Actually the first mouse that I'm aware of was in the early 60's at IBM. Like Xerox there management did nothing with it!
Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute invented the first mouse prototype in 1963,[4] with the assistance of his colleague Bill English. They christened the device the mouse as early models had a cord attached to the rear part of the device looking like a tail and generally resembling the common mouse.[5] Engelbart never received any royalties for it, as his patent ran out before it became widely used in personal computers.[6]
Just a few weeks before Engelbart released his demo in 1968, a mouse had already been developed and published by the German company Telefunken. Unlike Engelbart's mouse, the Telefunken model had a ball, as it can be seen in most later models until today. Since 1970, it was shipped as part and sold together with Telefunken Computers. Some models from the year 1972 are still well preserved.[10]
The second marketed integrated mouse shipped as a part of a computer and intended for personal computer navigation came with the Xerox 8010 Star Information System in 1981. However, the mouse remained relatively obscure until the appearance of the Apple Macintosh, which included an updated version of the original Lisa Mouse. In 1984 PC columnist John C. Dvorak dismissively commented on the newly-released computer with a mouse: "There is no evidence that people want to use these things".[11][12]
Were there apps before apple....(yes)
When I first bought an Ipod Nano back in '07 (I think) I thought it was a great product. iTunes was shit, but the nano itself was great. As Apple began to change and become more petty towards Microsoft (the whole Mac v. PC thing really irritated me...Mac is a PC you idiots!) and then Android I made a cognizant decision to stop using it and I picked up a Zune to replace the nano. I loved the software and I feel (to this day) that the interface is just as good as the iPod's. Since that day I have swore off ever purchasing an Apple product. I don't use iTunes, I don't own an iPod, iTouch, iPhone, nor do I own a Macbook.
That said, there are times that I wish that I did own an iPhone because of ease with which even morons can use it, but that would require buying an Apple product, something I refuse to do. I refuse to support a company that publically & willfully uses anti-competitive practices based upon absurd "patents" a.k.a. napkin drawings to try and close off access to the market. I also refuse to support a company that takes something already in play, spins it, and claims it as their own (i.e. Optimus).
There are few things that I can control, but where my money goes is one.
example of "as bad or worse" in recent times?
i'll use MS and google products but as rogue said earlier, i have never used an apple product. to be fair, earlier it was just down to it being too niche and poor software support (esp games). now those points are still valid (IMO) but i despise the company as well and vote with my wallet.
re time line, apple have been pretty evil for a while now, google/microsoft have not.
if by public information, you're referring to SSIDs, then that's broadcast out and freely picked up by anyone in range. it's public information at that point. same as with street view IMO.
publishing works with the owners consent? i take it that's a typo. i never read up on the whole google books thing so can't comment.
Microsoft has being pretty okay recently, but didn't know people applied a time limit to right or wrongs, again, only works against Apple in this case.
Google disregarding ownership of other companys tech and using it.
Telling mobile partners if you use software component we will cut you off.
Taking the publics information without consent
publishing written works on the net with the owners consent.
Many of the things if Apple did they would get slaughtered, but google is give a free get out, company love is wierd where people make rules up but don't apply them equaly.
It is not public information at that point, sorry you are wrong. What Google did was wrong and as evil as anything Apple are being held up for.
And are yet are still happy to use Microsoft and Google products, who have both done as bad or worse things, its very strange, how ones sets rules for one company but is prepared to disregard morality rules for other companys.
if i yell something out my window and someone outside hears me, they're not eavesdropping. if someone walks by my apartment and checks what SSIDs are being broadcast - they'll see mine. it's public information as it's being broadcast out to the public.
if you don't want it being seen, uncheck the "broadcast SSID" option.
it's no different to taking pictures in public places.
as for both being evil, google have done some nasty things but have tended to use patents defensively, not for trying to get a defacto monopoly like apple has by patenting a rectangular object with buttons on it. i mean come on! 16:9 TVs could have been subject to that patent too.
There has been ONE huge thing that separates the Google/Microsofts and Apple:
When Google and Microsoft do something evil, they are at least trying to maximize shareholder value. Their "evil" is logical and rational, and therefore predictable. Meanwhile, as this thread proves, Apple under Jobs sometimes has done things just because Jobs wanted it and not because it brought shareholder benefit. That is irrational evil, which is hard to predict and can do more harm than predictable evil.
Makes a good sound bite, but thats all it is, a work of fiction
LOL! A work of fiction?!?
You must have better sources than me, so I hope you will help me out:
I have NEVER seen a quote from Ballmer that he "hates" Android or any other product and that he plans to use MS's power to end them. I have never seen a MS lawsuit that worked to ban a product from market. I have never seen an evil move from them that is irrational. Maybe arrogant, but never emotionally irrational.
I have NEVER seen a quote from Schmidt or Page that talks about "hating" another product. To get at Google's evil more directly, I have never seen a quote where either has emotionally expressed a lack of respect for people's privacy or anger at another company for standing in their way. Shareholders are put before executive emotions.
.
Yep, it's an "authorized" biography, and knowing what I do of Mr. Jobs, he probably ok'd every comma and period.
Then you not heard the bit where he gave the author free reign......
It's Walter Isaacson for Pete's sake! WTF? That guy is well researched and never embellishes.
Its not legal to take that information no matter what you think.
Google works differently, their business is information, they want to exploit technology, give it to people for free so that they can then get users information to earn there money for advertising, so patents in that way don't work for them.
But google will use such tactics if it suits their ends, using patented technology or copyrighted goods without permissions is one. Then they get championed for giving it out, many not realising due to it suiting their business model, not due to some goodness.
But then it was a google boss that was a boardmember that went away and revised his company products to align with Apples, a bit hard to be angry at yourself. I've certainly read instances where Google has expressed a lack of respect for peoples privacy.
I have seen irrational quotes from Ballmer aswell.
As I said, people make allowances for once company then they do for others then try to justify it as some type of moral stance when its good old fashioned fanboy bias.
Its not legal to take that information no matter what you think.
Google works differently, their business is information, they want to exploit technology, give it to people for free so that they can then get users information to earn there money for advertising, so patents in that way don't work for them.
But google will use such tactics if it suits their ends, using patented technology or copyrighted goods without permissions is one. Then they get championed for giving it out, many not realising due to it suiting their business model, not due to some goodness.