Inkwell No Longer From the Newton?

CrezzyMan writes "From this post on the Newtontalk.net mailing list: Some of you may be interested to know that in the Inkwell section on Apple's website the following original text (straight after the keynote): 'Based on the Newton's 'Print Recognizer'-widely considered to be the world's first genuinely usable handwriting recognition solution-Inkwell's handwriting recognition is highly accurate and extensively tested' has been changed to: 'Built on Apple's Recognition Engine - Inkwell's handwriting recognition is the best in the industry.' Steve must really hate the Newton..." I'd be more likely to consider Inkwell a good technology if I knew it was from the Newton, but I was an actual Newton user. Most people erroneously think the HWR in Newton OS was bad (thanks to The Simpsons!).

Comments

Never a Newton user...

[singularity]

I never used a Newton, despite being a big Apple fan. I just never had the money when they were available.

When I hear "from Newton", though, I think of older technology. The Newton may have been great, but it was out a long time ago. Just rolling a Newton technology into the newest version of OS X seems like something I would not get excited about.

So my guess is that it is just a marketing decision.

The other thing (I do not think this) is that there are people that are going to look and equate Newton with "market failure." Once again, the marketing types are nt going to want people to think that about a new technology.

Inkwell may be based on Newton's recognition, but marketing does have some reasons not to make that obvious.

not much research at Apple anymore

[g4dget]

Apple did not single-handedly invent handwriting recognition (the techniques they used are very similar to those used by speech recognition and other handwriting recognition research), but they had the vision and foresight to be the first to try and build it into actual devices. You can find Larry's papers here.

The sad thing is that, today, Apple isn't doing much of that sort of research and development anymore. As far as I can tell, Apple's ATG (Advanced Technology Group) doesn't exist anymore. Most of the people who used to do this kind of research have moved on to other jobs. Microsoft Research is much larger and much more visible in the scientific community than whatever remnants of research may remain at Apple. But Microsoft still produces lousy products despite the large amounts of money they invest in research.

I think in the long run, Apple needs to invest heavily in research anymore or they'll be in trouble. And Microsoft needs to figure out how to take research results and put them into their software more successfully; unlike, say, IBM, Microsoft did not start out as an innovation-driven company, and probably lack the mechanisms for moving research results into products.