Slashdot Mirror
Before the iPhone, Apple's Stunning Phone From 1983
Several readers pointed out the story of the Apple phone that never was, from 1983. Pictures of the concept phone are impressive, as you'd expect from Hartmut Esslinger, later founder of Frog Design. Even more interesting is that this phone is part of a much larger collection of Apple artifacts curated by Stanford.
It's surprising that Apple was trying stylus-based touch screens back in 1983. The phone seems to be in line with the whole Apple philosophy - thinking about functions and what user wants to do before technical details. This, in my opinion, is why Apple has always been so successful. Unlike Linux, Apple thinks about user first, and then technical details.
For example, the touch screen in this phone could had provide many useful functions compared to other phones. It's good for taking quick notes (keyboard wouldn't be), and it acts as a great phonebook. The fact that you could use it for taking notes, or viewing older notes, during phone call highlights the way Apple thinks. Always think about what user wants to do.
If I needed to do business and have a phone on my desktop, this is the kind of phone I would want! They could even make it a bit more modern by adding similar voice recognition like Siri is on iPhone. Then the device could act as your virtual secretary, handling your calendar, contacts and to do lists. In addition, make it do voice recognition during voice calls and provide transcripts for those. This also means you could search thru the conversation, and have a chat log of them. Need to look up the specific details your client said to you? No problem, just tell Siri to find them and it provides nice list of everything that was said, complete with audio and transcript. Then you don't even need to take notes so much.
This is the reason why I think Apple has been so successful with OSX, iPhone and iPad. They think about user first. They think what user wants to do. Then they fine tune all the details so that it is pleasant experience. UI and good design goes along with this. It's also what Linux is lacking.
Secondly, and more importantly, there's a growing issue apart from the first one. This has to do with special situation within human culture. You see, from the very beginning ducks have ruled the world. Yes, ducks. Yellow sitting ducks like you have in your bath tub. Microsoft, Apple, Google... all really started and owned by ducks. Steve Jobs was hired to work as a supposed CEO of Apple because the ducks thought humans would not be ready for a duck-run company. So while Steve Jobs spoke words like "amazing", "incredible" and "outstanding" to the human public, all the corporate orders came from the ducks. This is one of the basic misunderstands people have about tech world.
Overally, Apple has always got people. They do the technical parts good, but they especially finetune user experience and UI. Most other tech companies don't think about this. Open source products almost never think about this. It's why Apple is so successful.
I wonder how many iPhone patents this provides prior art against?
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
Because Apple has always finetuned UI and user experience. Linux has always been about command line and geeky stuff first. However, it's not what users want to use. They don't want to mess with command line settings and tools.
Keep telling yourself that, as you cry into your Mountain Dew Code Red while watching your VA Linux stock tank.
Linux was always servers first, work stations next, desktops last. Apple is the other way around. It's not fair to compare the two.
I wonder how many Nokia/Motorola/HTC/Samsung/Microsoft patents this provides prior art against?
Linux was always servers first, work stations next, desktops last. Apple is the other way around. It's not fair to compare the two.
Uh, no. Linux was even created because Linus wanted a free UNIX like desktop. Since the beginning Linux users have touted how this will be the year of Linux on desktop. It has nothing to do with "servers first, desktops last", because Linux users very much have wanted Linux to be number #1 on desktop.
Maybe instead of making baseless accusations, you could actually respond to the part of his post that you disagree with?
As someone who works in the Linux desktop world, I don't see anything in his post that seems off-base or even inflammatory.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Uh, no. Linux was even created because Linus wanted a free UNIX like desktop.
He wanted something that he could hack on, and the free UNIX at the time was not good enough.
Since the beginning Linux users have touted how this will be the year of Linux on desktop. It has nothing to do with "servers first, desktops last", because Linux users very much have wanted Linux to be number #1 on desktop.
This is how I know you are shilling or trolling. It should be obvious to the slashdot crowd that most of the development in Linux is happening on the base of the system and server and DB related tools. Of course, any Linux user wants his desktop experience to be great as well.
You see, from the very beginning ducks have ruled the world.
Yes, a lot of folks just read the first part of the comment and the conclusion. But some people do read the entire comment before replying.
Of course, any Linux user wants his desktop experience to be great as well.
Then why the hell do the vast majority of them put up shit like Gnome?
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Maybe the creators of Linux (and naturally the various flavours of Unix it comes from) also thought about users, but simply had a different subset of users in mind?
I can't be the only one who immediately thought of the Apple 2c case when seeing the phone.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You miss the point. This isn't a users vs tech specs question.
It's a cathedral vs. bazaar question.
The cathedral can pick one priority. The bazaar (by its very nature) cannot.
The bazaar model (and we could debate the extent to which Linux development really follows that model, but as theoretical ideal it's apt enough) implies a set of cooperating interests each pursuing their own goal. In short, the bazaar model gaurantees that the product will be what the people working on it cared about, which may or may not align with their users.
Thus we get things like the kded4 process being permanently unstable because the devs wanted the plug-in modules to work a certain way, and one shitty module brings down all the rest. The user doesn't care about the overhead saved by this model. They just care that their desktop becomes periodically unstable in a way that is nearly impossible to debug. Take your pick of other Linux development problems.
In the cathedral management picks their priorities, and the developers can go defile themselves if they don't like it. That can create the iPad, and it can also create Windows Bob (and the Paper Clip).
The question is, and always has been, which is better overall? While citing best and worst examples from both camps can be illuminating, it does not make for proof that one is better than the other.
Apple invented the telephone. So piss off, Alexander Bell! APPLE4LYFE
Every post here is just random noise about Apple itself, not about the device.
Was this a working prototype? Did they even have flatpanel displays like that in 1983? What kind of processor would drive the phone? Where the heck would all the internals fit, a 1983 era computer was 10x the volume of this phone "prototype".
I can't imagine that this device was anything but a non-functional "concept" mockup. I don't think it was feasible to build one of these for at least 10-15 years.
I see you've been modded funny but I don't think that it was the aim of your post.
I think you are comparing apples with oranges. Linux is not a company so it doesn't have the same goals as a company. It started as a geek pet project and it's goal was fun and learning. What it does now is providing a kernel to whoever wants to use it. Anyway, with Linux you probably mean the companies or just the geeks building distributions on the top of the Linux kernel and the GNU software, plus Google with their Linux/Android products. Or you might even mean the desktop environments like Gnome, KDE and many others. But if you compare apples with apples, let's say Apple with Canonical, you see that they are moving more or less in the same way. Canonical is even going through the pain of reinventing the UI because they want to be more user friendly.
By the way, I installed the Mint desktop on the Ubuntu 11.10 VM I'm experimenting with because I discovered that I can't stand Unity or Gnome Shell. They're both very unfriendly to me but I understand how they could be better suited to some casual users or (in the case of Unity) to devices with a small screen.
I see you've been modded funny but I don't think that it was the aim of your post.
You might want to read the "world is ruled by ducks"-part.
Linux was even created because Linus wanted a free UNIX like desktop I'm sorry but you're mistaken. You can read the history of Linux's early days writted by Torvalds here. I quote him, bold is mine.
It is currently meant for hackers interested in operating systems and 386's with access to minix. [...] I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got minix. This is a program for hackers by a hacker. I've enjouyed [sic] doing it, and somebody might enjoy looking at it and even modifying it for their own needs. It is still small enough to understand, use and modify, and I'm looking forward to any comments you might have.
You're probably right on the other point
Since the beginning Linux users have touted how this will be the year of Linux on desktop
This is probably never going to happen (not with a substantial market share) but 2011 was the year of Linux in the pocket (remember Linux is only the kernel) and 2012 could be the year of Linux on the desk.
because Linux users very much have wanted Linux to be number #1 on desktop
That's unbelievable right? As if Mac users wouldn't like to see their platform to become the number 1.
Most people are pretty lazy unless they're paid not to be, or they care for some other reason.
Corollary: Most people don't care unless they're getting paid.
I think you're missing a subtlety here, Linux users DO want to mess with command line settings and tools.
Apple users don't, and therefore they don't get them. No one tool is best for all jobs or all users.
There is a false dichotomy in technological discussions that technological options can be ranked on a one-dimensional matrix.
It wasn't a failure. It wasn't released. A lot of companies R&D make stuff they don't release.
Perhaps they didn't want to go into that market.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The question is, and always has been, which is better overall? While citing best and worst examples from both camps can be illuminating, it does not make for proof that one is better than the other.
That's probably because both are valid approaches which solve different problems. The Cathedral produces refined solutions which do one thing. The Bazaar produces a multitude of solutions which the Cathedral will knock off in their own image when the market chooses the most popular one[s].
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think you are comparing apples with oranges.
Apples and oranges are both fruit which can be peeled, eaten, juiced, or even separated into slices. That's a stupid saying.
Linux is not a company so it doesn't have the same goals as a company.
Yes, that is the whole point of this thread.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Citations?
It seems to me, that the original announcement about Linux didn't claim to have a desktop OS ready for use. In fact, it seemed to me like he was announcing something that may or may not work for some obscure purposes, of which he only had some vague ideas at the time. He sort implied that he hoped it might be comparable with Unix, with some maturity. I don't think he even used the word "compete".
Go on, look it up, and see what he actually posted, way back when. But, be sure to put your own mind into way-back-when, and make sure you understand what he was trying to accomplish. Forget about SCO, forget about Win95, forget about all the fancy GUI's you've seen since then. Go back in time, in your own mind, then read Linus' announcement that he had something just about good enough for people to hack at.
Years later, in hindsight, perhaps he may have wished that Linux was less embedded in the server world, and more conspicuous on the desktop. Then again, I don't really think he cares a whole lot.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
That's just ignorance. You're quoting people at different points of life. Linus said that when he was in school and just had released some piece of code for others to tinker with. Bill Gates had already done school and was starting a business.
You may dislike anyone you want, but at least keep it honest.
Looks almost like a touch screen version of an Apple][C. Now THAT would have been cool in 1983, perhaps even cooler than the Mac which came out the next year.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yeah .. that's exactly why Apple has grabbed the market share in computers and phones. Because it doesn't matter how much it costs as long as the user likes it.
Apple is successful if one defines success as making huge markups on specialty items through the control of most of the hardware, software, and media channels that are needed to use the items.
By that same token, any monopoly can be successful, and that's how Apple operates.
I'm sure the reason this phone never made it because there was no demand for it. Who wants to spend large sums of money for a dedicated computer attached to a phone that can only be used for phone tasks?? Today's smartphones really took off when games and useful apps could be downloaded to them. The costs at the time would have put the phone above $500, hardly available for just anyone as shown by the lack of mobile phones in cars at the time. And the iDrones weren't around yet, so no one was going to go out and buy it simply because it said 'Apple'.
There are many 'concept' items out there that show what companies are thinking. And most of them never show up simply because they cost too much to make for the demand that is expected.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Bill Gates has never "given" anything to the world.
Sorry, Gates may be a dick in many ways, but his charitable foundation is quite big.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates_foundation
No sig for the moment.
What did he give me? He actually inspired me a lot when I was kid and reading his book. He had quite interesting stuff to said about technology and how it's going to be in the future. Apart from that, he also gave me QBasic and Visual Basic which were the first programming languages I learned and used. Indirectly, he also influenced countless of things. I remember when I was learning about game programming, AI, 3D with DirectX and other things as 10-11 years old and it was a fascinating subject. I literally spent my summer holidays reading about those. Coding on days, reading in bed and while on travel. And overally, billions of people use the OS he created. I bet you do too.
You may dislike him, sure. But you can't say he hasn't given anything. He is probably the most influential guy in the history of PC's, either directly or indirectly.
If they were not concerned with technical details, why was the touchscreen operated by a stylus? Isn't a finger a superior pointing device?
It is now. But even as late as the mid-1990's, capacitive touchscreens were nowhere near as accurate as resistive touch screens, and resistive touch screens were a lot cheaper. That's why the early Palm Pilots, the Apple Newton, and other similar devices all used a stylus instead of a capacitive touch screen. It's really only quite recently that the capacitive touch screen has been accurate and cheap enough to be used in a device like a phone.
Apple almost certainly thought of their users wanting to use a finger. And finger touch screens did exists (mostly using infra-red), but they either weren't as accurate, or weren't as cheap as resistive screens. :) It's most likely a compromise that's been made to keep costs down.
Funnily, I'm not American, I'm Russian.
I would love, love, love to have a regular cordless house phone that's as smart as an iPhone/Android/whatever. I still use my house landline some and I wish it were not so dumb. The best trick my home phone does is match incoming Caller ID to laboriously-entered contacts.
The base station could double as a wireless access point and it would include a digital voicemail recorder which could be accessed with the handset and operate like the iPhone's visual voicemail. The handset could transmit calls to the base station with 5.8 GHz like a regular cordless (remember that word?) phone or it could be done with WiFi. Since it wouldn't be for carrying out and about, it could be as big as the late Dell Streak 5. You could use it as a regular phone or run Skype or Google Voice or any other VOIP client. Maybe the base station could run Asterisk. The possibilities are endless.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.