• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • Apple Opted for Slide to Unlock Despite Wanting the iPhone to be an Always On Device


    George Christie, Apple software engineer and head of Apple’s human interface team, offered background information on the original iPhone’s ‘slide-to-unlock’ feature during the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial recently. Re/Code reported that the feature was born from the idea of an always-on iPhone. The feature was made popular by Apple and was an inspiration to other competing smartphone manufacturers. However, the design was impractical because of power requirements with a device that would in theory, never sleep. To change the impractical design, a normal power cycling method had to be included.

    According to Christie, "we couldn't meet our power requirements if we had that active a state, we had to resort to a power button." After many trial-and-errors, the iPhone was introduced with a software-based power control instrument in ‘slide-to-unlock.’ The feature addressed concerns about pocket dialing and accidental screen pressing.

    A separate report from CNET claimed that Apple had spent three years on the iPhone to make sure that that GUI would be transparent to users and be easy to access:

    One of the biggest challenges is that we need to sell products to people who don't do what we do for a living. Normal people — people with better things to do with their lives than learn how a computer might work — to use the product as well as we can.
    In the second Apple vs. Samsung patent trial, Apple is seeking about $2 billion in damages which include the ‘slide-to-unlock’ property. They are insisting five claims from five patents. However, Samsung responded by saying the few claims are not worth a large damages payout.

    Source: Re/Code, CNET
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Apple Opted for Slide to Unlock Despite Wanting the iPhone to be an Always On Device started by Akshay Masand View original post
    Comments 11 Comments
    1. hitman10's Avatar
      hitman10 -
      good to know ti took 3 years to make "slide to unlock." Cant imagine how long it took to the volume buttons.
    1. Zero Cool's Avatar
      Zero Cool -
      This is the technological era and an Apple employee is going to say that "normal" people have better things to do with their lives than learn how a computer works? If it wasn't for the people who learned how a computer worked, we wouldn't be where we're at. Computer science is an empowering branch of knowledge.
    1. stevelucky's Avatar
      stevelucky -
      Quote Originally Posted by Zero Cool View Post
      This is the technological era and an Apple employee is going to say that "normal" people have better things to do with their lives than learn how a computer works? If it wasn't for the people who learned how a computer worked, we wouldn't be where we're at. Computer science is an empowering branch of knowledge.
      Sure, and if it weren't for the railroads, this country would have never become what it is, but I sure as hell am not about to learn the details of locomotives. Computer science is great for some people, but it's a ridiculous line of thinking that I hear so much these days that everybody needs to learn to code, or to learn some branch of computer science. It's just false. Not everybody needs to learn these things. Computers are (and should be) easier to use than ever. They're tools. They're means to an end. Not everybody needs to know how the tools are made.
    1. Christophxr's Avatar
      Christophxr -
      Quote Originally Posted by Zero Cool View Post
      This is the technological era and an Apple employee is going to say that "normal" people have better things to do with their lives than learn how a computer works? If it wasn't for the people who learned how a computer worked, we wouldn't be where we're at. Computer science is an empowering branch of knowledge.
      So you're going to sit there and tell me that every farmer, doctor, nurse, butcher, fisherman, chef, fireman, police officer, soldier, general, politician, construction worker, bodybuilder, nutritionist, dietician, musician, political scientist, historian, reporter, journalist and novelist should learn computer science? As if the ONLY thing that be important, today, is how computers work?

      Wow.

      Ethnocentric much?

      Computers may be the only important thing in YOUR life, but they're not the most important things to everyone. Your argument is as silly as someone saying, "Everyone should learn to be a medical doctor. Everybody needs them; they're obviously the most important thing in today's world since they're the reason we live so long today!"

      Even Steve Jobs, who certainly did more and made a lot more money than you, and certainly knew a lot more more about computers than you too, was humble enough to say, "People have better things to do than learn how a computer works." Don't be so arrogant on your little, digital pedestal.

      - Computer Science Major
    1. docmagoo2's Avatar
      docmagoo2 -
      Quote Originally Posted by hitman10 View Post
      good to know ti took 3 years to make "slide to unlock." Cant imagine how long it took to the volume buttons.
      Hahaha +1
    1. Evaded's Avatar
      Evaded -
      Quote Originally Posted by stevelucky View Post
      Sure, and if it weren't for the railroads, this country would have never become what it is, but I sure as hell am not about to learn the details of locomotives. Computer science is great for some people, but it's a ridiculous line of thinking that I hear so much these days that everybody needs to learn to code, or to learn some branch of computer science. It's just false. Not everybody needs to learn these things. Computers are (and should be) easier to use than ever. They're tools. They're means to an end. Not everybody needs to know how the tools are made.
      +1

      Quote Originally Posted by Christophxr View Post
      So you're going to sit there and tell me that every farmer, doctor, nurse, butcher, fisherman, chef, fireman, police officer, soldier, general, politician, construction worker, bodybuilder, nutritionist, dietician, musician, political scientist, historian, reporter, journalist and novelist should learn computer science? As if the ONLY thing that be important, today, is how computers work?

      Wow.

      Ethnocentric much?

      Computers may be the only important thing in YOUR life, but they're not the most important things to everyone. Your argument is as silly as someone saying, "Everyone should learn to be a medical doctor. Everybody needs them; they're obviously the most important thing in today's world since they're the reason we live so long today!"

      Even Steve Jobs, who certainly did more and made a lot more money than you, and certainly knew a lot more more about computers than you too, was humble enough to say, "People have better things to do than learn how a computer works." Don't be so arrogant on your little, digital pedestal.

      - Computer Science Major
      +1
    1. Zero Cool's Avatar
      Zero Cool -
      Quote Originally Posted by Christophxr View Post
      So you're going to sit there and tell me that every farmer, doctor, nurse, butcher, fisherman, chef, fireman, police officer, soldier, general, politician, construction worker, bodybuilder, nutritionist, dietician, musician, political scientist, historian, reporter, journalist and novelist should learn computer science? As if the ONLY thing that be important, today, is how computers work?

      Wow.

      Ethnocentric much?

      Computers may be the only important thing in YOUR life, but they're not the most important things to everyone. Your argument is as silly as someone saying, "Everyone should learn to be a medical doctor. Everybody needs them; they're obviously the most important thing in today's world since they're the reason we live so long today!"

      Even Steve Jobs, who certainly did more and made a lot more money than you, and certainly knew a lot more more about computers than you too, was humble enough to say, "People have better things to do than learn how a computer works." Don't be so arrogant on your little, digital pedestal.

      - Computer Science Major
      The wording in the article suggests learning how a computer works isn't important, so my bad if I defended any notion someone might get that computers aren't important in some manner. Not once did I say everyone should learn computer science and/or make it their life's work. You're the one making assumptions so how about back off and stop looking for fights with people. Steve Jobs also said, "everybody in this country should learn how to program a computer because it teaches you how to think." I'm not saying I live by it but it certainly contradicts your quote.
    1. Christophxr's Avatar
      Christophxr -
      Quote Originally Posted by Zero Cool View Post
      The wording in the article suggests learning how a computer works isn't important, so my bad if I defended any notion someone might get that computers aren't important in some manner. Not once did I say everyone should learn computer science and/or make it their life's work. You're the one making assumptions so how about back off and stop looking for fights with people. Steve Jobs also said, "everybody in this country should learn how to program a computer because it teaches you how to think." I'm not saying I live by it but it certainly contradicts your quote.
      Then Steve went on to say, in the same interview, how going to law school teaches you how to think as well. This quote of his has been taken way out of context and was in a 1995/1996 interview. His philosophy that he's held to, of course, is that computer programmers should make computers easy to use for people who don't know computer programming. Then Apple made lots of money.

      All language (including computer language) is metaphors, Zero Cool. Making assumptions is part of any conversation.

      But let's have some fun and break down what you said to see if my assumptions were really so outrageous.

      [EDIT]:
      I had this long, hilarious rant, but decided against it. Deleted the whoooole thing. Instead, I'll keep it short and sweet.

      So you're mad at me, Zero Cool, because you weren't clear? Because I had to strike down the silly banality (whose apparent meaning was apparently misinterpreted multiple times) that was your message? Because, instead of arguing against the statement that there are more important things "normal" people can do (like, you know, raising their families), you couldn't say something like...

      "They make it sound as if computer science has no importance. I disagree...
      Quote Originally Posted by Zero Cool View Post
      If it wasn't[sic] for the people who learned how a computer worked, we wouldn't be where we're at. Computer science is an empowering branch of knowledge.
      "?

      Yikes.
    1. Zero Cool's Avatar
      Zero Cool -
      Quote Originally Posted by Christophxr View Post
      Then Steve went on to say, in the same interview, how going to law school teaches you how to think as well. This quote of his has been taken way out of context and was in a 1995/1996 interview. His later philosophy, of course, is that computer programmers should make computers easy to use for people who don't know computer programming.

      All language (including computer language) is metaphors, Zero Cool. Making assumptions is part of any conversation.

      But let's have some fun and break down what you said to see if my assumptions were really so outrageous.



      You're not literally asking this question. It's rhetorical, and it's rhetorical against the statement that "normal people have better things to do with their lives than learn how a computer works." So you have something against the statement. To make even the conservative assumption, one must assume you're making the case that learning how computers work isn't only an important thing, but THE MOST IMPORTANT THING "NORMAL" PEOPLE CAN POSSIBLY LEARN. I left normal in there because you left normal in there in your rhetorical question. I would argue that farmers, doctors, nurses, butchers, fishermen, chefs, firemen, police officers, soldiers, generals, politicians, construction workers, bodybuilders, nutritionists, dietitians, musicians, political scientists, historians, reporters, journalists and novelists all fall under "normal people."

      So what I said really isn't that outrageous. In no way do I perceive that quote as untrue—normal people DO have more important things to do (i.e. raising families and helping their communities) than learning computer programming, and so I do not see it as shitting on the importance of computer programming, but being realistic. For a person to disagree with that sentiment, which your words portrayed you as doing, then, would mean that they regard computer programming as more important than those things...

      Or are you mad at me because you weren't clear? Are you mad at me because you couldn't say something like...

      "They make it sound as if computer science isn't important. I disagree...

      "

      ???

      Because that seems to better portray what you claim your sentiments were.
      I'm pretty sure you meant the opposite of conservative seeing how what followed was the most extreme of the spectrum of what I could have meant, but that's trivial at the moment. I won't argue with what "normal" people are, but nobody is born into the world of computer knowledge. We are something before the age at which we are able to learn about computers and that would label us "normal," as we've been putting it. Point being that should nobody take the initiative to learn about computers, the area of study would die out, so I would classify computer scientists as having once been this "normal."

      What's important is generally subjective, so if I did think computer science was more important than raising a family or helping my community, then that's my perspective and shouldn't even be brought up, or at least have it pointed out to me that it's my opinion or something. And how is it that you are able to claim that Job's words can be taken out of context, but then not be able to see you are getting into an argument over something you say is unclear? If what I said is unclear then maybe you should have asked what exactly I meant. Instead, you want me to be the one to rephrase after you made an assumption.
    1. szr's Avatar
      szr -
      Quote Originally Posted by Christophxr View Post
      "Everyone should learn to be a medical doctor. Everybody needs them; they're obviously the most important thing in today's world since they're the reason we live so long today!"
      Not everyone needs to be a full blown medical doctor, but it is good to have at least some basic medical knowledge (e.g., addressing a cold or a case of the flu or treating a simple injury), and for everything else consult a specialist. There is nothing wrong with building a little self reliance here and there.
    1. stevelucky's Avatar
      stevelucky -
      Quote Originally Posted by Zero Cool View Post
      I'm pretty sure you meant the opposite of conservative seeing how what followed was the most extreme of the spectrum of what I could have meant, but that's trivial at the moment. I won't argue with what "normal" people are, but nobody is born into the world of computer knowledge. We are something before the age at which we are able to learn about computers and that would label us "normal," as we've been putting it. Point being that should nobody take the initiative to learn about computers, the area of study would die out, so I would classify computer scientists as having once been this "normal."

      What's important is generally subjective, so if I did think computer science was more important than raising a family or helping my community, then that's my perspective and shouldn't even be brought up, or at least have it pointed out to me that it's my opinion or something. And how is it that you are able to claim that Job's words can be taken out of context, but then not be able to see you are getting into an argument over something you say is unclear? If what I said is unclear then maybe you should have asked what exactly I meant. Instead, you want me to be the one to rephrase after you made an assumption.
      No offense friend, but these are two of the most confusing paragraphs I've ever read. I mean... I don't even know.