I think this bit at least is proveably untrue. They famously bet the farm on USB with the first iMac when pretty much all the PC manufacturers were ignoring it. It was a largely untried technology with no great market penetration at the time. And there was probably one one real touchscreen phones before the iPhone - I know, it was the Sony Ericsson P800 line and I had one and it sucked - yet these days you can't go out without falling over a pile of press releases about touchscreen mobiles.

If I was to characterise Apple in these terms, I'd say their skill is that they can take a technology which already exists but hasn't found a 'home' (i.e the reverse of what was suggested) and find a way to use it that nobody else thought of yet. That's certainly innovative. You could possibly describe it as inventive although I'd say that would be stretching it some. But the idea that Apple just take other people's ideas, add a bit of brushed aluminium and claim the credit is a rather one-eyed view of history.

IIRC the P800 might not have been amazing, but I thought it was still roughly well regarded with it's successor the P900 even more so?

And really, isn't the whole touchscreen phone matter just the issue of convergence? I mean PDAs had touchscreens for quite a long time and as phones started to take over those functions, the need for a more advanced input system was necessary... probably starting with those fold out keyboards.

Altair?


Xerox Dynabook (Alan Kaye's invention).


The original Macintosh?


Any one of dozens of other small form factor machines over the years.


Any of of thousands of tower cased computers.


Any one of thousands of other laptops over the years.

The first "MacBook Air" I saw came from Digital in 1990.


There were lots of set top boxes with built in hard disks before Apple put out the TV.


Derivative works. They brought new design and multi-touch to the masses, but they weren't "new", they were entries into an already existing sector.


Again, derivative works. The Newton brought a semi-decent handwriting recognition algorithm with it, but it wasn't the first. Same with the iPad, it is essentially a large iPod Touch and there have been hundreds of other tablets over the years. That doesn't stop it being innovative and possibly changing the computing landscape, but it isn't an original idea, it is a fascinating adaption of existing technology.


NAS storage devices are nothing new and there were lots of wireless routers and extenders on the market before the Airport series - even media extenders.

They always come up with a nice, clean design and they usually find a unique way to leverage the existing technology or a unique way to implement it. But very little of what they have released is really 100% Apple's own work and totally new.

This is true, and I don't think MANY will deny that Apple have taken existing technology and run with it and made it a success - the MP3 market is another one. The original Macintosh was another, a GUI, most people laughed at it for being a toy, compared to their green text screened IBM PCs.


I used a few over the years, HP/Compaq and Fujitsu Siemens have had touchscreen mobiles for the best part of a decade - my 2002 Loox had a mobile-phone module, for example.


See my above post. Yep, they are good at taking something that hasn't hit the big time and giving it its big break.

The reason that the iPad will sell well is little or nothing to do with the device itself. Apple's marketing department has been in overdrive in recent years to separate their products from the desperately geeky image of computers in general. Apple's products aren't computer products anymore - they are part of a lifestyle, a life choice.

Consequently we end up with adverts that perpetuate the perceived distance between "Mac" and "PC" (despite the fact that a Mac, by not filling up a room, is by definition a P.C. - personal computer). The imagery in the Mac vs. PC adverts is cleverly chosen to present a choice between youth, couture and peace on the one hand and age, geekiness and stress on the other. By using the language of "I am", the consumer is coerced into thinking of the choice as not of use or convenience but of lifestyle, meaning and core personal identity. iPod/iTunes adverts are abstract and silhouetted, dragging the focus away from the device and turning it instead onto the cool, well-heeled trendsetters - the subconscious message being "be like me: relaxed, coiffed and popular". iPhone adverts are shot on a white background - in the complicated, stressed-out, hypertensive West it says "I'll make your life easier, slower, more comfortable". The same adverts (for a telephone remember) focus not on such mundane things as calling or texting but instead on the ways in which it makes life easier or more fun (GPS, cinema tickets, what tune is that?).

So, by the time we get to the iPad, Apple really don't need to do much marketing of the device itself. The Apple / Mac brand is so well established that they don't have to push a new consumer item into an already overcrowded space. There is now, almost by default, a ready-made Apple space in any market they want to inveigle themselves upon, whether or not the device itself is actually any good.

I know, I know. It still seems disingenuous.

Every device is built on the back of other devices.

Wheels were used in transport before the car came out. Steam was used before the steam engine. Trackpads came out before Apple used one made of glass with no buttons and included multitouch. Magnets existed before Apple used one to hold the power cord onto a laptop.

Can you think of anything that does not include components or ideas first used by something else?

A more fair (though imperfect) way to get an indication of innovation is to see how many patents a company hold. If none then they don't innovate, if plenty then probably they do.

No that just shows how many patents they hold and considering how broken the US patent system is....

I see a lot of truth in what you wrote. I do have to take issue whith the last point though. The device DOES have to be good. iPod Hi-Fi and Apple TV and TimeCapsule have shown that simply "putting it out there" is not enough.

No, that in part shows how many patents and in part how much innovation. The system is faulty but not broken. Patents do protect good ideas and innovation as well as stupid concepts such as the use of an apple in a logo.

Given the number of patents that have come out in the last few years, where I have gone "erm, but we've been doing that for the last couple of decades!" I don't really have any trust in the patent process and holding a large patent portfolio doesn't really mean anything these days.

Apple have multi-touch patents, in America, but they are being sued by a Taiwanese company who claims that Apple are infringing their multi-touch patents, which pre-date Apple's. If that is the case, how did Apple get their patents through?

Also, a lot of patents seem to be device specific. Microsoft have a lot of patents for multi-touch on large devices, Apple have almost identical patents for handheld devices. Surely the patent should be for multi-touch, not whether the display is bigger or smaller than 10" (random number)...

Does it not?

There may be poor patents out there and these won't stand. Does that mean that all patents are invalid? Has there never been a patent that has been upheld in court?

Having a patent means that at least one expert in the field has looked at it and decided that looks like a real innovation with no prior claim. Not perfect, but better that me or you saying "well it is obvious that big company over there never does anything new". Can you think of a better way of measuring the number of inventions a person or company makes?

The problem is, how many are weak or obvious?

If you have 1,000 patents, that looks good on paper. If however 999 of them fail when challenged, due to prior art or being obvious, what does that 1,000 figure actually mean?

Well if that is the case then the number means very little. However if 95% prove solid then it may mean quite a lot.

All I am saying is that if a person makes a dogmatic statement that company A only copies stuff and company B is full of innovation and new ideas then without some objective measure it is tricky to establish the truth of the situation. The patent system as flawed as it is gives us some quantitative data from which to begin a conversation.

Apple spend typically between 700 and 800 million a year on R&D. Are people saying in all the years that they have been running and after all that money spent they have invented nothing at all? That stretches my credibility somewhat.

To say Apple are good at taking existing ideas and improving them is fair enough. I just find it hard to accept that after all that investment a company of this size has never had an idea of it's own.

I'm not disputing their R&D and that they do have make innovations among existing technologies. I'm just saying, I have a total lack of faith in the American Patent System.

Well I can't fault you there. Some of the decisions that they make seem beyond stupid.