

Ari Partinen was a key player on the Nokia PureView camera system



Nokia Lumia 1020 with its 41MP PureView camera

4.7" iPhone 6 mockup

Sources: Engadget, Ari Partinen/Twitter, Reuters

Comments     Threshold


By StevoLincolnite on 5/9/2014 8:44:31 PM , Rating: 3
You do realize that they were in fact first with their virtual assistant, Siri, though they did buy it?

Virtual Assistants long predate Siri, heck "Clippy" could be coined as the first popular virtual assistant, albeit extremely limited. (You could even have it speak if you had voice recognition software.)

The same with capacitive multitouch, though again they bought it.

Again, false.
Mitsubishi built a Capacitive-multitouch "surface"-esque PC back in 2001, Apple was the first with it in a mobile phone.

They also had in app billing in 2009, two years before Google Play had it.

In-App billing, actually occurred in MMO's in the PC space years before Apple brought it into it's devices.

They released their Retina display in 2010, while the Galaxy S was only 480x800, and because it was Pentile it was effectively even lower then that. This wasn't rectified until the GS3 in 2012

The PC had 1080P CRT monitors in 1995/1996, a few years after that, there were 4k workstation monitors, "Retina" is just a marketing term, today it's low-end in the mobile space.

What Apple did do successfully was created something average, charged it at a high price and people still somehow flocked to it in droves.

By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 8:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
The revisionist history among Apple fans is laughable. Can you imagine if Apple actually invented multi-touch? They would have sued the entire tech world. What Apple was was first to market with the slick multi-touch UI in 2007. In the past 7 years, not much else. Lets keep v it in perspective here.

By Wazza1234 on 5/10/14, Rating: -1
By themaster08 on 5/10/2014 8:09:08 AM , Rating: 2
Does that dispute his point that Apple had it before Google? No? Then why write such drivel?
No it doesn't dispute that particular point, but the point was that this not something original from Apple. Furthermore, why does it matter? Point scoring?

You obviously have no clue what PPI means and can't accept that Apple started the whole high resolution race on smartphones.
They started it by coining a marketing term, and almost immediately fell further and further behind in the so-called "race". So what if they started it? Why does that matter either? Because without Apple's contribution to society we would still be using 100PPI displays on our phones? These points are completely.... Pointless.

By retrospooty on 5/10/2014 9:24:52 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly... Who gives a crap who did what first years ago. What matters is who is making the best products for your needs at the best price point today. Apple bought Siri years ago... Google now is immensely better. Apple was first with high res screens in phones... Now they are miles behind. Apple was first with a slick multitouch UI... Now they are years behind and the OS is just laughable compared to Android and WP and BB10 for that matter.

By Solandri on 5/11/2014 2:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I was using voice commands on Android for making calls, sending texts, composing emails, doing searches, and operating Maps navigation a half year before Siri came out. It couldn't do things like make appointments, but most of the functionality was already there. Google just never thought of anthropomorphizing it by having it talk back to you and giving it a snazzy name.

And I recall radio ads for a digital assistant called Wildfire in the 1990s. Ah, here we go. Note the date on the article.

By retrospooty on 5/11/2014 3:24:03 PM , Rating: 3
Yup... But ultimately, when you go to buy a phone what are you going to look at... Who made some features first many years ago, or who makes the feature set that closest matches what you want today? No question, you are going to go with what matches your needs and price point 1st...

Apple, Google, MS, Samsung, Moto, LG, Nokia, and many many other companies have all made contributions to the "whole package" of todays smartphones. It long past time we all STFU about who invented which feature. It's just tiresome and childish.

By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2014 1:12:16 PM , Rating: 2

Cannot stress this enough. I mean wow, I had no idea how behind Sir was until I started using an iPhone for work. It's useless! I have to pull out my personal phone and use Google Now for like everything.

*Asks Siri to call someone or find something*

Siri responds with some snarky BS about that not being in my address book

No sh*t you retarded "personal assistant". Why in the hell would I be asking you to find me something if it was in my address book already? It's called the INTERNET, try using it for a change.

Or my personal favorite, I'm trying to get the phone number to a place and it tries to navigate me to it automatically. Umm, did I ask you for navigation? No! I asked you a name of a place, in a desperate hope that you would pull up some worthwhile information.

Android is just SO much better at Internet integration. Which should be no surprise, given that Google is so much better at that than everyone else. But seriously, Siri is basically WORTHLESS outside of getting whether reports, whooptie do.

Also it's vocal recognition sucks ass. I have to repeat myself way more than I ever had to with Google Now.

By Piiman on 5/10/2014 11:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
When you try to use Clippy as an example as a pre-existing technology related to Siri, you've already failed."

Why? I hear Clippy is better. lol

By Fleeb on 5/12/2014 5:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
That is not even the point, but following your argument, you cannot even use Siri as a "pre-existing" technology because right now, Google is better.

By CyCl0n3 on 5/13/2014 4:39:10 AM , Rating: 1
Dude even the Nokia E90 from 2007 had 800 x 352 pixels, 4.0 inches (~219 ppi pixel density).

Which came out before the iPhone (Europe) with only 480 × 320 Pixel, 163 ppi at this time:

Considering it took them 3 years to get to 960 × 640 (compared to 800 x 352) Pixels, and then praise it as something astonishing unreachable new is laughable.

By tonyswash on 5/11/2014 6:28:04 PM , Rating: 1
These long tedious discussions where people, often with an odd but striking tone of desperation, attempt to prove that Apple are not innovative via a forensic trawling through tech history are both pointless and utterly misconstrued. What seems to be happening is a confusion between various concepts, such as innovation, invention, creation, etc, all of which are actually very different (though often connected) things but which are bandied about as if they interchangeable.

This article about the curse of 'Innoveracy' (the systematic misunderstanding of innovation) is a pretty good clarification.

