Patent Approved: Apple Now Owns "Slide to Unlock"

[poxenium]

Apple has patented speech, so everybody shut up!

 

[everygamer]

[citation][nom]zzz_b[/nom]WOW, it is very sad that you can even patent such a stupid thing... actually I think it needed much more thought than relativity. Maybe they should give a Nobel prize to Apple.[/citation]

I think it is more sad that our patent system allows for it to be done.

So, the question I have is if predefined means the same every time, then what if it is dynamic ... say you are given something you have to move to a random location each time. It is not pre-defined in that it is different each time.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Have you forgotten how different the old label of 'smartphones' was and how not even remotely comparable any of them were to our current interpretation of a smart phone? They were smartphones by name, not by features. Look at the Nokia N95 - it wasn't even touch screen, it resembles more of a Nokia 3210 than what we now understand as a smart phone. The fact you don't recognise the huge shift in meaning of smartphone is where you go wrong. And that shift in meaning is ever since the release of the iPhone.Nokia were successful because they were the best normal phone manufacturer, with classic bricks like the 3210 and later 8210 etc. THAT'S what made them successful, and that's what the N95 was more similar to when it came out. An 8210 with slightly more features.The Nokia app-store wasn't even opened until May 26, 2009, way after the Apple App Store, and when it did it wasn't even remotely comparable in terms of apps or uptake. Finally, the original poster also focused on tablets, as well as smart phones. Are you now going to continue with your original claim implying that tablets are successful due to Nokia and Sony-Ericsson?[/citation]
This is like saying the first computer isn't a computer because it's a lot different from computers of today. A touchscreen is not necessary to turn a phone into a smartphone. In fact there are quite a few phones that look very much like what you call smartphones but aren't one.

Please reread what I've written. I never once stated that Nokia had an application store. I said there were tons of application stores for symbian phones. In fact the boom of software for phones started with symbian and windows mobile/ce. Apple may have taken it to the next level but please give credit where credit is due.

Have you also forgotten the success of the older windows mobile, where Qtec (now HTC) and others created smartphones that are very much like the ones today?

Also the market for tablets was already there. Sure no tablet had the success of the iPad, but that doesn't mean they were failures profitabily and technologically.

 

[bambooboy]

Apple is such a *lame* greedy company.... damn.

 

[eddieroolz]

To be frankly honest though, sliding to unlock seems to be a rather obvious but nifty innovation by Apple.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]This is like saying the first computer isn't a computer because it's a lot different from computers of today. A touchscreen is not necessary to turn a phone into a smartphone. In fact there are quite a few phones that look very much like what you call smartphones but aren't one.Please reread what I've written. I never once stated that Nokia had an application store. I said there were tons of application stores for symbian phones. In fact the boom of software for phones started with symbian and windows mobile/ce. Apple may have taken it to the next level but please give credit where credit is due.Have you also forgotten the success of the older windows mobile, where Qtec (now HTC) and others created smartphones that are very much like the ones today?Also the market for tablets was already there. Sure no tablet had the success of the iPad, but that doesn't mean they were failures profitabily and technologically.[/citation]


'This is like saying the first computer isn't a computer because it's a lot different from computers of today'

No it isn't. It's like saying that a SMARTPHONE isn't a computer because it's a lot different to how people have historically understood computers to be. Phones are, after all, simply computers.

What makes them labelled differently is their a) Functionality is slightly different as it their b) Form factor, exactly what makes the modern interpretation of a Smart Phone different to the old bricks.

'A touchscreen is not necessary to turn a phone into a smartphone'

Right now, every single smart phone is touch screen. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be regarded as a full smartphone. Sorry, but your statement is simply wrong.

' I never once stated that Nokia had an application store. I said there were tons of application stores for symbian phones. In fact the boom of software for phones started with symbian and windows mobile/ce'

It doesn't matter whether you did or did not claim that Nokia had an application store. The fact is they didn't, and it is the application store and accessibility of the apps which define the modern smartphone, being as it is so infinitely extensible with apps purchased off the app-store. Indeed it is the model that now even Nokia has realised it has to pursue, as have Android. If you want to talk about software in general why don't you go back to the software written for Nokia 3210, that's still software. It's also, very much like your comment, completely irrelevant. It isn't an App Store, and the App-Store is what was so brilliant.

'Apple may have taken it to the next level but please give credit where credit is due'

You should give credit where it is due. You're banging on about a brick form 'smart phone' from 2007 which is in no way comparable to the smartphone as we know it today. The original iPhone, on the other hand, is. If we're trying to give credit for making bricks, or phones which have features, then fine, go back further, but if we're trying to find the genesis which began the whole current market which is touch screen, slim form-factor, app-focused phones, there can be no other than the iPhone. And that IS what we're trying to do.

Line the phones up, visually, in line with their history. Notice how the Nokia line is abruptly interrupted with a radically different new form factor without buttons for numbers, slim profile, and how that trend continues right through to today. Even visually it's obvious to see where the big change occurred. And that's in addition to the app-store and the necessary touch-screen which happened with this model.

Regarding the QTEC phones, they weren't successful, they lacked the form factor (having, as they did, whole keyboards), they had rubbish touch screen technology which wasn't usable without a stylus (and suspect even then), they didn't have a web browser, they had no-app store, they were ridiculously slow to the point of being unusable, they were just not comparable. And that's why nobody remembers them. In other words, they had neither the form factor, app-store, or proper touch screen which set a new course for smartphones.

The market for tablets was nowhere near anything like what it was before the iPad. People who would never previously have wanted tablets now buy them, Apple created that market. If the market was already there, the iPad wouldn't have triggered a string of copy-cats who are, even today, trying desperately to get a piece of the new market. You need to learn the difference between a niche, tiny market which no suitable products, to a massive, global market which transforms what other manufacturers try to build. That is what Apple created.

 

[Guest]

@watcha

you do realize the stylus was not required equipment for the R380 and P800..... the stylus was employed because it has a finer tip, you could happily employ anything small and thin enough as the stylus even your finger nails (as i have done) so yes it was a touch screen just not your Apple capacitive type touch screen but it did function as a touch screen (pretty well too i might add, Apple only used capacitive because it allowed for multi-touch capabilities), it's not the same stylus as say a wacom or nTrig which you maybe confusing it with

and i will reiterate, Apple popularized the smartphone

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]ItWasATouchScreen[/nom]@watchayou do realize the stylus was not required equipment for the R380 and P800..... the stylus was employed because it has a finer tip, you could happily employ anything small and thin enough as the stylus even your finger nails (as i have done) so yes it was a touch screen just not your Apple capacitive type touch screen but it did function as a touch screen (pretty well too i might add, Apple only used capacitive because it allowed for multi-touch capabilities), it's not the same stylus as say a wacom or nTrig which you maybe confusing it withand i will reiterate, Apple popularized the smartphone[/citation]

I know that you can use your finger nails. The fact that you would have to, rather than your fingers, is my problem. It's not really a functional touch screen if you have to have long nails or a twig to use it. But I mean those phones didn't have the form factor or the app store or the simplicity to appeal to everyday users, so none of the USP's of the iPhone. I would say that Apple recreated the smartphone to become what it is today, and then popularised that.

 

[Guest]

you are just a bunch of JERKS! apple is taking the cr*p out of you and the rest of the world, and you are giving your money to them like zombies to let it continue. keep buying apple stuff, zombies, lol. most of you should NEVER comment on ANY apply-related article.