That means they stole Safari?

They don't have to 'steal' Safari. Webkit is opensource, so they can feel free and just use it if they wish...

Good the more money Microsoft sinks into this loosing venture the better. It'll mean Apple will continually be stressed with how to best innovate and it will help deplete Microsoft's cash reserves. Apple already spends tons on R&D, it'll be great for them to have someone to have to stay ahead of. I just feel sorry for the suckers who buy it.

the guy may have misspoke but he said they didn't invent the smart phone, they just made the first (practical) smart phone.

if you can't see that then please explain the plethora of copy cats.

and of course, the greatest "innovator" of them all is late to the game with nothing new but a boat load of cash to make sure they "compete".

The photo above looks less attractive that the earlier images - which showed what looked to be a much more metallic, rather than two tone, device.

I'm also intrigued as to how the team whose browser engine lags behind all their rivals on the desktop, can beat Webkit in performance (or advanced HTML and CSS support) - if they have, why haven't they ported the improvements back into desktop IE?

Luckyday - yes, I also predicted the iPod Touch on Ars Technica, but you know there's a big difference between coming up with some vague idea, and the actual practical steps taken to make that work.

Testudo - and do you think that 2 years was because it was technically beyond Apple's engineers to implement cut & paste? Or do you think it was spent thinking about how it should work, considering we are at the start of defining how gesture-based interfaces should work.

spoken like a true ms apologist.

that's right, years and years of cell phones and not a one of them anything at all like the iPhone. ever. now that these others are producing them it's not because they didn't think of it, it's because they were just arriving at it later.

uh huh. that's one dandy argument there. truly inventive.

Luckyday: When Apple came out with the iPod, it was laughed at by the industry - Again, Apple did not "invent" the MP3 player, infact the MP3 player had been out for years prior to that. But, digital music was not going anywhere despite several attempts by other companies. Just because the technology exists for a product doesn't mean - what is then later called obvious or "likely" path - that product (and in the case of iTunes, market) will emerge. It took Apple to take what was and actually product a product and market that worked.

In the case of the iPhone, again, any company "could" have produced a device like the iPhone, the technology was more or less already out there. But they didn't and from what I saw coming out immediately after the iPhone was released, I doubt anyone was even close. You're just wrong, about these companies not copying Apple. You just have to look at the rush of touch devices to market to see it.

When the iPod was released, again, it was mocked. You also need to look at where Apple was when the iPod came out. Apple was in serious trouble in 1997 and had just edged off the brink in 1999-2000 and had a clear way forward with Mac OS X, but was still considered too small to be a big player. Apple continued to make headway and in 2001 released the iPod - this device raised no flags on the industry big board. Then, with the introduce of iTunes, it took off. The new Mac OS was really showing off it's stuff and Apple was launching innovative products. Apple had dominated the digital music player market - the iPod no longer dismissed, and Apple seen as a visionary company. Shoot forward a couple of years, and rumors of an iPhone start to circulate. Apple is not seen as a blip on the radar, it's leader, a company to watch. This time, when Apple launched it's new product everybody tried to get a product out to try and take a grab at the market before Apple dominated that one too (everyone except for Palm, or course, they just laughed at it), and most of these still just couldn't implement a desirable product. ->P2

P1-> Now there is a rumor gaining more traction now than it has over the last couple of years of an Apple designed tablet/netbook-ish product that could be released as early as this year. So, iPod, iPhone, and now iSomething. iPod - Laughed at, iPhone - taken seriously, and the iSomething, well, if the recent accompanying rumor is to be believed, other companies developing similar products are actually putting their designs on hold and waiting to see what Apple outs. There are already tablets, there have been for years, and they're a complete failure. Netbooks aren't new, but they are more likely a fad and the cheap costs of these are now seen a barely profitable item and case quality issues are now starting to appear. The question isn't so much about technology; it's about really understanding the users and market. You indicated that all companies would eventually arrive at the same place. Ignoring the fact that a company must get there first and therefore showing the way, the statement just isn't always true. I think the PC tablet is a good example as it's been on the market for years now. Actually, the smart phone is a better example, those have been on the market for a very long time. Not until the iPhone did the market actually start shifting toward smartphones (and btw, yes, in my earlier post I was not saying Apple invented the "smartphone" I was saying Apple invested the first phone that was actually smart ie "smart" "phone"). Even if Apple did not get into the phone market and a company built a touch screen device (likely) it would not have changed the industry b/c it would have been poorly implemented - and I base that on all the phones, both smart and basic, that where on the market at the time of the iPhone.

Firstly, you are forgetting the original LG prada. The real first full touchscreen phone.

In my informed opinion, although the technology existed for a full touch screen phone like the iphone prior to the iphone, it was not cost-efficient to create such a device. Apple either by chance or purposely, came into the market at time where the touchscreen phone became feasible from a cost standpoint. I think you are attributing the effects of a price reduction in LCD screens and touchscreen technology to apple coming out with the iphone. Although the iphone helped speed up the implementation of full touch screen devices across the market generally, it is not the sole reason.

I think proof of this comes when you look at the in car GPS market. It was only in late 2006, just before the iphone was announced that GPS manufacturers like Garmin began releasing touchscreen, full color devices. And they were a fortune back then. There is no reason to believe that the GPS manufacturers were trying to catch up to Apple's new cell phone. Rather, its that the touchscreen technology became cost efficient to put in a phone.

Bam!

The fact that you can totally discredit RIM in its affect on the smartphone market is laughable. I'd actually be embarrassed if I were you, because it's just so crazy. To think that all these businessmen, politicians, lawyers, etc. are out there sending and receiving emails, syncing calenders since 2002 on this brilliant device, and some guy on a mac forum thinks that apple invented a phone that was "actually smart" in 2007, because you could download a f*** app.

Get real. That's just absurd. Apple may have helped expand the smartphone market to include consumers, but don't go overboard.

If i were you, I wouldn't even write back. You are in way over your head.

Well, what do you know, I didn't have my troll detector turned on. CLICK

completely different...


A man with 3 buttocks!

Seriously - does anyone except the 3 remaining Zune users care?

""actually smart" in 2007, because you could download a f*** app."

brilliant! that just sums up what the iPhone has brought to the cell phone market! again, a stunning argument. such depth, such clarity of thought!

way over his head indeed.

i suggest you follow the link to the article and read the comments if you want to talk about fanatics and gifts from the gods. only difference is that those people are ms fanbois and they actually argue that the zune is revolutionary and, uh, you know, that favorite of all ms words... innovative.

can build some decent hardware for this device but it will have to be far superior to the next iPod Touch device since what drives the Touch sales are software.

Everyone I talk to that uses a Touch or iPhone say that everything about it is so easy to use and that their kids love playing the games and that when they get some extra money they want to buy one (usually a Touch) for their children. I mean children younger than teens. It's always the dozens of games or education apps and how the children are not using their Nintendos or PSPs but rather play with the Touch.

The hardware never comes into the conversation. If they have any problems they can just run to the Apple store and get answers or fixes or whatever. The abilities of ease of use and Apple customer support plays a big role in deciding an Apple product over another company.

Only tech-heads are so wrapped up in hardware that they think that's gonna make people buy devices.

shall we...???
as to what is most important... Interesting how the User Interface is now up there with LooKS!

Time will tell how well it is received and touted... is 3 months enough ? 3 years ?

Whether we use iPod Touch or Zune i'm sure we'll have an enhanced browser experience!
Can't wait to see how the Zune handles WEB2.0 open standards web browsing...