed their patent,

            Right! Thank you. Last I looked Apple was the tech company that made this type of stuff, not Knight-Ridder. How much off it do we know was Apples ideas and how much of it was Knight-Ridders?

            Do you know what does not make sense? You saying that a mockup is not a valid defence to a design patent and two posts down defending Apple’s right to defend it’s own mockups and renders from 2004.

            Hello, knight-Ridder made an ad and that was it. I don’t even know if you call it a mockup. It was an idea that they never even got to the drawing board on. Apple filed the patents put in the R&D and followed through. And now its Apples fault because they followed through and choose to protect their investment? And my point about the timing of the patent was to show that Apple was WAY long in the process before the Joo-Joo was even thought about!

            A) Trials take time. Re-examination also takes time. The patent only recently surfaced.

            B) You do know what the comments from the judge were on this case? That Knight-Ridder is prior art.*

            http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/812969/ECF_Redacted_Order_in_Appl… See page 39 for explanation by the judge.

            Yes I have looked at this. And if you read the whole thing the judge STILL says that Samsung copied Apple and she didn’t invalidate Apples claims because of prior art including Knight-Ridder (You have to read the whole thing, not just pull out one part out of context)

            She also said “Samsung appears to have created a design that is likely to deceive an ordinary observer.”

            In the end she denied the motion more so because she felt (And even Apple had to agree) that Samsung is actually more competition to other Android tablets then to the iPad. NOT because of the design patents being invalid and not for prior art.

            PS: Don’t even try bringing Newton into this, because this is all about the design. It has, quite literally, nothing to do with Newton.

            I mentioned the Newton because of the talk of other companies having having these ideas way before Apple.

            And again this goes back to my original point. Apple is the valid patent holder until the patent is invalidated. That is fact. Everything else is opinion until if and when the patents are invalidated. Saying they are “Evil” or to just show them in a constant bad light because they followed the process and choose to defend their patents is opinion.

            And yes you can say anything you want, I was never saying don’t criticize Apple or MS or Google. My point is that it used to be OSnews. Tablet design patents and who is right and wrong on them has nothing to do with OS’s for real. But it does get hits.

          • 2011-12-13 3:56 pm
            JAlexoid

            Well interesting enough you don’t have to do any searches, there is a web site that tells you when almost ANY Apple patent is filed called patently Apple. Been in place for years. On top of that they filed these same patents all over the world not just in the US.

            Have you seen how many patents are being filed for every year? Why focus on Apple, if there can be thousands of other companies filing for patents no less ridiculous as Apple’s tablet design patent. (PS: Patently Apple started in 2006, so please…)

            And its just as easy to contest the patent if you think its invalid.

            Not in the middle of a lawsuit, involving the design in question. OHIM defers to the courts in those cases.

            Hello, knight-Ridder made an ad and that was it. I don’t even know if you call it a mockup. It was an idea that they never even got to the drawing board on.

            So what? That is exactly what design patents are designed to protect. Apple’s own patent is no more than an artists sketch, Knigh-Ridder at least made a video incorporating it…

            Apple filed the patents put in the R&D and followed through. And now its Apples fault because they followed through and choose to protect their investment?

            Apple’s fault is not checking that they don’t have a right to how a modern tablet looks in the first place.

            And my point about the timing of the patent was to show that Apple was WAY long in the process before the Joo-Joo was even thought about!

            That is exactly the problem here, if they filed a patent in 1994 I would be less angry about it. You can’t have a design out in public for 10 years and then patent it, it just is not right.

          • 2011-12-11 7:13 am
            clasqm

            You are correct, of course, that there was a “pad” of sorts in 2001. But the fact that this argument is even coming up is proof of the height of absurdity to which we have come.

            I am building a time machine. The first thing I have to do is go back in time and kill H G Wells before he can write his book …

  • 2011-12-10 4:12 am
    unclefester

    The iPad design is virtually identical to a standard child’s slate dating from the 1800s – same size, same thickness, same border area, same rounded corners.

    http://photodune.net/item/old-slate-blackboard/530072

    Steve Jobs would have had one when he was a child.

    • 2011-12-10 4:23 pm
      Tony Swash

      The iPad design is virtually identical to a standard child’s slate dating from the 1800s – same size, same thickness, same border area, same rounded corners.

      http://photodune.net/item/old-slate-blackboard/530072

      Steve Jobs would have had one when he was a child.

      What a strange and bizarre comment.

      Let’s move on.

      Nobody copied the Joo Joo because it was a failure. All tablets before before the iPad were a failure. None sold in anything other than pitifully small quantities. Before the iPad the tablet market was utterly moribund. Then came the iPad which became an almost instant success. This one product galvanised the tablet market, it actually created a tablet market, and everybody rushed to bring out their own ‘me to’ products to try to grab a part of this market. Samsung didn’t copy, or imitate or be inspired by (choose the adjective to suit) the Joo Joo. Samsung saw the iPad and thought we can make one of those. It made one of those that looks just like an iPad.

      Apple has a long history of product innovation and product trend setting. There is also a long history of people copying Apple’s products. Sometimes this copying is quite subtle, more like Apple just setting the general design trends, other times the copying is very blatant.

      Probably some people would argue Apple isn’t innovative, that Apple just copies, they Apple isn’t copied much etc but, we all now none of that is true. We all know Apple has had a lot of it’s products copied.

      Apple’s core business strategy hinges on product differentiation. So other people copying Apple’s products is a problem for the company, it undermines product differentiation and, because almost all the copies are tangibly inferior, it undermines Apple’s brand.

      Apple almost certainly knows that it cannot stop completely, or permanently, the copying of it’s products but it has the resources to wage a wide ranging legal campaign of attrition to make copying Apple’s products a more fraught, a more expensive and perhaps a more dangerous strategy. Apple probably thinks that that is the best it can do, make copying harder, slow it down a bit, deter it a bit.

      It’s not as if Apple started the patent wars. Those started as it became obvious that we were entering a new technology period when the old Wintel desktop world had started to fade and where vast sums and fortunes awaited those who could be successful in the new mobile device markets. Lots of companies started to sue each other. The most significant law suite is that between Oracle and Google whose out come we should know sometime in 2012.

      I expect the web of law suites to go on for a time yet. Apple, I think, will persist in using the law to try to make copying it’s products more difficult. Sometimes Apple will be successful, sometimes it won’t. But even when it loses Apple’s actions help make the copyists life harder.

      Meanwhile Apple is working on what comes after the iPad and after the iPhone.

      Samsung isn’t. Because Samsung hasn’t seen what Apple is working on yet.

      • 2011-12-10 7:35 pm
        Alfman verbose=1

        Tony Swash,

        I can understand why people enjoy their i-wares, but for any one player to take all the credit without acknowledging anyone else’s contributions (including market failures) is astonishingly arrogant. Why is it so important to give apple all the credit and discredit everyone else?

        • 2011-12-12 4:37 pm
          Tony Swash

          Tony Swash,

          I can understand why people enjoy their i-wares, but for any one player to take all the credit without acknowledging anyone else’s contributions (including market failures) is astonishingly arrogant. Why is it so important to give apple all the credit and discredit everyone else?

          Where did I do that?

      • 2011-12-10 8:09 pm
        Bill Shooter of Bul Platinum Prime Supporter

        This whole thing is not about who deserves credit or not, or who makes a better tablet. Its about refuting Apple’s absurd design claims. The form factor of the the ipad is obvious. Nobody is copying apple on that. Proof that many other people came up with the same physical appearance for a simular product is proof of that.

        This is a matter of who is correct as a matter of law ( which is in the realm of courts) rather than one of subjective inovation ( which is the realm of idiotic forum posters).

        • 2011-12-10 8:34 pm
          brichpmr

          If Apple’s design claims are absurd, then the market will ultimately decide the issue. So far, the market thinks the iPad is pretty damn sweet.

          • 2011-12-10 8:45 pm
            Alfman verbose=1

            brichpmr,

            “If Apple’s design claims are absurd, then the market will ultimately decide the issue. So far, the market thinks the iPad is pretty damn sweet.”

            Wow, if you don’t see the fallacy in that, then there’s no point in trying to explain it.

          • 2011-12-10 11:02 pm
            brichpmr

            This is reality….not a fallacy. Customers will decide, ultimately.

          • 2011-12-10 8:52 pm
            Splinter

            Again if Apple believed the “Market” will back them then why are the suing everyone. This belief that the “market” is magic and will do the right thing is absurd. Standard Oil, IBM, Bell and Microsoft are examples where the “market” failed to curb destructive company behaviors and the Law had to step in.

          • 2011-12-10 11:29 pm
            _txf_

            If Apple’s design claims are absurd, then the market will ultimately decide the issue. So far, the market thinks the iPad is pretty damn sweet.

            The market has no bearing whatsoever on whether apples design patents are valid. The market thinks the ipad is pretty sweet for reasons completely orthogonal to the design patents claimed by apple…

            Ignoring the total lack of logic in your comment, and just speculating on what you wrote, how would the market decide if the competitors are being sued out of existence?

          • 2011-12-11 12:41 pm
            brichpmr

            If Apple’s design claims are absurd, then the market will ultimately decide the issue. So far, the market thinks the iPad is pretty damn sweet.

            The market has no bearing whatsoever on whether apples design patents are valid. The market thinks the ipad is pretty sweet for reasons completely orthogonal to the design patents claimed by apple…

            Ignoring the total lack of logic in your comment, and just speculating on what you wrote, how would the market decide if the competitors are being sued out of existence?

            The market ALWAYS is the ultimate and final arbiter….judges come and go. If the iPad wasn’t kicking butt and taking names, Samsung wouldn’t be producing their arguably inferior clones.

          • 2011-12-11 6:16 pm
            Alfman verbose=1

            brichpmr,

            “The market ALWAYS is the ultimate and final arbiter….judges come and go. If the iPad wasn’t kicking butt and taking names, Samsung wouldn’t be producing their arguably inferior clones.”

            You’re speaking in terms of your own ideals, but unfortunately the real world doesn’t ALWAYS work that way. In fact it RARELY works that way. If you’ve been keeping up with the news, you know that *even* apple resorts to legal means to block their competitors from markets rather than allowing the markets to decide. They’re not necessarily more guilty than any other corp, but they’re still guilty.

          • 2011-12-12 4:15 pm
            Bill Shooter of Bul Platinum Prime Supporter

            Did not get the point at all. I was not saying that the Ipad was fugly or stupid, I was saying the legal claim that Apple was the first one to devise the design is absurd.

            Markets do not decide who’s “design patents” are valid. That’s just not the way it works.

      • 2011-12-10 9:17 pm
        ichi

        Apple’s core business strategy hinges on product differentiation. So other people copying Apple’s products is a problem for the company, it undermines product differentiation and, because almost all the copies are tangibly inferior, it undermines Apple’s brand.

        Though luck then, because you can’t seriusly claim exclusivity over a design where prior art exist.

        You can easily give Apple that they make nice products with nice designs, and have the ability to market them correctly with the right timing.

        That said, if they want to rely on product differentiation and keep competitors from copying the designs of their products then they’ll have to come up with designs that are actually different and not just nice implementations of already existing designs.

        • 2011-12-12 4:45 pm
          Tony Swash

          Apple’s core business strategy hinges on product differentiation. So other people copying Apple’s products is a problem for the company, it undermines product differentiation and, because almost all the copies are tangibly inferior, it undermines Apple’s brand.

          Though luck then, because you can’t seriusly claim exclusivity over a design where prior art exist.

          You can easily give Apple that they make nice products with nice designs, and have the ability to market them correctly with the right timing.

          That said, if they want to rely on product differentiation and keep competitors from copying the designs of their products then they’ll have to come up with designs that are actually different and not just nice implementations of already existing designs.

          You seem to be saying things are not as they are. I was trying to state some facts – Apple doesn’t want it’s products copied, Apple’s products are copied, and have been copied in the past, Apple has waged a legal war of attrition to make copying it’s stuff more complicated, Apple will probably go on waging that war, sometimes Apple will win in the courts and sometimes it will lose, but it will wage that war because to not do so would be lunacy.

          Can anybody honestly claim that Samsung decided to make it’s tablets because of the impact of any tablet other than the iPad? Arguing about ‘prior art’ and the design of some almost forgotten tablet that failed to sell at some point in the past is the sort of arguments lawyers make. Pedantic nitpicking sort of arguments. But we know the simple truth. All tablets are iPad ‘me too’ products, all of them are only being made and sold because of the success of the iPad. Without the iPad there would be no tablet market.

          • 2011-12-12 5:47 pm
            ichi

            Can anybody honestly claim that Samsung decided to make it’s tablets because of the impact of any tablet other than the iPad? Arguing about ‘prior art’ and the design of some almost forgotten tablet that failed to sell at some point in the past is the sort of arguments lawyers make. Pedantic nitpicking sort of arguments. But we know the simple truth. All tablets are iPad ‘me too’ products, all of them are only being made and sold because of the success of the iPad. Without the iPad there would be no tablet market.

            Of course Samsung designs are because of iPad’s success, but the thing is Samsung is fully entitled to do so precisely because of those “pedantic nitpicking arguments”: the designs predate the iPad, so Apple has no saying on who adopts them.

            Legally, Apple can try to claim those as their own IP, and legally as well Samsung can try to get all that invalidated on the courts based on prior art.

            Considering that such prior art does actually exist I don’t think Apple has much of a leg to stand on.

          • 2011-12-12 7:56 pm
            amadensor

            The point is not that Samsung created a tablet because of Crunchpad, but instead that the design of a tablet is not unique to Apple, and would be obvious to anyone making them during that time period.

            It would be much like Ford suing others for making 4 wheeled cars because the Model T Ford made them popular, even though Mercedes and others made them before Ford. 4 wheels is obvious. Look at the Reliant Robin if you have any questions, they fall over pretty easily on 3 wheels.

      • 2011-12-11 12:52 am
        unclefester

        Apple is claiming that that they have a legal monopoly on rectangular media devices with narrow borders and rounded corners. This is total BS.

        The only practical shape for a “media” tablet is a thin rectangle with narrow borders and rounded corners. The Sumerians worked this out over 5000 years ago.

      • 2011-12-11 2:41 am
        unclefester

        Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of industrial design and architecture will tell you that every Apple design ever produced is highly derivative and unoriginal.

        Everything from the Apple stores to the iPhone can be shown to be heavily influenced by prior art dated as far back as the mid-19th century.

    • 2011-12-11 12:26 pm
      MOS6510

      Not sure anyone would mistake this for an iPad.

      What kind of CPU does your slate have, memory, operating system? What kind of default apps (email, browser, media player) does it have?

      I guess it doesn’t run Flash, but nor does the iPad and on the iPad you can’t write with chalk (I guess you could, but I wouldn’t recommend it).

      So when your kid asks for an iPad for Christmas just save some money and give him a slate. He’ll never notice the difference.

      • 2011-12-11 2:14 pm
        unclefester

        Not sure anyone would mistake this for an iPad.

        What kind of CPU does your slate have, memory, operating system? What kind of default apps (email, browser, media player) does it have?.

        Totally irrelevant.

        A slate is a real product. Apple tried to sue Samsung in Europe based on a nothing more than a drawing (Apple lost BTW).

        Apple were stupid enough to sue Samsung and now must face the consequences. These include massive amounts offree publicity for Samsung, a public disgusted with Apple behaviour and rejection of Apple IP by the courts.

  • 2011-12-10 8:21 am
    unclefester

    This tablet is about 5000 years old. Note the 16/9 resolution, narrow borders and *cough* rounded corners.

    http://forces.si.edu/soils/04_00_38.html

  • 2011-12-10 9:00 am
    marcp

    Oh, come on. Get real. We all know [hopefuly] know that iPad wasn’t a first tablet out there. IT was merely a clone.

    I am shocked how people can look for explanation in this matter

  • 2011-12-10 9:30 pm
    Hussein

    Thom is an obvious troll.

    If the iPad was so obvious why does every tablet after its release looks like a reaction to it? Remember all those tablets introduced in CES 2010 before the iPad’s announcement?

    • 2011-12-11 7:17 am
      clasqm

      Like this?

      http://twitpic.com/67ykpa/full

      • 2011-12-11 7:48 am
        unclefester

        Obviously someone has gone out of their way to find tablets that look as little like the iPad as possible.

        The fact is that the iPad design is virtually identical in size, thickness and appearance to slates used by children since the 1800s.

        • 2011-12-11 8:21 am
          Gusar

          Obviously someone has gone out of their way to find tablets that look as little like the iPad as possible.

          Indeed. They conveniently left out the Compaq/HP TC1x00 for example.

  • 2011-12-11 7:50 am
    unclefester

    Here’s a prototype full colour multimedia device from 1880. Note the stylus input.

    The patent date is June 29 1875.

    Remarkably it is still in perfect working order.

    http://www.icollect247.com/itempage.php?uniqueid=36435

    Edited 2011-12-11 07:57 UTC

  • 2011-12-11 10:00 am
    nej_simon

    … all those flatscreen plasma and LCD TV:s sold years before the iPad. Many had similar design characteristics to the iPad, such as thin borders, flat black surface, uncluttered design etc.

  • 2011-12-12 2:06 pm
    siraf72

    .