

For tablet computer visionary Roger Fidler, a lot of what-ifs - ilamont
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/for-tablet-computer-visionary-roger-fidler-a-lot-of-what-ifs/2012/02/28/gIQAM0kN1R_story.html?hpid=z4

======
breckinloggins
If so, then about a million other people "invented it" as well. Tablets are
one of those "no duh" technologies that almost EVERY science fiction writer
just assumed the future would have.

Apple didn't invent the tablet. They just made it not suck. The innovation
didn't originate in the conception of the device itself.

~~~
blahedo
Whether this is an apt counter to the article's thesis depends on whether you
perceive that thesis to be "This guy invented it and therefore should get
acclaim/money/patents", or "This guy invented it and therefore Apple _didn't_
and therefore Apple _shouldn't_ get acclaim/money/patents." In particular, as
yet more evidence that Apple's design patent on the iPad is totally bogus, I
think the point is valid---and your point that "about a million other people
'invented it' as well" only contributes further.

~~~
breckinloggins
Personally? I'd go with: "No one REALLY invented the product category. So,
Apple, if you want to take someone to task for specifically ripping off one of
your implementation details, then go for it. Just don't claim that you somehow
came up with the 'computer as big slate of glass' concept."

------
BigZaphod
This is stupid. 1994? Star Trek: TNG "invented" tablets, too - in the late
80s.

~~~
bunderbunder
2001 did it before that, in 1969.

------
zred
The key is figuring out when technology gets to a certain point that make a
vision possible and which technologies will make it possible. When Apple
introduced the iPhone in 2007, there had been touchscreen phones for a long
time. Apple identified that capacitive touchscreens were a new technology that
allowed for a touch device to work much better - better to the extent that it
changed whether touch devices would be generally accepted or not. They didn't
invent capacitive touchscreens nor touch-phones. They did recognize how that
technology changed one's ability to make good touch devices. At the time,
Windows Mobile didn't even support capacitive touchscreens.

Likewise, with the iPhone and iPad, Apple designed the interface differently.
I remember Windows Mobile phones that had menus much like desktop operating
systems
([http://pdadb.net/imageview.php?path=img/os/ppc_5.0/wm5_vga_p...](http://pdadb.net/imageview.php?path=img/os/ppc_5.0/wm5_vga_phone_start_menu.png)).
When you look over Apple's guidelines for iOS apps, you can see how they took
into consideration the size of touch targets and how the user would interact
with the device much more than previous touch devices.

The idea of a tablet computer has been around for a long while. Microsoft and
its partners had created Windows tablets that worked like the desktop OS for a
while. As others have pointed out, Star Trek and other TV programs have shown
us tablet computers. What Apple brought to the table was how to make that
technology compelling for people as the components to make something
compelling all come into being.

ARM processors combined the needed processing power with lower power
consumption meaning that the iPad could be 2 pounds or less with many hours of
battery life. If you had the idea of a Pentium powered tablet in the 90s with
10 hours of battery life and a 2 pound weight, it would just be an idea.
Before capacitive touchscreens, it wouldn't be a compelling experience. You
can have the idea that the touchscreen would be accurate and nice to use, but
identifying how to achieve that is important. While Apple's UI concepts are
something we're used to today, Windows Mobile and BlackBerry was the order of
the day for mobile devices back then. While one can have the idea that the
tablet should be intuitive to use, actually managing that can take work.

There's a reason why one never really understands what they're doing with the
computer on Star Trek. It can be hard to create a really compelling product
that's actually great to use. It isn't merely the concept of "a light,
powerful tablet with little weight and a great user experience" that makes it
happen. One has to identify what can be brought together to accomplish it as
well as design a compelling interaction.

------
dionidium
You can find an earlier example of someone talking about any non-trivial
invention. That's not the same as actually inventing it.

------
mtkd
I wrote a tablet app for GfK around '95 using some Fujitsu tablet running
Windows 3.1

------
SpikeDad
Sigh. What nonsense. Give me a few minutes and I'll find an exact prediction
of tablet computers in 1950's Science Fiction literature.

When flying cars are finally in use, who's going to get the credit for
inventing those?

------
joezydeco
Back in 1987 Apple Computer ran a contest at various universities to "Design
the Computer of the Year 2000". A team from the University of Illinois won the
contest.

Their entry? A tablet.

[http://engineering.illinois.edu/news/2010/01/26/tablet-
compu...](http://engineering.illinois.edu/news/2010/01/26/tablet-computer-
idea-whose-time-has-finally-come)

(Bonus points if you noticed Stephen Wolfram on the team)

------
molsongolden
This story was all over the web almost a year ago! But I just clicked on it so
the Post got the click they were looking for.

------
gm
Honestly HN? You guys are submitting yet another one of these stories? After
all the furor/confusion/stories about pretty much everything else of
consequence that has been "invented"?

One pretty much finds these stories about who "really" invented pretty much
anything, from the automobile, to social networks.

------
username3
Free registration required after page 2.

------
joejohnson
This is where patents make no sense. I had a similar dream when I was a kid.
Wouldn't it be cool if we had flying cars someday?! Now, if we ever have cars
that fly, I can quote this HN comment and claim I predicted the future.

