By Zero XO Ultrasound Pen for Tablets

By Zero XO Ultrasound Pen for Tablets



@Rich Stoehr
Really insightful article, Devin - I love how you make clear (as clear as I think it can be anyway) the difference between innovation and true originality. Good design isn't easy by any means, but it's important to remember what drives it. Well done.
@Florin Popovici
Good point its like the wheel whoever made it first round the other should manufacturer it squared?
@Charudatta Pable
or given it a cluttered appearance
@Justin R. Gilburd
...and so long as Apple goes after their competitors in such a vicious fashion while raking in billions, there will always be someone who stands up and hurtles allegations of evil, greedy practices in their faces like a Hooters waitress throwing a sledgehammer.
@Sean Naughton
Nice Job Devin!
@William Kawai Sham
What ever the outcome is, this case will set the precedent for Samsung vs Ziploc if the Samsung see-through tablet eventually becomes a reality.
@Jeff Janzen
iPad is just an enlarged Nokia n810 without a keyboard. It was the size of an iPhone, marketed as an internet tablet, like how many people now use their iPod touches. Hit the market in '07. Greedy, yes, and hypocritical. Not groundbreaking, not even original, and demanding money from people who did the same as they did.
@Ashank Gupta
Really insightful article about patents and design!
@Garth Shoemaker
I heart this post.
@Andrey Taskaev
I can't say I fully agree. While I would like to see creative exploration of design (I consider Samsung Note to be one, and Sony Xperia Play another) those creative ideas are a hit and miss. I have an HTC Sensation. My girlfriend has a Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant. My coworker has an iPhone 4S. In reality, they handle completely differently. I really hate to use this argument, but form follows function sometimes, until a better one comes around. There have been many tablet experiments - look at Sony, or even ASUS. They have decent products, but why are they not at the top of the sales chart? They did dare to do something different. Apple isn't suing them. Why are they not beating both Samsung and Apple? I dislike the argument presented here. To my eyes, it's not that different from saying "Ford, you could use improving your car sales. How about you make rounded cars? How about you put in more or less wheels? What if it had 3 or 6 doors? It will be different!" There's a reason that the tablets and phones are shaped like the above picture. You may notice that so are your monitors, and your TV's, and your GPS's. Did everyone copy apple for this design? Somebody copied someone, but some designs are simply good for their purpose. I also dislike the closing point. "Dare to take Apple's challenge". If you're trying to play alongside Apple, you've lost already. It's hard to build a long-lasting name when you're trying to be different from somebody specific. The moment you do that, you admit you're inferior. I wouldn't want to work for a company that does that. What would I suggest? I would say that more money needs to be poured into future development, to bring in flexible, more responsive devices. Maybe something that's completely transparent, because that is what every single future vision video I've seen so far present. And it looks amazing.
@Devin Coldewey
"There's a reason that the tablets and phones are shaped like the above picture. You may notice that so are your monitors, and your TV's, and your GPS's. Did everyone copy apple for this design? Somebody copied someone, but some designs are simply good for their purpose." Yes, that is the thesis of the article. Different is not necessarily good, as bad devices have shown, and good is not necessarily different, as good ones have shown. But because of the way Apple has claimed progenitor status by striking first with an 'ideal' tablet, the others are at a disadvantage unless they really change what they're offering, because otherwise they will be seen as being an inferior descendant of Apple's design, whether that's true or not.
@Hariharan Balakrishnan
Devin Coldewey Considering TVs, they're all look identical to me. Samsung's LCD/LED, Philips, Sony's bravia etc. Surely at some point they would have copied each other's design. They're not suing each other. The trouble is Apple wants to have the cake and eat it to. By all means they can, but it is also nice if you share it. A little 'Live and Let Live' won't hurt anyone.
@Collin James Guy
Hariharan Balakrishnan "...won't hurt anyone?" If Apple's market share was a person it would certainly cause grievous bodily harm.
@Hariharan Balakrishnan
Collin James Guy Not sure. even with all other tablets, iPad still generated more sales. If you have a quality product, why bother about competition?
@Joseph Gubbels
Compared to the Android competition though, the Transformer Prime is getting an incredible amount of hype and is expected to do very well. And in my experience, a lot more non-techies know what a Transformer is (even more the Transformer Prime) than the Tab 10.1 or any other Android tablets. These companies aren't doing as well as the iPad because Apple, as mentioned in the article, was first to be successful, and already had a name for itself from the iPhone, and captures the mind share of the public because of that.
@Sherry Remington
Great post, but really should we consider the first tablet of pen and paper. How far back should one go? Cisco had the first iPhone. I believe HP & IBM also had tablets before the iPad. However, Apple made them ubiquitous. Innovation, design and user experience make them desirable over function.
@John Molloy
Cisco had a product called "iPhone". They did not have the "first" iPhone. The issue at question here is that "obvious" is easy to say after a company has released a device. Look at what phones were like before the iPhone, look at what tablets were like before the iPad. So, "obvious" is easy to define after the event. (And yes blah blah blah, Prada, blah blah blah Palm, blah blah blah whatever...)
@Damien Moore
I really enjoyed reading this post, good job!
@Len Norton
HP should sue Apple, since the iPhone launcher is a rip-off of the Palm Pilot.
@Stefano Petri
Another proof that the whole patent system needs to be rethought from scratch. Stop patent trolls and innovation will flow...
@David Navarro
*shrug* Microsoft and Palm don't seem to have a problem differentiating themselves from Apple, and Apple does not have a problem with them. Metro and WebOS show that a smartphone UI does not need to be a barefaced, blatant iOS rip-off, and the new Nokia phones don't resemble iPhones, and neither did the Palm Pres. Samsung could have saved itself all this unpleasantness by simply hiring a couple of designers. I share your contempt for patent trolls, but this particular case has nothing to do with innovation, as the real innovators aren't affected.
@Stefano Petri
Sure! Like this: http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/apple-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-no-worse-a-patent-troll/
@Michael Brinkworth
David Navarro Microsoft and apple battled for years over the computer desktop, and in the end both lost as they had both stolen its design basis from xerox research labs. in what way is the iphone os different to what has already been done on thousands of other computers and mobiles? I see icons on a desktop....wow....go apple for innovation Apples only great innovation in this whole deal was their massive marketing campaign, not their designs. PS i cannot tell the difference between almost all of the new sedans from ford and holden and bmw and other manufacturers.
@Roger Williams
Rounded edges, bezel, silver borders, uncluttered desktop, or any combination of these metrosexual attributes are not patentable, or uniquely original in any sort of way. It's like blaming your competitor for running a sales promo or, god forbid, xmas specials. Apple fanboys are insane.
@Matt Johnson
The only problem is that no one patented the shape of the wheel, or the generic shape of a pen, or the shape of a tv. Because that's a ridiculous claim. Because all wheels have to be round, all pens have to look alike (in the most basic sense), and tvs, although they can have a lot of design choices, are basically a screen on the front. So the Ipad is the basic generic form of a tablet. So they should not be allowed to patent that and sue any company that makes a similar device. In my opinion the Galaxy Tab 10.1 shares only two things in common, being very thin, and the charger (which on Samsung's part probably wasn't the best move). The dimensions are different, it is wider (held in landscape), has no buttons, no metal back, the camera is in a different place, and it's made to be held in landscape. It is not an obvious rip-off of the ipad, and if it was then they should be suing EVERY single tablet maker. Samsung didn't take the original idea and change it. they took one aspect of the idea, being thin, and used that to make their own tablet (ignoring the fact that they borrowed the rectangular form because there were tablets before the ipad that were rectangular). So basically, Apple are being dicks, Samsung could have done some things slightly different to keep this from happening, but the main point is that the patent system is completely flawed to allow Apple to even patent the design form of such a generic device.
@David Navarro
"shares only two things in common," You forget the Smart Cover rip-offs...
@Tristan Clarke
David Navarro show me where a) Apple originated that idea...and b) Samsung manufactured/sold it.
@Joseph Gubbels
It's for articles like this that I read TechCrunch. This was a truly fascinating analysis, very well done.
@Scott Moody
It's because of articles like this that I'm almost finished with TC and Engadget.
@Joseph Gubbels
Why? This article was excellent, unbiased and insightful rather than just reiterating what everyone always has to say on the topic like so often happens on lesser sites.
@Jo Haugum
Joseph Gubbels, because Scott is probably an ignorant Android-fan, any article not bashing Apple, is an article he thinks is stupid.
@Ali Moazzam
Here it is, the NEW Samsung Galaxy Tab! Introduced by Apple!
@Daniel Cool
Only an idiot would take up Apple's challenge.
@Carl Donath
Au contraire, the challenge as presented is to make a variation on that platonic form, which is easy to do and - if done right - can box Apple in. Who wants a boring black inactive bezel when the screen can be run to the edge and margin touches handled intelligently? challenge met, solved, and patented ... leaving Apple stuck in their own trap.
@Daniel Cool
and, if without the App ecosystem to support it, even the iPad would fail. It is not just the hardware that matters.
@Enric Plaza
All electric irons are generally the same: handle, iron, dial, However no two model LOOK THE SAME! How is that NOT possible in smartphones? http://www.p-wholesale.com/upimg/2/167a1/electric-iron-pp1200-467.jpg
@Ulises Cortes
Because they are still evolving...
@Jachym Metlicka
Because you can afford for your electric iron to look ugly. Nobody except for you is going to see it and you only use it for a few minutes a day/week.
@Michael Hendrickx
I agree with Jachym, we use them seldom and never use it to show off. Elegant irons is just not something you can brag with. Some items are designed keeping functionality in mind, others have a mere design/functionality tradeoff.
@Shameer Mulji
Michael Hendrickx So you're trying to tell me that you buy a $600 electronic just for fashion & bragging rights? You must have more money than brains.
@Michael Brinkworth
Shameer Mulji ... sorry, but you don't have much clue about businesses making and selling stuff to get people to buy it. Its called consumerism and its a big part of capitalism... Nike shoes for 400, laptops for 2500, diamond rings for 6000, an ipad for 1000. Almost every business out there is getting the next piece of crap ready to make profit on, and they have massive marketing teams with budgets of hundreds of millions to convince your brain you need it. Most purchases of expensive tech and clothes are for fashion and bragging rights, its the way you stay on the 'cool' list. :D
@Michael Brinkworth
You obviously haven't gone iron shopping lately. If you look at the crappy generic line drawing that apple patented, then did a similar line drawing of an iron from 100 years ago you would find heaps of irons falling into the breach. The shape of the base and the positioning of the handle is still the same.
@Patrick Johnson
Trying to patent or protect a patent like this is like trying to protect the design of a car by saying no one can produce another car with four circular wheels, a windscreen and a roof. All car's need these things and indeed 98% of cars have these things. Apple should put more faith in their designs. You can tell instantly that an iPad is an iPad. Not to mention that Apple bang on about it being 'all about the screen' so focus on what is ON the screen not surrounding it. That is where Apple has it's real mojo.
@Pankaj Verma
I like Tablet.....
@Amit Rai
I hope they don't file a patent on the fruit they have decided to use as their brand name.
@Marco Felici
Nice reading, but I don't agree. The iPad (even the first) isn't the fundamental of the product, in that it has distinctive/distinguishing features. Speaking in your terms, the iPad isn't a cube is a die.
@Retta Hutahaean
First principles! Look at what Samsung/HTC et al designs pre & post apple proucts and this will tell you if the have been influenced by/copied Apple or not. An examination of prior products would suggest that they have! Keep it simple and use common sense!
@Tristan Clarke
so present tech can't influence future tech? Since when?
@Michael Brinkworth
Everything on the planet influences every other thing. Apple weren't the first with any of their hardware or software designs, every single one of them has prior art, some 15 years ago, and some massively earlier from sci fi. They just got away with patenting it when they shouldn't have. And their marketing team are as good at their jobs as the ones from Mc Donalds and the cigarette companies, convincing you how cool you will look with one. ;D
@Kennie Lee
Bullshxt, as a consumer, I want competition to drive the price low. If not, at least bang for the buck. Don't give me a star- or triangle-shaped device when God created our hands to comfortably hold certain things vertically.
@Guy Faust
Up to the last couple of months I've been generally an agnostic (buying an iTouch here, a Droid-X there, etc) and looking for the next attractive Tablet opportunity (Fire? iPad2?) but Apple's now making the choice comically simple for me - constrain my choices to non-Apple devices. It's a shame, because while I regard myself as a strongly profit-driven developer, I can't help but be effected by Apple's behavior - and what I see is an organization and a business philosophy I increasingly don't want to be a part of.
@Tunemaster Captunes
Totally disagree. By your logic, luxury brands like Rolex, LV, and Burberry should never sue counterfeiters. What makes a Apple device unique is both the aesthetics and how it interact with the user. Coke and its curved glass is so distinctive that it successfully sued competitors that nobody else uses the curved bottle.
@Viktor Arvidsson
I find this article somewhat confusing. First, the Platonic concept of a tablet is brought up - and Apple associated with it. Second, others are encouraged to "take Apples challenge" and - in essence - make square wheels. However, the Platonic concept itself states that a square will never be "wheel" and similarly - if we are to accept the first point - a "no bezel, not thin, non-rectangular shaped" device will never be a tablet (or simply nothing but a very poor one). As result, both strides would be equally pointless. You'll never change a Platonic concept by distancing yourself from it. Platonic concepts are in a sense hegemonic - you can never escape them; whatever you do you always must relate to them. A square wheel will never be anything but a shitty wheel - an inferior to its hegemonic counterpart, the round one. That said, you can certainly challenge Platonic concepts in an exploratory endeavor. And doing so can certainly facilitate the discovery of new Platonic concepts. But the point is: that would not be a tablet. It couldn't be. It would be something distinct, something completely different. As such, as the article reads, one can only conclude that Apples challenge - by your interpretation - is: Stop making tablets (or make inferior ones - square wheels if you may). To me, that is nothing but nonsense.
@Devin Coldewey
This is why I put in that ideal in concept and ideal in execution are not always the same thing. But right now tablet makers can't seem to get past imitation and get on to the real work, which is producing something that's really better and escapes the iPad's design orbit. Of course triangular or what have you would be nonsense, and any real tablet will remind the viewer of an iPad, because that was Apple's intent in branding itself upon the platonic form. But while good tablets will always be reminiscent of the iPad (because it is so close to the basic concept), they need not be limited by its limitations, and real new features can be added - handwriting or flexibility or some ingenious design quirk that sets a device apart and makes it better. And who knows? Maybe they will, as you say, stumble on an entirely new concept and do what Apple did.
@Viktor Arvidsson
Devin Coldewey First, i'd like to compliment you for taking the time to respond. That said, I'm not sure that i fully agree. Granted, i agree with the basic proposition - Apple have managed to associate itself with the "form". But I don't necessarily, and fully, buy in to your conclusion. Is your proposition - in itself - strategically wise? Yes and no. Yes - this (i.e. re-form*) is what they need to do if they want to sell anything but "not-iPads". No - theres nothing wrong in doing just that (i.e. improve on the form). Luckily, theres no conflict between the two either; one can pursue both ends at the same time. Now, if your point didn't stretch beyond the first aspect of the two, we are in agreement. If not, well... we're in disagreement :- ) Now, lets explore the first point (re-form). How is this achieved? The challenge of re-forming is doing so in a way that enables escape the hegemonic "form" (the ideal). Here, we could certainly be in agreement -- through designing it differently, and thus associating it less with the given form, we are able to see things not as "not-iPads" but as different. Not different-from-iPad -- as that would imply hegemonic relation -- but just different. (Apples and oranges, so to speak). I do think, however, that we're not entirely on the same page when it comes to the relational aspect. This, could of course be nothing by my own mind-work however. I will quote a part of a comment you made on another post in this article to make my case more clear: "But because of the way Apple has claimed progenitor status by striking first with an 'ideal' tablet, the others are at a disadvantage unless they really change what they're offering, because otherwise they will be seen as being an inferior descendant of Apple's design, whether that's true or not." If we posit that forms (or concepts) are hegemonic in that they are unescapable (within the form), and that everything is relationally - and hierarchically - bound to them (not-iPad, different-from-iPad, other-shape-than-iPad etc.), then, their best bet - in making tablets - is, in fact, to do what they are currently doing. - Why so? Distancing yourself from the hegemonic ideal doesn't make you less inferior, it makes you more inferior; the geek will always be geek, the halfback - while no quarterback - at least is a jock**. Should they try to improve? Most certainly, but they need do so within the form - both in terms of design and functionality. Also, we must remember - as tablets become commodity, the tight Apple association will fade away*** ...ill just wrap it up here; i think i made my point clear. If anything, i'd like to add the somewhat obvious disclaimer to all this: yes, most certainly, software too is part of form. For the sake of the argument this aspect have been left out. That said, the above applies just the same, regardless -- it merely makes it possible to re-form within a given (physical) design (Cf. Metro, and MSFT's attempt at breaking free from the desktop paradigm). Cheers ** Not that well versed in either american sports or high-school cliches, but i think you get the point regardless. *** Im too young to remember, but isn't this what happened with IBM and the PC?
@Viktor Arvidsson
...one more thing - for the sake of finishing a line of thought - MSFT's attempt at re-forming the desktop also illustrates the point i made with regards to "re-form". We can all agree on that tablet - or more general: touch interaction based - devices are different. In being different, they afford re-thinking... re-form-ing of what "they are". They are moldable in a sense a PC is not (Cf. the "is iPad a PC discussion), reminiscent to the academic (SCOT) concept of Closure. Point then is: in de-stabilizing the form (through re-design) we allow for re-thinking of the form. In re-thinking of the form, we allow for escaping - or transcending - of concepts (i.e. re-form-ing). To illustrate: If we make a round tablet, its obviously not a tablet. So what is it? Different. In being different, we can re-think it (we break the connection between the design and the given form); we are able to ask: why is this so? In so doing, we challenge the fundamental form (what is this?) in turn allowing us to re-form it (it is this!). And, ironically, once done, we could re-shape this into an iPad and have an iPad-looking thing that is no more an iPad than a - by now famous - Samsung photo frame is... (And to maintain coherency: yes, this would and could too enable re-thinking -- shape is part of form, or at the very least - our conception thereof).
@Animesh Mishra
This article made my day. Brilliant job, Devin!
@Sasha Baksht
I remember my first Palm I owned (1999). It did have touch screen with icons. I just cannot tell that Apple made a revolutionary innovation in terms of technology. They did make their phones selling better - is it about innovation? I am sure it is not.
@Victor Baranov
Apple is like CSS - they take an object and apply a style to it.
@Sunny Kukreja
Good job Devin. I haven't read anything with substance in a while on techcrunch. You have made a good point and I heart the pen analogy.
@Arkadiusz Dymalski
If "they built the mother of all tablets" what did Microsoft build in 2001 then? Grandmother? Not to mention other ancestors of this design. I like the article but it would be even better without all the statements about archetypical nature of iPad. It's just a well designed, popular device.
@Tomm Sivertsen
I'd like you to seriously consider this article: http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-the-ipad/
@Devin Coldewey
Not that it has anything to do with this article, but I have seen it, and it is disingenuous and very incomplete. A cursory search will convince any person of this, any person who is not looking for one answer in particular, that is.
@Brent R Jones
I would patent the form factor of the artist's pallet for my tablet. On the back little loops for 2 fingers and a stylus scabbard. Controls around thumb hole.
@Joe Schneider
Enh. Based on this argument, Lenovo should sue the f**k out of Apple. Slate, similar shape and form, solid state drive.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99l1YR3DhCo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
@OnAli Tinwala
Apple specifically went after Samsung, as it was trying to make a product very similar to iPhone/iPad, etc. Consider this. Samsung release a thick Tab which is similar to iPad 1. Then comes iPad 2. Samsung says, it's Tab is too thick. It releases a new Tab similar to iPad 2. Now, if iPad was a generic design, then Apple would not have been able to differentiate between iPad 1 and iPad 2. Same argument for iPhone3GS- and iPhone4+.
@Bryan Rodrigues
I don't particularly like Apple's, or anyone's, attempt at claiming design elements in court only to keep a competitor out but the UI problem is more of a real case than the tablet design. Regardless, complacency doesn't help anyone. The basic design of a tablet is just that, basic, and eventually there will be better designs. There is very little on this planet that is the best it can be, and it seems to me that technology breaks that barrier almost every year.
@Jimmy Catizone-Loughran
"Apple made sure that apart from a few very small features, its shape was determined solely by necessity." This is probably the most important point. Imagine if HTC or Samsung had come first to the market with their tablets. I don't think they'd have the same ethos as apple and we'd be seeing tablets with a tone of buttons, and possibly styluses. The blank face of the iPhone was revolutionary in itself... remember the standard phone design before it (see Blackberry). So essentially Apple made the iPhone close to this type as well - redefining the ideal phone in an already crowded/mature market.
@Voss Grose
Why not include a screen shot of a windows desktop? It will look just about the same as the other two you have up there. I'm not sure why people think the UI of the smartphones/tablets are so ground breaking. They are very similar to windows/mac desktops icons.
@Bejan Sadeghian
I do not agree with this article. Sure the author seems to be making a point but what they are really saying is that because everyone is copying the design it should be ok. No, apple could have copied the previous tablets invented in the early 2000's. But instead they designed something complete different. Do not say that they designed the purely necessity tablet, that implies that there is no way around copying them. Who says a black tablet is perfect, why is a bezel mandatory, a rounded rectangular shape isn't truly necessary. I do not agree with this author because they are saying that just because someone designed a good thing, everyone should be able to copy it. That's an awful comment and it's why we have patents. Look at the iMac for example, I feel it's a well designed machine. It has form and function with minimal extravagance. Other PC makers are starting to build their own all in one PCs. It's flattering that they are following the same trend but it is in not way infringing on Apple's rights. HP's All in one PC doesn't look exactly like Apple's, why is that? Apple invented the all in one PC and according to this author they created a purely necessary design. But then how did other manufacturers make the same type of machine without it looking exactly the same. This is the point I'm trying to get across. I hope it makes some people take a second thought, I love Apple products sometimes and I hate them other times. I also work for Samsung so I love and hate their products too (the Galaxy Tab is much better tablet than the iPad). This author seems to want to create an uproar by listing off design things apple suggested and casing them in a way that makes it seem complete impractical to do.
@Dennis Bell
Well I hope they don't go after etchasketch or books both have the same form factor. And then there was also all those tablet PC's running on windows. Apples did not create the form, the concept or even the concept of thier UI. Apple did do a good job of implementing the technology and software into a package that had a lower barrier in terms of training and knowledge to use and in most cases more intuitive. But going after this they excluded the platform from people with the talent to modify, expand or to create applications for niche markets. They have opened up in recent history to outside developers. So I think of them as a repackager of others technology (Intel, Motorolla, TI, etc) and some one who has extended the functionality of UI and who has very few original application concepts developed solely by them. (Browser, Email Client, Word Processing, Spreadsheets.
@Computer Resources of America (CRA)
To start off Devin this article was very insightful. I agree that different is not necessarily good but sometimes you need to take a risk before you hit gold.
@Pf Answers
Apple rocks all the way....Android and others copy all the way...
@Stephen Yang
I think Osborne would be in a good position to troll for any sort of patents on "mobile computing". After all, the Osborne-1 was the first "portable" computer! (Even though it weighed more than a couple of bowling balls...)
@Victoria Romani
hey guys I want to inform you about this page actually getting crazy, sending free ipads to all new subscriber, I don't know how long it will work! check it out here http://bit.ly/s3fBG2.