Fast forward to 2:22: Pinch to zoom as demonstrated by Sony back in 2001; six years before Apple applied for the 7864163 patent.
As this apparently doesn't qualify as prior art; Apple can't claim infringement either.
So specific implementation details must matter. The general idea cannot be what Apple claims ownership of. The idea has been around for a long long time (Minority Report from back in 2002 being yet another example) and hardly qualifies as novel.
If we're throwing around knock-off accusations, Android used to look like this until the iPhone came out, and then Android suddenly started looking and behaving a lot more like iOS, right down to the pinch-zoom gestures that originated with the iPhone.
It's no surprise at all that Apple is going to try to hinder competitors' efforts to ride the coattails of its design work.
Oh God, please stop repeating Jobs tiring drivel. It serves no purpose, and only make you look like a tool. Let Apple do their own dirty marketing.
Apple has no noble agenda, they're fighting increasingly dirty to protect their bottom-line, abusing the patent system to hinder competition, attempting to subvert the work of W3C threatening the very openness of the web.
Their actions are hurting the industry. Yet, you can still find people on a technical forum like this feeling the need to support their actions, modded +5 Insightful no less. I'm appalled.
Android speech-to-text actually works pretty well. I'm using it now to write this and I find bark bark shaddup I find that it bark bark shut up damnit bark bark don't make me come down there I find that bark bark okay that's it I'm coming down there argh crash thud bark bark bark bark bark bark
Jeez. You brought this back up from your capture file. This is the exact same quote I replied to half a year ago or so...
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't recall having ever discussed anything relating to this with you. But true, I've linked to Bill Buxton's write-up before, and I figure I'd better apologize in advance, cause I'll probably do it again. Even though it wasn't written yesterday it's still an excellent piece.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the central theme of the article, I've actually read it, and if you hadn't been so eager to reply, you might have spotted that I did include the paragraph you echoed a second time.
But thanks for your reply, and despite the harsh tone, I doubt we disagree about anything here at all.
Though Steve Jobs' habit of claiming ownership of all great inventions rubs me the wrong way (this year Apple invented videotelephony), Apple deserves credit for their work on the iPhone; it was nothing short of a revolution.
[...] my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touchin 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. [...] Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee:
Westerman, Wayne (1999). [...] U of Delaware PhD Dissertation
Bill Buxton isn't just some random Microsoft employee, he's one of the pioneers of the industry, and has been working with multi-touch systems since back in the early eighties.
Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touchin 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee:
Westerman, Wayne (1999). Hand Tracking,Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface. U of Delaware PhD Dissertation: http://www.ee.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf
In making this statement about their awareness of past work, I am not criticizing Westerman, the iPhone, or Apple. It is simply good practice and good scholarship to know the literature and do one's homework when embarking on a new product. What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way. In short, the evolution of multi-touch is a text-book example of what I call "the long-nose of innovation."
Microsoft borrowing ideas from Apple again?
It's probably the other way round. Nice troll though.
Crash reports probably include the script that was running and maybe the binary file running but how could it access the source code of an arbitrary task/thread/program?
According to TFA Heckman gave a presentation of XSS and SQL injection attacks. So, I imagine that what we're talking about here is Microsoft receiving a dump of IE process memory, which of course will include the malicious script.
Furthermore, how can you tell if this is a malware developer or the first unfortunate victim? Or even an outlier victim whose machine was luckily not correctly configured for the attack?
If you get a sequence of error reports from the same IP within a short period of time, where the only difference is that the script bringing IE down has been modified slightly, you've probably got the developer at the other end of the line. (Online source control on a budget?;-)
Are you saying that they're actually developing this stuff in a Microsoft IDE (like Visual Studio) that actually phones home source code upon program crash? That sounds like a guaranteed way to keep me away from Visual Studio.
No, I'm saying that the default Android browser is allowed access as well. I have no idea what string it uses to identify itself, but I seriously doubt that it claims to be part of the Safari family.
I don't know about Chrome, but it definitely works on Android (HTC Desire), front-page as well as the individual demos. So whatever bug Apple may have had in their browser detection code has apparently been fixed by now - at least partly.
Neither Apple nor Fingerworks invented multi-touch. Neither of them invented the pinch gesture.
If you go back to Bill Buxton's writeup you'll see that the idea of using the pinch gesture to scale objects has been with us long before Wayne Westerman even started studying.
While Apple's implementation of a touch controlled UI is extremely well done, they do not deserve credit for any of the ideas.
What Apple is trying to do is to rewrite history, and the sad fact is that far too many people lack any knowledge of history and are willing to accept the lie.
Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touch in 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee:
Westerman, Wayne (1999). Hand Tracking,Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface. U of Delaware PhD Dissertation: http://www.ee.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf
In making this statement about their awareness of past work, I am not criticizing Westerman, the iPhone, or Apple. It is simply good practice and good scholarship to know the literature and do one's homework when embarking on a new product. What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way.
Sorry, but how you manage to see the success of the iPhone as a victory for the OSS community is beyond me.
The platform itself is as locked down as they come, only runs on Apple approved hardware (their own), only
allows Apple approved software to be installed through Apple approved channels, written using Apple approved tools.
The fact that iPhone is more closed that some people want causes pain, but would you rather have a company like MS suing everyone that uses OSS software on the mobile platform?
Considering that Apple is the only company who has sued a manufacturer of Android based handsets that's quite a strange comment.
Clarkdale uses a dual-core Westmere and sticks it next to a 45nm Intel GMA die. That's right, meet the first (er, second) Intel CPU with on-chip graphics. Next year we'll see Sandy Bridge bring the graphics on-die, but until then we have Intel's tried and true multi-chip-package to tide us over.
The list goes on; if you're into language design then Microsoft is definitely the place to be right now. They've managed to gather some absolutely brilliant people.
[...] quality components, solid support and would run reliably for a long time [...] a Walmart PC or Dell might have better specs for a cheaper price but I'd be scared of component quality and assembly QC
What makes you think that the hardware and the assembly quality is any better here than what you get any other place?
An Atom processor and an ASRock motherboard doesn't somehow become premium quality components just because you pay a rather hefty premium.
I'd be curious to see what a real in-depth review has to say.
Well then allow me to satisfy your curiosity: such a review will find that this box is slightly overpriced, and that it runs Linux exactly as well as any other box build around the 945 Express chipset and the Atom N330.
as a hiring manger, if i see an address like the one you outlined there, the first thing that jumps out at me is 'completely unprofessional'. thats a major strike you dont [...]
Out of curiosity, how do you rate applicants who refuse to capitalize words properly, who fail to add apostrophes where needed, and who couldn't be bothered to run a spell-check before hitting send?
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia military networks hack you!
There's more than one way to implement pinch-to-zoom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s
Fast forward to 2:22: Pinch to zoom as demonstrated by Sony back in 2001; six years before Apple applied for the 7864163 patent.
As this apparently doesn't qualify as prior art; Apple can't claim infringement either.
So specific implementation details must matter. The general idea cannot be what Apple claims ownership of. The idea has been around for a long long time (Minority Report from back in 2002 being yet another example) and hardly qualifies as novel.
Please stop perpetuating this myth. There was no mad rush to change Android after the iPhone was announced. Feel free to look up Dianne Hackborn yourself; her word should carry a lot more weight than a picture carefully crafted by some Apple apologist.
Oh God, please stop repeating Jobs tiring drivel. It serves no purpose, and only make you look like a tool. Let Apple do their own dirty marketing. Apple has no noble agenda, they're fighting increasingly dirty to protect their bottom-line, abusing the patent system to hinder competition, attempting to subvert the work of W3C threatening the very openness of the web.
Their actions are hurting the industry. Yet, you can still find people on a technical forum like this feeling the need to support their actions, modded +5 Insightful no less. I'm appalled.
I don't remember when and why I added you to my friends list, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because of THAT
;-)
Android speech-to-text actually works pretty well. I'm using it now to write this and I find bark bark shaddup I find that it bark bark shut up damnit bark bark don't make me come down there I find that bark bark okay that's it I'm coming down there argh crash thud bark bark bark bark bark bark
Shamelessly stolen
What language features do you have in mind specifically?
Now I honestly don't know anything about Objective C, but if you asked me of the origins of Java, I'd point to SIMULA, C++, and BETA.
Sorry, I have no idea how the apostrophe managed to sneak in. Thanks anyway, though I think you meant to say "not a possessive form of a noun" ;)
No, Google Translate get's it wrong. The article actually only says that certain *parts* of the project were delayed till 2006:
Which roughly translates to:
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't recall having ever discussed anything relating to this with you. But true, I've linked to Bill Buxton's write-up before, and I figure I'd better apologize in advance, cause I'll probably do it again. Even though it wasn't written yesterday it's still an excellent piece.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the central theme of the article, I've actually read it, and if you hadn't been so eager to reply, you might have spotted that I did include the paragraph you echoed a second time.
But thanks for your reply, and despite the harsh tone, I doubt we disagree about anything here at all.
Though Steve Jobs' habit of claiming ownership of all great inventions rubs me the wrong way (this year Apple invented videotelephony), Apple deserves credit for their work on the iPhone; it was nothing short of a revolution.
Well played sir, well played. However:
Bill Buxton isn't just some random Microsoft employee, he's one of the pioneers of the industry, and has been working with multi-touch systems since back in the early eighties.
Contrary to popular belief Apple didn't invent multi-touch
Microsoft borrowing ideas from Apple again?
It's probably the other way round. Nice troll though.
I would expect this to be the standard 30-pin PDMI connector also found on the Dell Streak.
According to TFA Heckman gave a presentation of XSS and SQL injection attacks. So, I imagine that what we're talking about here is Microsoft receiving a dump of IE process memory, which of course will include the malicious script.
If you get a sequence of error reports from the same IP within a short period of time, where the only difference is that the script bringing IE down has been modified slightly, you've probably got the developer at the other end of the line. (Online source control on a budget? ;-)
Where did that come from?
In case you want to try something else next time:
http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol11/?pg=76&u1=texterity#pg76
No, I'm saying that the default Android browser is allowed access as well. I have no idea what string it uses to identify itself, but I seriously doubt that it claims to be part of the Safari family.
I don't know about Chrome, but it definitely works on Android (HTC Desire), front-page as well as the individual demos. So whatever bug Apple may have had in their browser detection code has apparently been fixed by now - at least partly.
Neither Apple nor Fingerworks invented multi-touch. Neither of them invented the pinch gesture.
If you go back to Bill Buxton's writeup you'll see that the idea of using the pinch gesture to scale objects has been with us long before Wayne Westerman even started studying.
While Apple's implementation of a touch controlled UI is extremely well done, they do not deserve credit for any of the ideas.
What Apple is trying to do is to rewrite history, and the sad fact is that far too many people lack any knowledge of history and are willing to accept the lie.
Bill Buxton, Multi-Touch Overview :
Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touch in 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee:
Westerman, Wayne (1999). Hand Tracking,Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface. U of Delaware PhD Dissertation: http://www.ee.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf
In making this statement about their awareness of past work, I am not criticizing Westerman, the iPhone, or Apple. It is simply good practice and good scholarship to know the literature and do one's homework when embarking on a new product. What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way.
Sorry, but how you manage to see the success of the iPhone as a victory for the OSS community is beyond me.
The platform itself is as locked down as they come, only runs on Apple approved hardware (their own), only allows Apple approved software to be installed through Apple approved channels, written using Apple approved tools.
Considering that Apple is the only company who has sued a manufacturer of Android based handsets that's quite a strange comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
I guess the space is needed for all the Apple... erhm... news that's been clogging the tubes lately.
At some point, the GPU goes on the CPU chip
Actually, that point was back in January when Intel started shipping the Clarkdale Core i3 and i5 processors
LINQ
The list goes on; if you're into language design then Microsoft is definitely the place to be right now. They've managed to gather some absolutely brilliant people.
What makes you think that the hardware and the assembly quality is any better here than what you get any other place? An Atom processor and an ASRock motherboard doesn't somehow become premium quality components just because you pay a rather hefty premium.
Well then allow me to satisfy your curiosity: such a review will find that this box is slightly overpriced, and that it runs Linux exactly as well as any other box build around the 945 Express chipset and the Atom N330.
Out of curiosity, how do you rate applicants who refuse to capitalize words properly, who fail to add apostrophes where needed, and who couldn't be bothered to run a spell-check before hitting send?
What an intriguing post.