- Status
digitalprospecter
Distinguished
- Mar 31, 2010
- 786
- 0
- 19,060
Watch the documentry called "Pirates of Silicon Valley" and you'll learn that Microsoft and Apple both stole ideas from Xerox.
Did anyone ever watch the original Star Trek episodes that showed Kirk signing reports...on a device that looked just like an iPad? Am I the only one who remembers this?
Paying Xerox Parc in shares doesn't seem like stealing - but I suspect they cashed those in decades ago.
I think now as an enlightened Mac zealot, just kidding!...
Great article, I enjoyed reading it. It is a nice observation Alan Kay does about the App Store. I think a revolutionary tablet device should integrate and be the hub for manny other devices and functions. If the App Store or Apple model wont allow that integration or makes it difficult for developers it may endanger the iPad so Apple needs a better model for approval and clearer rules for developers. Thousands of applications are good but some very clever integrated applications and gadgets working together would have more impact.
Also it is obvious to me Apple and Steve Jobs did not came up with the ideas for anything. He is not at all without a merit, he just lately earned and have at his disposal a huge commercial power to produce massive gadgets on the Apple and Steve Jobs's way. As I understand he is kind of a perfectionist but now more that ever he is focused on consumer products. Apple has the expertise to refine a concept to market and the credibility and power to persuade some big names to join their commercial model. And that creates big expectations and a momentum. That is great for the vast consumer needs and it also creates another standard that every player need to address. Not bad at all, unless the other players fail to succeed and stay behind.
What is happening today to the other big players? Something is not working. There is to much of the same and it is sometimes difficult for the common user to substantially differentiate a product from the pack. People needs to know they are not spending time and money and learning something that is going to be obsolete in a few months. Also design facilitates this notion or message that something is here to stay and that you are not going to stay behind that fast. Most people wont spend the time to do some research, which is problematic for them and for the technology companies. So it makes more sense to approach the people.
I like more the tablet from HP. But I am going to wait and see what happens on the market. I don't want to spend $500 plus peripherals and software on an iPad to discover it is not helping me at all or that I could not find a proper use for it. As it is right now I wont buy the iPad. I Have an iPod touch and I have been using it less and less, but it is still useful. I don't see the revolution just yet and I can wait.
Great article, I enjoyed reading it. It is a nice observation Alan Kay does about the App Store. I think a revolutionary tablet device should integrate and be the hub for manny other devices and functions. If the App Store or Apple model wont allow that integration or makes it difficult for developers it may endanger the iPad so Apple needs a better model for approval and clearer rules for developers. Thousands of applications are good but some very clever integrated applications and gadgets working together would have more impact.
Also it is obvious to me Apple and Steve Jobs did not came up with the ideas for anything. He is not at all without a merit, he just lately earned and have at his disposal a huge commercial power to produce massive gadgets on the Apple and Steve Jobs's way. As I understand he is kind of a perfectionist but now more that ever he is focused on consumer products. Apple has the expertise to refine a concept to market and the credibility and power to persuade some big names to join their commercial model. And that creates big expectations and a momentum. That is great for the vast consumer needs and it also creates another standard that every player need to address. Not bad at all, unless the other players fail to succeed and stay behind.
What is happening today to the other big players? Something is not working. There is to much of the same and it is sometimes difficult for the common user to substantially differentiate a product from the pack. People needs to know they are not spending time and money and learning something that is going to be obsolete in a few months. Also design facilitates this notion or message that something is here to stay and that you are not going to stay behind that fast. Most people wont spend the time to do some research, which is problematic for them and for the technology companies. So it makes more sense to approach the people.
I like more the tablet from HP. But I am going to wait and see what happens on the market. I don't want to spend $500 plus peripherals and software on an iPad to discover it is not helping me at all or that I could not find a proper use for it. As it is right now I wont buy the iPad. I Have an iPod touch and I have been using it less and less, but it is still useful. I don't see the revolution just yet and I can wait.
Android is trying to do what is Kay is describing as object-like(not oriented) programs with intents. An application for android can use google maps within the application and other applications can use other applications with a specific "intent"(like playing music or watching a video). As for programming for little kids, look at little big planet, kudo, but beyond anything more complicated than that I don't see that happening(right now anyways)...
Programs being used interchangeably...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6COwgigJ-g
Programs being used interchangeably...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6COwgigJ-g
bob barker
Distinguished
- Apr 18, 2010
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
Wow. I couldn't read through this ridiculously long op piece but the author and most comments here are pure fantasy. You bitch about fanboys not grasping reality, yet you guys are as bad as those you accuse. You haters are bending space and time, yourselves.
The fact is that Jobs NEVER says he "invents" anything. He always says "we're going to REinvent (name device here)". The definition of "reinvent" means improving on something already in existence. For example, when he announced the iPhone he said something like "today we're announcing a new iPod, a cell phone, and a "portable web device" or something to that effect. Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure we've all heard of an iPod, a cell phone and even some forms of portable web device. Nothing new, just better thought out, better integrated -- and better marketed.
No different with the iPad. Jobs never said they invented it. They -- and we -- know MS tried to get tablet computing going. The fact that MS failed at it doesn't mean they didn't do it first.
Ditto with the Mac OS, itself. Xerox had their Smalltalk OS running on their Alto computers years before the Mac -- and Apple was able to licence elements from this tech from Xerox. As for the world at large, however, they'd never heard of the Alto, of Xerox PARC or anything like a computer coming out of Xerox. "They're a copier company, aren't they?" is what the masses thought -- as did the Xerox Board of Directors which assured Xerox's narrow legacy. In effect, there was no GUI OS before Apple's because NOBODY ever heard of the one Xerox developed.
And that's what this all comes down to: marketing. It may look like Apple invented things because nobody ever heard of them before from the original creators. Go out on the street and yell, "Alan Kay invented the iPad!" That, and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Who cares? It's the same with Steve Wozniak, himself! Had he never met Jobs he'd have stayed at the Homebrew Computer Club and probably nothing would have happened with the Apple I -- the first COMMERCIALLY available personal computer. Were it not for Jobs, IBM would have "invented" the first personal computer.
Oh, and I suppose the Jules Verne estate should sue NASA and the former Soviet Union for stealing that "space flight" idea...
The fact is that Jobs NEVER says he "invents" anything. He always says "we're going to REinvent (name device here)". The definition of "reinvent" means improving on something already in existence. For example, when he announced the iPhone he said something like "today we're announcing a new iPod, a cell phone, and a "portable web device" or something to that effect. Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure we've all heard of an iPod, a cell phone and even some forms of portable web device. Nothing new, just better thought out, better integrated -- and better marketed.
No different with the iPad. Jobs never said they invented it. They -- and we -- know MS tried to get tablet computing going. The fact that MS failed at it doesn't mean they didn't do it first.
Ditto with the Mac OS, itself. Xerox had their Smalltalk OS running on their Alto computers years before the Mac -- and Apple was able to licence elements from this tech from Xerox. As for the world at large, however, they'd never heard of the Alto, of Xerox PARC or anything like a computer coming out of Xerox. "They're a copier company, aren't they?" is what the masses thought -- as did the Xerox Board of Directors which assured Xerox's narrow legacy. In effect, there was no GUI OS before Apple's because NOBODY ever heard of the one Xerox developed.
And that's what this all comes down to: marketing. It may look like Apple invented things because nobody ever heard of them before from the original creators. Go out on the street and yell, "Alan Kay invented the iPad!" That, and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Who cares? It's the same with Steve Wozniak, himself! Had he never met Jobs he'd have stayed at the Homebrew Computer Club and probably nothing would have happened with the Apple I -- the first COMMERCIALLY available personal computer. Were it not for Jobs, IBM would have "invented" the first personal computer.
Oh, and I suppose the Jules Verne estate should sue NASA and the former Soviet Union for stealing that "space flight" idea...
This article tells me nothing new or revealing. Everything about the Daynabook and Alan Kay was well known and common knowledge at the time to anyone that was old enough and intelligent enough to read. The article is much to do about nothing. Alan Kay destroys the entire premise of the article by this paragraph:
"“I have been given proper credit for my research and so have the other principal contributors to personal computing and Internetworking. We've all been given the major awards in our fields, honorary degrees from universities, elected as fellows to the major professional societies, etc,” Kay said. “I don't know of any who wanted to be popular like a rock star or actor, so it all worked out well. And for quite a few of us, the big rewards now come from when our ideas are actually used rather than watered down.”
Sorry, but this article is a joke. Nothing was "stolen."
"“I have been given proper credit for my research and so have the other principal contributors to personal computing and Internetworking. We've all been given the major awards in our fields, honorary degrees from universities, elected as fellows to the major professional societies, etc,” Kay said. “I don't know of any who wanted to be popular like a rock star or actor, so it all worked out well. And for quite a few of us, the big rewards now come from when our ideas are actually used rather than watered down.”
Sorry, but this article is a joke. Nothing was "stolen."
mlopinto2k1
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2006
- 1,433
- 0
- 19,280
Um, what ever happened to people being allowed to be innovative by others ideas? Imitation is the ultimate form of flattery. What about those electric cars back in the 50's that worked for 15 to 20 minutes, enough to go to the store and back? I suppose hybrids and electric cars were stolen from these ideas as well? So ridiculous.
In addition, I guess I should not be surprised that your article deliberately omits the fact that Alan Kay was one of the original Apple Fellows, appointed to that position and honor by Steve Jobs.
What a bunch of hooey.
What a bunch of hooey.
NAteSSSS
THANK YOU I was to begining to think I was the only person on here over 40 and has read a book!
I wonder many people on here know we also have landed on the moon?
THANK YOU I was to begining to think I was the only person on here over 40 and has read a book!
I wonder many people on here know we also have landed on the moon?
It was nice educating people about the Dynabook, but since that was one of the most seminal writings in computer science, I am not sure how you missed in in your career in IT.
I agree that the app oriented model is limiting, but Apple tried (with OpenDoc) to promote the object model of software distribution, and failed. The problem was not technical, as OpenDoc worked fine, but it was rejected by the marketplace. For software vendors, the problem with selling software components is that the business model is murky, because applications are well understood, but components are tiny, not well understood things. That is, you can sell people a spreadsheet or a word processor or a game, etc., but it is far from clear that you can sell them components to provide those functions in documents that are composed of bits of functionality from multiple vendors. So OpenDoc was never supported by any of the major software companies. And for users, it is confusing to get a document and not be able to read it because it contains pieces written using tools that you do not have, or with comparable components from competing vendors. And some things, such as games, do not fit the document-component model at all. So while the application model is limiting, it is a simple, well understood model.
If only Apple would approve Squeak (or Scratch) for the iPad. That would be, while unlikely, a wonderful combination.
I agree that the app oriented model is limiting, but Apple tried (with OpenDoc) to promote the object model of software distribution, and failed. The problem was not technical, as OpenDoc worked fine, but it was rejected by the marketplace. For software vendors, the problem with selling software components is that the business model is murky, because applications are well understood, but components are tiny, not well understood things. That is, you can sell people a spreadsheet or a word processor or a game, etc., but it is far from clear that you can sell them components to provide those functions in documents that are composed of bits of functionality from multiple vendors. So OpenDoc was never supported by any of the major software companies. And for users, it is confusing to get a document and not be able to read it because it contains pieces written using tools that you do not have, or with comparable components from competing vendors. And some things, such as games, do not fit the document-component model at all. So while the application model is limiting, it is a simple, well understood model.
If only Apple would approve Squeak (or Scratch) for the iPad. That would be, while unlikely, a wonderful combination.
mdillenbeck
Distinguished
- Jun 11, 2008
- 504
- 0
- 18,980
An excellent article. I found it had the right amount of depth, a feel of striving for journalistic objectivity, and let me come to my own conclusions.
As Kay pointed out, he is not a business entrepreneur nor does he want to be one. Jobs is definitely that, and in that regard I am sure Kay has respect for him.
Is Jobs just an idea thief? Wittingly or unwittingly, yes. We all have seen things in our childhood or earlier adult years that have helped shaped our ideas, but only in the last few intellectual property (IP) rights decades have we gone with mass citations and legal actions for those ideas.
For example, engineering geeks wanted to make Star Trek a reality. Thus we have flip mobile phones and slate PCs. (I find the Star Trek tablets more akin to a Motion Computing device for inventory, construction, or the medical field than an iPad.) It is also why sometimes a musician gets sued for "stealing a song", or why one artist's work may look like another artist's work (imitation being flattering or theft is relative).
I know my creativity has been influenced by people I doubt I could name, but I am sure that some of my works would be considered IP theft by our modern terms. However, it is more akin to the kid who absently walks out of the store with a piece of candy in hand rather than the kid who intentionally stuffs pockets full of candies and sneaks out of the store.
As Kay pointed out, he is not a business entrepreneur nor does he want to be one. Jobs is definitely that, and in that regard I am sure Kay has respect for him.
Is Jobs just an idea thief? Wittingly or unwittingly, yes. We all have seen things in our childhood or earlier adult years that have helped shaped our ideas, but only in the last few intellectual property (IP) rights decades have we gone with mass citations and legal actions for those ideas.
For example, engineering geeks wanted to make Star Trek a reality. Thus we have flip mobile phones and slate PCs. (I find the Star Trek tablets more akin to a Motion Computing device for inventory, construction, or the medical field than an iPad.) It is also why sometimes a musician gets sued for "stealing a song", or why one artist's work may look like another artist's work (imitation being flattering or theft is relative).
I know my creativity has been influenced by people I doubt I could name, but I am sure that some of my works would be considered IP theft by our modern terms. However, it is more akin to the kid who absently walks out of the store with a piece of candy in hand rather than the kid who intentionally stuffs pockets full of candies and sneaks out of the store.
This article provided me a lot of insight on a lot of the things we take for granted today. That idea of dynabook was truly amazing, and well ahead of its time. I could only imagine how it would be if it were invented today.
I say ATARI, anyone else does remembre the ATARI ST-PAD? Ok, it was maybe not the first time the idea was presented, but it was working penbook and apple stole the name of it. I think the ST-PAD was the real "inspiration" for Jobs.
rebturtle
Distinguished
- Dec 13, 2001
- 283
- 0
- 18,780
I think it's funny that we are so conceited that we think nobody could possibly come up with similar ideas to one another independently.
I remember in the late 80's when I coined the term "going postal." I was amazed at how quickly the term melted into the mainstream media and American culture. I was even more amazed because I was in grade school, and had never mentioned the term to anyone. It just made sense in my young mind.
Did anyone consider that making a touch-screen, hand-held computer just "made sense?" I'm sure there have been thousands of people who could claim they THOUGHT of it first. That doesn't make the idea proprietary.
I remember in the late 80's when I coined the term "going postal." I was amazed at how quickly the term melted into the mainstream media and American culture. I was even more amazed because I was in grade school, and had never mentioned the term to anyone. It just made sense in my young mind.
Did anyone consider that making a touch-screen, hand-held computer just "made sense?" I'm sure there have been thousands of people who could claim they THOUGHT of it first. That doesn't make the idea proprietary.
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram