What should go into JSX 2.0? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/facebook/jsx/issues/65 <comment><USER2> Nothing. Seriously, JSX works really well as it is. These proposals seem like small enhancements, some of them for the wrong reasons.

> Computed attribute names.

If you need this, you're probably being too clever. If there's a legitimate use for this, I've never seen it in the past 2 years I've been using JSX with React.

> Object short hand notation.

> Drop the need for curlies around attribute values if they're a single > literal, or parenthesis.

Is it really that much more work?

> Implicit do expressions.

> Conditionals

> Loops

If you need control statements in your JSX, you're doing it wrong. When you need these things, this is a sign you need to break your code into smaller chunks. Move this logic into separate functions, lambdas or variables and interpolate them in. Now you've labeled your code and made it more composable. This is called self-documenting code and it's a lot easier for others and your future self to read.

All of these wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a proposal to justify breaking changes. I really don't want to have to deal with two versions of JSX that are incompatible. That just sounds like hell.

<comment><USER3> I personally agree with this in the big scheme of things. Computed attribute names seem overkill and I worry about adding logic to JSX. But, honestly, I could care less if they were added if such features get other people all fired up.

My personal taste though often does wish for object shorthand and dropping curlies. My sense off the top of my head is that the majority of my actual props look something like `<Widget user={user} id={id} timestamp={timestamp} />` since I mostly avoid setting up data inside JSX. Is it a big deal? Of course not. But it would be nicer to just write `<Widget user id timestamp />` or `<Widget $user $id $timestamp />` or whatever syntactic sorcery would be settled on.

A modest advantage of dropping curlies is it reduces the already tiny force of one argument for styling in CSS over JS: "prettier and less typing". I certainly don't think they should be dropped just for this reason of course, but could be a side effect worth noting.

<comment><USER4> You can do `<Widget {...{user, id, timestamp}} />`

<comment><USER3> Oh man you're right aren't you! I just might start doing that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Also keep in mind that javascript engines have a built-in mechanism for including multi-line strings with a powerful substitution engine: tagged template strings ([https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Template_literals)). The upside of template strings is that you can run your code directly in node or electron without using extra tooling first. It is possible and not hard to use tagged templates with react, although few people do. It's more common in some other frontend ecosystems.

<comment><USER6> JSX isn't templating. It's representing a virtual dom tree of function calls with a syntax more representative of the resulting markup.

<comment><USER5> You can build virtual dom trees or use real dom nodes using something like [https://www.npmjs.com/package/morphdom](https://www.npmjs.com/package/morphdom) . Tagged template strings let you build these features in without custom language extensions. See also:

* [https://www.npmjs.com/package/hyperx](https://www.npmjs.com/package/hyperx) * [https://www.npmjs.com/package/yo-yo](https://www.npmjs.com/package/yo-yo)

<comment><USER6> Right, but these just do what JSX does, but in runtime instead of at compile time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like how the _if_ proposal is down voted, probably because it's mentioning Angular. Conditional rendering in React is not always very clean. Most codebases end up resorting with something similar to this in a container to show a spinner while data is loading and rendering it when done.

<ConditionalSpinner renderIf={data}><PersonRenderer person={data.person} /></ConditionalSpinner>

Problem is that the inner component will still be parsed and fail with cannot read property person of undefined. Yes, you can do this with a simple condition in your render function, but then it's not declarative any more.

<comment><USER8> It's the extreme fanboyism there! Wrapping every component that has ` _if` attribute with an `if` statement should not result into that:

foo

        // results to
        if (cond1 && cond2) {
            return React.createElement('div', null,
                React.createElement('div', null, 'foo')
            );
        }

I'm not sure why this is bad? Because it's looking like Angular?!!

<comment><USER9> It's bad because it's inconsistent with how every other attribute in jsx works. Nothing else in jsx changes the control flow of the code.

<comment><USER8> It is 2.0 so it can have breaking changes

<comment><USER10> The parent didn't mention anything about backwards compatibility. They're saying 2.0 with such a change would be inconsistent _with itself_. And they're right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's wrong with just using the JavaScript/TypeScript syntax you already have? It's trivial to write a few functions to create HTML elements and append children. For example:

        import { h1, div, span, text } from 'html';

        const user = { name: 'Dave', age: '30' };

        return div('container',
            h1(text('User info')),
            div(span('field',text('Name')),text(user.name)),
            div(span('field',text('Age')),text(user.age)),
        );

I don't understand why there's so much activity in creating new languages/language extensions that duplicate functionality that can already be expressed as is, with just a bit of basic library support.

CSS preprocessors are another example. Want to add loops, conditionals, and user defined functions to your CSS superset? Why not just use JS/TS instead, which has all the control features and can output CSS text just as well as Less/Sass/SCSS/flavour of the month.

<comment><USER12> You just wrote elm code in javascript

<comment><USER13> That style was old before Elm. Elm does it rather well tho

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I definitely think fragments should be an added feature of a 2.0 version of JSX - just take a look at this Github issue that continues to house active discussion now for 2+ years.

[https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/2127](https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/2127)

<comment><USER15> Yes, this is often-requested. We don't necessarily need to change JSX to add this to React though. With our current implementation it's a pain to support it but we're working on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wish it could be possible to write this:

const animal = "cat"; <Component {animal} /> equivalent to: <Component animal={animal} />

<comment><USER17> How about <Component {{animal}} /> ? Because that should already work, no?

<comment><USER18> You'd have to spread in the object, right?

<Component {...{animal}} />

<comment><USER16> I know, but it's too verbose for me. BTW there is a discussion about this: [https://github.com/facebook/jsx/issues/23](https://github.com/facebook/jsx/issues/23)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What could be safely removed from JSX?

</comment><comment><USER20> My only real gripe about JSX is the crazy attribute casing rules. If it looks like HTML then attributes should be case-insensitive just like HTML. The worst of it is (unless this has changed) they are just silently dropped without any error message.

<comment><USER21> The React ESLint plugin's no-unknown-property rule is handy for catching (and automatically fixing) this:

[https://github.com/yannickcr/eslint-plugin- react/blob/master...](https://github.com/yannickcr/eslint-plugin- react/blob/master/docs/rules/no-unknown-property.md)

<comment><USER20> Good to know, thanks.

That's a good stop-gap, but the tool itself should either pass through everything to the HTML or throw errors on anything that isn't going to get passed through. The silent failure mode is a UX bug.

<comment><USER22> If I understand your comment correctly, this is checked in more recent versions of React: [https://facebook.github.io/react/warnings/unknown- prop.html](https://facebook.github.io/react/warnings/unknown-prop.html)

<comment><USER20> It does seem to be the same issue. That's great, it will certainly avoid some frustration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Conditional rendering is all I really hurt for. But I would prefer not having a 2.0 at all if it wasn't fully backwards compatible.

</comment><comment><USER24> [http://kevinsuttle.com/posts/jsx-2-adobe- flex](http://kevinsuttle.com/posts/jsx-2-adobe-flex)

</comment><comment><USER25> I'd like a good system for conditional child components. I liked Flex's system.

</comment><comment><USER26> Regardless of the changes, I really think that this is very well managed community wise, not strictly comparable, but hopefully stuff like this will avoid fragmentation of the community like angular 1/2, python 2/3.

</comment><comment><USER27> Decent way to comment ...

<comment><USER28> This is all I want

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just one thing: ability to return array of elements as result.

</comment><comment><USER30> Some kind of way to parse variables only if they exist. The equivalent of (in Coffeescript)

a = {b:'c'}

a?.c //undefined

a.b //'c'

b?.c //undefined

<comment><USER31> Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem like the domain of JSX. That's just JavaScript.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Since when does Reason have JSX?

<comment><USER33> JSX is actually a generic transformation of XML like structures to function calls. Since it's mostly used with React, that's the default, but you can use any function you like. It's the "pragma" option in the config for the plugin.

[https://babeljs.io/docs/plugins/transform-react- jsx/](https://babeljs.io/docs/plugins/transform-react-jsx/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> make it s-exp?

<comment><USER35> You mean Elm?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> "What should go into JSX 2.0?" would be a much clearer title outside of the context of the GitHub issue.

<comment><USER37> Yup, even the issues not marked controversial seem so to me. I think JSX is quite nice but it has its limits/annoyances. One is obviously that it's not real HTML5.

I would like to see a successor that is more like HTML5 without the X. No idea how that could be realized though... ;)

<comment><USER38> Sorry, what do you mean by this? (For those unfamiliar with the deviations)

<comment><USER39> I started using React/JSX professionally in the last few months, so some of these are fresh in my head. Differences I'm aware of:

1) JSX creates virtual DOM objects, not HTML tags. In places where the DOM and HTML use different names for the same thing, JSX uses the DOM's name. In particular, the "class" attribute is called "className" and the "style" attribute takes an object like { color: "white" } instead of a string like "color: white" (and the keys are like "backgroundImage" rather than "background-image"). The latter rarely comes up, but the former bites me all the time when incorporating markup from designers.

2) JSX requires all tags to be closed, like XHTML and all XML dialects. HTML 5 declares some tags to be self-closing, like IMG.

3) JSX removes whitespace padding inside elements. This usually results in the same visual result, except for those cases where HTML actually cares about extra whitespace (like in PRE and TEXTAREA).

4) Regarding TEXTAREA, you're encouraged not to use the inner content of the tag to define its default value. Instead, you treat it like an INPUT. (I think this is if anything an improvement.)

5) INPUT tags have some special behavior related to default values, but that's really more about React than JSX per se.

Overall I have found JSX pretty easy to get into. I appreciate that it really is just a very thin layer over underlying JS. I'm not totally sold on this approach versus the many, many, many other HTML templating systems out there, but at least it's easy to understand.

<comment><USER37> Regarding 1)... like 5) that's React, so you could write a JSX transpiler that creates actual DOM objects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Absolute inelegant shit, use Elm</comment>


How to hack an election - <AUTHOR> https://www.gq.com/story/how-to-hack-an-election <comment><AUTHOR> Sometimes tech can turn a nightmare when the probability of it's malfunction can impact everything in our lives.</comment>


Out of the Factory - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204485304576643330517247412.html?mod=WSJASIA_hpp_sections_tech#printMode

<comment><USER2> Just as the opponents of off-shoring predicted: once other nations know how to make the underlying hardware, then the next step will be figuring out how to program it well. Silicon Valley started out with Shockley and Fairchild making transistors; software took off later.</comment>


Artur Fischer, Inventor with More Patents Than Edison, Dies at 96 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/business/international/artur-fischer-inventor-with-more-patents-than-edison-dies-at-96.html <comment><USER2> It's interesting to realize that seemingly commonplace objects had a sole inventor. I've used dozens of drywall anchors in my house that look identical to the one in the picture (albeit a little smaller).

And a survivor from the losing side of the Battle of Stalingrad. With respect to both sides, that's a rare membership.

> Adolf Hitler paid a surprise Christmas visit in 1939. "I had made a model > airplane to give my mother as a Christmas present," Mr. Fischer told Der > Spiegel. "Then my commanding officer said that I was the best mechanic and I > should give the plane to Hitler. It was a horrible time."

</comment><comment><USER3> He also came up with FischerTechnik, which is a superb building-block system far sturdier than Lego.

[http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home.aspx](http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home.aspx)

Had a lot of fun with this in my childhood.

<comment><USER4> In school, when I was 9 years old long ago, we had something like these:

[http://www.schule-trifft- technik.de/product_info.php/cPath/9...](http://www.schule-trifft- technik.de/product_info.php/cPath/952/products_id/3158)

A class set of a basic Fischertechnik mechanics box. We had a weekly course where we were building various things. The hardest part was to get everything back in the box where it belongs...

Fischer wanted to get kids interested into actually building technical things, as a foundation for the next generation of engineers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A classic example of Germany's Wirtschaftswunder. Today you would be hard pressed to find a home where his company's wall plugs are not used somewhere — at least in Europe.

</comment><comment><USER6> Comparing number of patents is like comparing number of lines of code.</comment>


Making of "Logon's run – 3D meets the aging bits" - <AUTHOR> http://norecess.cpcscene.net/the-elders-scrollers.html <comment><USER2> Video render of the demo, very impressive:

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=pf0GwUbMUeg](https://youtube.com/watch?v=pf0GwUbMUeg)

<comment><AUTHOR> The hardware makes it more impressive: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad_CPC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad_CPC)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm doing something similar for the Oric/Atmos at the moment, and I'm finding it really refreshing to go back to the age of assembly coding for such simple things as scrolling effects, which we take for granted in this day and age of GL-all-the-things .. when all you've got is 30k, and you want to make a bad- ass scroller, man .. you've got to get your hands dirty with a bit of assembly - or at least on the Oric/Atmos that's the way it is.

And the other great thing is, something called "AIC" mode on the Oric machines, which we didn't really grok back in the day, but now .. you can't do an Oric release without throwing in a bit of AIC. Its really rewarding to return to these platforms with 30 years of hindsight and try to re-code things again, I have to say .. definitely brought me out of the doldrums I've been in, for the last few years, what with chasing the Apple SDK hegemony as a mobile developer. If you're feeling the iOS blues, I highly recommend a trip down 8-bit memory lane .. it can be very refreshing.

</comment><comment><USER4> These are mainly "newskool" effects (precomputing/baking stuff and packing it into memory) which appear to be not as highly regarded in the demoscene as "oldskool" effects (beam racing, hardware abuse, etc.).

<comment><USER5> What is beam racing?

<comment><USER6> Here's a description from wikipedia:

The book's title comes from the fact that the Atari 2600, initially branded the VCS (Video Computer System), did not have a video frame buffer, and required the programmers to write each line of video to the television, one line at a time. As there were only a limited number of machine cycles in which to do this, the programmers were literally racing a high speed electron beam across the screen.[1]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_the_Beam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_the_Beam)

I read about it somewhere else too, but it's late and I can't remember where. Will update tomorrow if it comes to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A play on the cult classic "Logan's Run".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_\(film\))</comment>


How to marry someone hotter than you, Timing is everything. - <AUTHOR> http://bluntmonkey.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/how-to-marry-someone-hotter-than-you/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing. Another point is that a man marrying is at higher risk than a woman. Any moment half of your stuff might be gone (a bit of exaggeration and could be your fault but still). Men are still seen as providers despite alleged "equality" so they are expected to have more of that "stuff" to get married. Show me ten rich women married after ten hot poor guys if you want to argue. Also it would've been much fairer if you had to support a child directly rather than paying to ex-spouse.</comment>


Throwing Out An Idea - <AUTHOR>

The media industry is finding it more and more difficult to control their own content as a result of the proliferation of P2P networks. At the same time, media consumers are finding it more and more difficult to obtain quality programming (at least in my opinion; I haven't found much worth watching on television recently). I was thinking about a way to solve both the media producers' need to control their property and my want to obtain quality programming when I want it for a relatively cheap price. I had the following idea:
It would be great to have a site like YouTube that the media producers load all of their property onto (television, movies, radio, etc.) and users pay a flat fee per month to have the opportunity to view any episode, any movie, or listen to any song at anytime they want with just a few commercials spliced into the feed at points that make sense (like natural commercial breaks for a television show). The media companies get revenue from the commercials and a significant amount of demographic data. The website gets money from the media consumer. The user gets to watch anything at anytime, all problems would be solved.
I even had the idea that media producers could load scripts for the television shows and movies directly on the site so that the user could search specific quotes and immediately jump to the specific scene the quote appeared in. The same thing could go for lyrics to songs. The key would be to allow the media producers to maintain control of all of their creative assets while the user is basically paying to see what he wants rather than paying some outrageous amount for cable (I must admit that I hate cable and wish I could pay for only two or three channels a la carte).
I would be grateful for any comments regarding this idea. Is it feasible? Do you think media producers would go with it? Do you think media consumers would go with it? YouTube is great, but I want a place where I can watch whole episodes legally. I am willing to pay for good content, but I am not willing to pay the outrageous price for a DVD or CD. <comment><AUTHOR> They don't have all of the media I am thinking of: Home Improvement, The Drew Carey Show, Seinfeld, MythBusters.

UPDATE: I was basically trying to think of a way to eliminate the need to pay for all the channels on cable I don't use. I know I could easily download something on the internet, but I was trying to find a way to do it legally, basically finding a solution that is good for both consumers and producers.

<comment><USER2> Talk to the lawmakers and get them to force a la cart channels for cable. There's been talk of it for a long time, but they always have an excuse so they can keep their revenue coming.

I'm sure the 3 channels I watch shouldn't cost $30 a month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> hulu.com and its free

<comment><USER2> damn, you beat me to it. How about a site where you can go to check if someone's already launched your idea?

Wait, I think it's google.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> it's called Joost (joost.com) and it's free</comment>


Spherical Geometry Applet : Parallel Transport - <AUTHOR> http://torus.math.uiuc.edu/jms/java/dragsphere/ <comment><AUTHOR> A pretty cool applet which demonstrates parallel transport:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_transport>

On a curved surface, the angle which the arrows twists around a closed loop is proportional to the area inside the loop.</comment>


Naked Password – Fun Way To Improve Security On Passwords - <AUTHOR> http://blogfreakz.com/jquery/naked-password-fun-way-to-improve-security-on-passwords/

<comment><USER2> Submitted from the original 3 days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2262693>

Many comments there.

Isn't this submission just blog spam? I fail to see what extra value this brings. From the guidelines:

        In Submissions
        ...
        Please submit the original source. If a blog post
        reports on something they found on another site,
        submit the latter.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html></comment>


Stop Apple's iPhone Kill Switch - <AUTHOR> http://act2.freepress.net/sign/stop_apple_camera/

<comment><AUTHOR> I've supported FreePress in their effort for net neutrality, but this is getting ridiculous. My response to the email I received announcing the initiative:

I've got an issue with this. Censorship may be one of the capabilities of the technology described in the patent, but it isn't the only item. Just because the tech COULD be used for something doesn't mean it should be wholly opposed. There are many reasonable uses of the technology that could make phones easier to use and more interactive.

Not only that, but you're opposing a patent application here. They aren't actually proposing addition of this technology to any of their products. You'd be better off opposing patents in general then attempting to stop a single application. Of late I've become wary of the causes FreePress is choosing to become involved in. This is a waste of time, energy, and attention. The more obvious attempts at blatant headline fodder and the more ridiculous your claims, the more you alienate me personally and I'm sure there are many others feeling the same way. Your original goals were great, free and open internet for everyone. Support net neutrality and free information flow.

This isn't related to either of those.

<comment><USER2> ^ This. If Apple ever decides to use this technology in a way that is deemed censorship, I'll join the "No Apple Kill Switch" initiative, but until then, I agree that there are reasonable uses for this tech.</comment></comment>


Mr. W - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY

<comment><AUTHOR> Arguably the best advertisement I have seen in my life.</comment>


Is there a new, and better, way to solve quadratic equations - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/solving-the-quadratic-equation-was-a-better-way-just-discovered-in-2019-bb46c13e0c4c <comment><USER2> In English, questions are followed by this odd little symbol: ?.</comment>


Ask YC: Activation on User Registration, important or a hurdle ? - <AUTHOR>

Guys,
Do you think it is important to have an activation email send on User Registration to activate and account. If you were look at a mass user base site which way would you go?
thanks <comment><USER2> Don't do it unless it's an extreme case where you really have to.

</comment><comment><USER3> We left it out. We wanted the user experience to be as frictionless as possible. Get people on your site as quickly and painlessly as possible would be my suggestion.

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=148672>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36594>

</comment><comment><USER5> We left it out and haven't been bitten by it once. I'm not trying to tempt the evil eye, just give a data point.

</comment><comment><USER6> On the signup form point out benefits they will recieve e.g. value-added newsletters (not spammy but of something they will want) and they will take more care to ensure they reg with correct details.

</comment><comment><USER6> If users can clearly see or already find value in a site, they will reg with real details that don't need to be verified/activated by email.

</comment><comment><USER7> Leave it out unless the other option is a CAPTCHA that makes me think harder than I should :-)

</comment><comment><USER6> Leave it out. It annoys most people now.</comment>


Strong and Weak Technologies - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2019/01/08/strong-and-weak-technologies/ <comment><USER2> While the idea is sound, a lot of the examples are questionable to the point where I wonder if this is just another "blockchain is the future" shill article. Private clouds are extremely big business for FAANG and some governments, for example (I believe there's a particularly big one in Utah). iTunes is doing fine last time I checked. Pokemon Go is AR not VR and so on.

The problem is that for every iPhone, there are 99 other technologies that are not adapted to the world, and fail as a consequence (3D TV where you have to wear polarising glasses at home or sit at exactly the right angle to the screen, anyone?). It's not a hard problem to look back at what has already happened and explain it with your pet theory, as long as your theory is sufficiently flexible. Using a theory to predict what's not happened yet, and getting it right - now that's where the real money is. The model as presented here doesn't seem very strong at identifying what upcoming technologies will be the strong ones, but really good at explaining things retroactively. As an investor at least, that's of limited use.

On blockchains specifically, I can imagine a world where in 10 years' time bitcoin has completely collapsed. In fact, Satoshi has the possibility to create such a world if they still have the private key to their initial coins. I can also imagine a world where private/regulated chains are widely used and permissionless ones less so, or one where permissionless chains have taken off in a way they haven't yet. It's really too early to tell, although the Ethereum/DAO experiment makes me pessimistic.

<comment><USER3> I completely agree with this. After reading some of the examples in the list (E-Sports vs. Traditional Sports, Hybrid Cars vs Electric Cars), it was clear the concept was not fully baked. This one needs to go back in the oven for a bit.

In the case of hybrids vs. electrics, it's fine if you want to say hybrids are like the Blackberry - an initiating technology that prepares the market for a sweeping, fundamental change. But that's certainly different from Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality, two technologies that aim to accomplish different things, or streaming music vs MP3 downloads, which offer two different value propositions in the lease vs. own models.

The idea needs to be more specific, like initiating technology vs. mature technology or evolutionary technology vs. revolutionary technology. One could say the Blackberry or the Palm Pilot was actually the revolution, where the iPhone was the right evolution of that technology to fully capture the market. But now I'm just trying to backfit a backfitted concept.

<comment><USER2> I've been thinking about this a bit today.

Spolsky's old "Amazon vs Ben and Jerrys" is in my opinion a more mature categorisation of what strong/weak is getting at here: [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/12/strategy- letter-i-...](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/12/strategy-letter-i-ben- and-jerrys-vs-amazon/)

I think Paul Graham had an article too on how venture capitalists are not looking for "does this have growth potential" (there are already more traditional capitalists for that called "banks") but "could this have a 1% chance at being the next facebook, even if it has a 99% chance of failing?" In this particular sense, I guess the more radical something looks, the better.

I also remember a HN article a while ago about "how Trello could have been a success" where success means "going unicorn", to which commenters rightly pointed out that Trello IS a success at what it set out to do. Trello would come under "weak" / "ben and jerrys" in this categorisation I suppose, although it's one of the cloud services I use every day and a lot more than most others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you rolled back the clock a decade or so, every 'weak' technology listed could have been presented as a 'strong' technology with another, earlier technology as the 'weak' one. E.g. Private intranets <\- dedicated hardlines, Interactive TV <\- broadcast TV, MP3 downloads <\- physical objects (records, tapes, etc), Hybrid cars <\- gasoline cars, ...

I'd reframe it as: Technologists come in two flavors, the ones who think their current era is fundamentally distinct from earlier eras, and the ones who don't.

<comment><USER5> Very good point!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't agree that "Augmented reality" is the weak form for "Virtual reality". They are two different concepts.

Augmented reality is all about augmenting the real, physical world you live in.

Virtual reality is about stepping into another world that (usually) has nothing to do with your real, physical surroundings.

<comment><USER7> Maybe the real world is the weak reality? You can do anything in virtual reality, while the real world has tons of limitations. Thinking (very) long term, I don't see a reason for why we should prefer the physical reality made of atoms arranged in an arbitrary way and with laws we can't control or change, rather than the reality made of bits of information with limitless possibilities.

It's sort of the difference between theatre and motion pictures. Theatre plays are great, but they are limited by what can be physically done on stage with real world objects and flesh and blood actors. Motion pictures with CGI has no such limitations.

<comment><USER8> In the far future, maybe. But as long as we remain trapped in physical bodies that fundamentally need to spend a lot of time out and about in the real world, augmented reality will fill a niche that virtual reality cannot. It's just that the technology isn't ready yet. Once you can buy glasses that do things like, say, labeling people with their names, or giving walking directions by visually highlighting the path you need to take… then AR will really take off. (VR also has a long way to go before it reaches its potential; it's just that for various reasons its current state is more "demoable".)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >Strong technologies capture the imaginations of technology enthusiasts.

By this definition, I disagree that music streaming is a strong technology. Streaming succeeded because it appealed to non-enthusiasts, who are a bigger market. Technology enthusiasts were early adopters of MP3 downloads, and I think they are still generally in favor of owning their own music.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is such an awful post. This is the equivalent of looking back at the last 50+ Super Bowls and proudly claiming the winner of each one. Very "Captain Obvious".

Surprised he didn't have "automobiles" in the strong category and "horses" in the "weak" category.

A few of these (cloud and blockchain) touch on current technologies but this is a really twisted (and cheap) way to demonstrate his key point that truly innovative technology means thinking outside of current norms. No kidding!

</comment><comment><USER11> This is more or less the idea from Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder (Nassim Nicholas Taleb), but in the form of a terse article with questionable examples.

The "strong" technologies are those that benefit from technology improvements and competition / contributions from many parties ("volatility"), and the "weak" technologies are those that are dependent on a single company or ecosystem, and don't benefit from improvements in bandwidth.

</comment><comment><USER12> Wonder what the reasoning is on putting virtual and augmented reality on strong and weak sides respectively. I guess virtual reality inspired more new hardware in the 2016 boom, but maybe just because it was easier? VR feels more to me like 3D TV - something the industry would love to create a new generation of products, but doesn't actually improve experiences enough to motivate consumers and culture creators.

</comment><comment><USER13> One could propose that weak technologies as described by Cdixon are just un- finished version of one technology.

It's super hard to close the loop on a technology.

It was often said that the companies who benefit the most from one type of technology are not the first to innovate but the last to innovate, e.g. Facebook not For etc.

It's because what creates the finest working loop is hard to design into existence and tweak into motion.

</comment><comment><USER14> That's a good article and I agree with its essence, but some examples don't seem correct to me. Sometimes Weak Technologies are a necessary intermediate step to strong ones. Autopilot is a major stepping stone to full autonomy and Hybrid cars would pave the way (economically) for fully electric/hydrogen cars.

</comment><comment><USER15> _> Streaming music (Spotify) MP3 downloads (e.g. iTunes)_

Streaming (only) implies DRM. DRM-free downloads (Bandcamp) are always better. So it's a bad example, where some technology made things worse.

<comment><USER16> Worse is better is worse is better is worse is...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Tl;dr: the author proposes a scale where the strength of technology measures how much the world had to do to start using that technology.

Another interpretation is that "weak" technology is designed to be immediately usable and useful, while "strong" technology expects the world to adapt and succeeds in this expectation.

Perhaps using the word "compatible" or a synonym would be more appropriate.</comment>


Kim Dotcom To Host Mega's Launch Event At His Mansion Next Month - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/28/kim-dotcom-to-host-megas-launch-event-at-his-new-mega-zealand-mansion-next-month/

<comment><USER2> The only way to get people to forget about Dotcom and his antics is to just ignore stories about him.

I personally feel that he has been too successful at using the media to make himself out to be innocent and revolutionary.

<comment><USER3> His enemies didn't do their homework. They totally underestimated him. "Play a sucker to catch a sucker". Just because he is fat and makes stupid videos doesn't mean he is stupid. He is wicked smart with an impressive track record.

Dotcom was known for being good with the media, just because he kept a low profile for a while doesn't mean he changed there.

He was always in a shady area, but he burned himself once with a really illegal dialer and learned from it.

He is a player and never stops.

Looking at his history, nothing he does now is surprising.

They should have made a deal with him, buy Megaupload and hope he settles down playing CoD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm so excited about this. I can't wait to see how this guy sticks it to the US government and the MAFIAA that's basically bribing them through campaign donations and lobbying.</comment>


Developing a Single Page App with Flask and Vue.js - <AUTHOR> https://testdriven.io/developing-a-single-page-app-with-flask-and-vuejs#.Ww1VUeOlVj0.reddit <comment><USER2> This is excellent, thanks for posting.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great introduction to working with Flask and Vue</comment>


Apple Never Designed the iPad - They Undesigned it - <AUTHOR> http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/apple-never-designed-the-ipad-they-undesigned-it/ <comment><USER3> I want these people who are running around saying there's no other way to design Samsung's stuff to explain to me one thing.

Why, of all the devices on earth, does Samsung's tablet exactly mimic Apple's USB connector?

I've got a Galaxy Tab sitting right next to me, here. The design isn't just similar, the dimensions are nearly identical.

Explain it to me. Please. If you can offer a compelling case for why Samsung isn't a shameless industrial design thief that can also account for their USB connector, I will be very impressed. It is, to me, the smoking gun. Don't tell me it's the _only way to design a low-profile USB connector._ It's the only way when Apple does it – everyone else has been doing fine with USB mini and micro.

Samsung: <http://i.imgur.com/eyqGw.jpg>

Apple: <http://i.imgur.com/nh0eI.jpg>

_Everyone else_ : <http://i.imgur.com/vpPhZ.jpg>

Oh, and for thoroughness, how Amazon designed a beautiful USB micro cable that looked nothing at all like Apple's: [http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Replacement- Display-Generation-...](http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Replacement-Display- Generation-Kindles/dp/B003M5IQLU)

Maybe Apple had a time machine and traveled into the future, stealing Samsung's wholly original USB cable design?

<comment><USER4> The cable is a PDMI cable, an industry standard developed by ANSI/CEA (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI> and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Electronics_Associatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Electronics_Association) ), my Dell Streak comes with an identical one too, as do certain Android media players (Slacker G2).

Info on PDMI: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI> Image of Dell Streak PDMI: <http://www.images.technologyking.co.uk/25032011/hgggg.jpg>

<comment><USER3> Indeed, that does address the pin configuration. What about the connector housing and strain relief, though? Hell, Apple's strain relief _sucks_ – you need a pack of Sugru to rescue older dock connector cables. You don't copy that for practical reasons, right? The specimens you linked look very different from Samsung's dubiously unique interpretation.

<comment><USER5> The housing and strain relief are both different. It's the same type of connector on both ends so there is no way they won't end up looking similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article is fraught with frustratingly-incorrect use of the word "design". The author continually mistakes "design" for visual appearance.

"Apple never designed the iPad. They undesigned the tablet. They focused on creating the simplest form possible. Every single decision is based on usability, readability, comfort, and focusing your eyes on the content itself."

That's exactly what design is: finding the problems that need to be solved and devising a solution that solves them. One that respects usability, readability, comfort, etc.

"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."

Wrong again.

"Again, this has nothing to do with design. The width of the margin is an engineering problem with only one solution."

And again. It is a design decision.

"Again, none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability."

Because usability has nothing to do with design... nope.

"What has happened here is that Samsung has been forced to add design elements that don't need to be there."

Here you mean "visual elements" not "design elements".

"Again, this has nothing to do with design. This is an engineering constraint." (talking about the batteries)

Still wrong, it has something to do with design. This however is the only one that gets close to its claim.

The author makes a lot of interesting points, but he clearly doesn't know what "design" means.

<comment><USER7> I'm furious over the use of the 'word' "undesign." THEY'RE DESTROYING MY LANGUAGE.

<comment><USER8> Actually, they're undesigning your language.

<comment><USER7> STOP IT YOU'RE HURTING AMERICA

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The author invested quite some time to make his point, however, I disagree.

First of all, if this is the only possible way for a tablet to look, why did all the other Microsoft tablets up to the iPad look vastly different?

Second, there're two famuos quotes:

"The obvious is always least understood."

and

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei

The problem here is that Apple invested a lot of time and thinking into designing a fantastic solution to a problem. But that doesn't mean that it is the only solution. Instead, people are now seeing the world from this point of view, and can't fathom that there is any other solution to this problem - <USER2> like before the iPad everybody thought that the Windows Tablet Design was the best solution.

Does the author really believe that the iPad design is the answer to all questions? The final? I bet there're better, more intriguing, more beautiful, and more usable designs that yet have to be discovered.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I thought some of the points contradicted too. At one point he says a curved edge is better for holding, but it is "impossible" to engineer it that way due to batteries. Then he says the Sony S tablet's curve makes it unusable. hmmm....

I've never used the S tablet, but it does seem like it might be more comfortable to hold in portrait mode. I almost never use my iPad lying flat on the table and when I do it is usually an uncomfortable reading angle unless I prop it.

<comment><USER11> His drawing of the "optimal" shape clearly shows that while the back is curved to follow the curve of the hand, the back is still symmetrical, so when the _Pad is placed on the table, it lies flatly on the surface, and the front of the_ Pad is completely horizontal.

<comment><USER12> Two other key factors for the curved back:

\- unless you look at the device edge-on right at 90 degrees, it looks much thinner than it in fact is

\- when placed on the table, it gives a subtle illusion of floating.

Both contribute to a subjective "wow!" response, where other practical designs don't.

<comment><USER13> And its easier to grab it. with flat surfieces one would be forced to push it till the edge of the surface, like when I try to pick up coins from table, PAIN!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> See, to me, Samsung does have an issue here, but it's not about the "rounded rectangle" shape or the "reasonably thick black bezel": it's the fact they have both of those, like the iPad, but then _also_ surround them with a marginal silver border.

I own both the Galaxy Tab 10.1" and an iPad 2, and I actually do get confused between the two all the time, when looking at them from above. They're about the same thickness and reasonably similar shapes, and with the same "rounded rectangle with a black bezel surrounded by a silver frame" I honestly have grabbed the wrong tablet before. To contrast, I never get confused with my HP TouchPad or my Kindle Fire (although that one is smaller).

I'd be perfectly happy if Samsung just switched to a matte black border instead, and Apple should be too: it would, at least from what I've seen, fix most of the confusion here between the two products.

<comment><USER15> Black bezel, marginal silver border, years before the iPad, made by Samsung: [http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/1/SAMS.jp...](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/1/SAMS.jpg)

<comment> Apple-Guy Samsung's picture frame is no iPad: [http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/23/samsungs-digital- pi...](http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/23/samsungs-digital-picture- frame-was-no-ipad/)

<comment><USER16> Design patents cover design, not function. As this article points out, minimalist designs are highly constrained. They wouldn't be minimalist if there were lots of other ways to do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Apple didn't give design advice to Samsung because they're arrogant. It's because for them to argue that their patents are being infringed, they have to point out alternative designs that could have achieved the same effect.

IP laws are screwed up, but a lot of people are jumping on this bandwagon out of ignorance. It's like people who get mad because a brand comes down hard on folks using their trademark. It's a legal requirement that they enforce the trademark, otherwise they lose it.

<comment><USER18> >they have to point out alternative designs that could have achieved the same effect.

And this post proves that those alternative designs would make for a decidedly unappealing tablet experience. If Apple designs their products to be the bare minimum that looks good, they don't have the right to be surprised when other companies come to the same conclusion.

<comment><USER19> I don't think the onus is on Apple to suggest how Samsung could design a _good_ alternative tablet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Oh for frak's sake, Apple. This design came out before the iPad and looks _identical_ to it. HN readers, you especially should know about this since it was all over the front page forever:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo>

Here's an article from June 2009 that you could almost literally just swap the word Apple and iPad into.

[http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch- protot...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/)

<comment><USER21> This is what the JooJoo originally looked like (2008): [http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3030/2689708043_3afee5af69_o....](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3030/2689708043_3afee5af69_o.jpg)

This is what a 1st gen iPod touch looked like in 2007: [http://media.gdgt.com/img/product/1/101/ipod-touch-1st- gen-3...](http://media.gdgt.com/img/product/1/101/ipod-touch-1st- gen-3g8-460.jpg)

On top of that, designs aren't pulled from thin air, you can subtract at least 1-2 years from the launch date.

<comment><USER20> What's your point? The only difference between the the 2008 Crunchpad/JooJoo and the iPad is the color black.

<comment><USER22> I think his point is the original JooJoo design, which he provides, looked a lot less like the iPad.

<comment><USER20> But it fulfills most of the things apple is claiming that Samsung infringed upon _except_ the color black.

<comment><USER23> No, it also looks like the border is slightly raised more like the Kindle.

This is the form factor that I would have thought of naturally, before seeing the iPad, since it's similar to the designs that existed for computers at the time. Compare it to previous tablets/slates, laptops, Palm pilots, Newton. Most of them have some kind of raised plastic border (and often not black but some shade of gray).

<comment><USER18> Problem is, the iPad was designed for finger input. Raises bezels would mean you can't touch a segment of the edge of the screen without pressing hard enough to force your finger into that triangle. Any designer working with finger input would recognize that and design a screen flush with the bezel.

With previous devices, they were generally designed with a stylus in mind (Palm, Newton, slates, etc). A flush bezel, while not required, is a no- brainer when you think about it.

<comment><USER22> > _"... is a no-brainer when you think about it."_

Then it's not really a _no_ brainer, is it? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This article is probably falling for the cognitive bias (whose name I forget), where what actually happened looks inevitable in retrospect, but looked much more undecided in prospect.

Contrast all the other tablet PCs and so forth which have had a tendency to be sharp-cornered and bulky with asymmetric elements like buttons. The idea of having no favored orientation, for example, is innovative. Most historical tablets had one way up, and it was SVGA landscape.

<comment><USER25> It is called "creeping determinism" or simply hindsight bias.

<http://www.gladwell.com/2003/2003_03_10_a_dots.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Apple need be careful what they insist others do - it may be done, and well, and Apple prohibited from doing it too. Example:

 _the color of the margin should be the same as the background color of the content_

This after insisting on a sufficient inactive margin, and going on to say the technology doesn't exist. The thought ends with the conclusion of a one-inch- ish black margin.

But wait: what if a tablet DID run its display area to the edge? just with the understanding among developers that any user activity within a specified margin would be ignored, either for lack of sensors or programed disuse. Bingo: Apple's odd requirements of no margin (per se) and no black is satisfied and surpassed by a superior user experience of relevant, dynamic borders; anything from automatic color matching to extending a background image to the edges or even putting useful dynamic information & imagery in the margin may/would be preferred to a space-occupying dead black zone. ...then Samsung patents the idea, leaving Apple with, well, a dead black space- occupying margin.

Methinks the term "malicious obedience" applies. Careful what you ask for...

<comment> X-Istence Apple never suggested that the margin should be the same as the background colour of the content. The author of the article is stating that would be even better.

<comment><USER12> I didn't suggest Apple suggested that.

I'm noting that the author stated that color matched borders would be even better, but then abandoned the idea. I'm suggesting running with it in a manner which would benefit, instead of hinder, Samsung with an edge over Apple with a "what goes around comes around", "malicious obedience" unexpected consequence.

<comment> X-Istence "Apple need be careful what they insist others do - it may be done, and well, and Apple prohibited from doing it too. Example:"

And then you use an example. From that sentence, quoted above, it sure does sound like you were suggesting that Apple insisted Samsung do this...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > since a tablet has to work with any content, the only color that is both > neutral and more subdued than any other...is black.

As well as white, silver, beige, or any of the hundreds possible distinct shades of gray. Throughout 1980-90s, computer monitors were beige, and that was considered to be a classy, neutral, subdued color that works with any content, just like black is considered today. I'm not saying beige is better; I'm just saying that this whole thing that black is "the only possible color" is annoying. Apple themselves make a white iPad as well as covers in different colors, so clearly black is not the only game in town.

Oh, and I've held Sony Tablet S, and it works just fine in portrait orientation; as a matter of fact Sony's tablet is easier to hold with one hand in portrait mode than iPad is. What a bunch of whiners.

</comment><comment><USER23> They could have made the margins with a raised border, like the Kindle, and still had a black border, rectangular with rounded corners, flat back tablet that didn't look quite so much like an iPad.

They could have put their logo in a shallow etching on that margin.

The margin could be plastic, rubber, or any other material more comfortable for grip and/or better for protecting the screen.

They also could easily have the thumb margin on only 1 side, provided their software allows the user to flip the device upside down to switch between left-handed and right-handed users.

They could have put the speakers as a visible part of the top or bottom margin.

They could have the margin be a screen that does not have touch capabilities and is there simply to extend the background color all the way to the edge.

They could design a new battery that would fit around the outer rim of the tablet internally so that the middle of the device could be thinner. This would be technically difficult and expensive though.

Also, simplicity is very obvious when you see it, but before you see it you might not think of reducing things down quite that far. Case in point: Apple's device is not as simple as the one the author at baekdal.com designed because Apple's has a home button, a lock button, and volume buttons. Those are not necessary, but Apple designed them into the iPad.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'll just leave this here for everyone saying that iPad-like designs never existed before the iPad:

[http://gdeluxe.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-03455...](http://gdeluxe.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-034552.jpg)

<comment><USER28> There's plenty of use of the color black, rectangular shapes, rounded corners, and centered screens in the "before iPad" group.

<comment><USER29> And they all run Windows with a stylus. No capacitive touch screen, no custom app-based OS. It's a qualitative difference.

<comment><USER30> Incorrect. Once capacitive screens that could detect a finger were invented, they were immediately incorporated into tablet PCs. Many tablets incorporated an active digitizer underneath a resistive one, allowing both fingers and styli. As for a custom app-based OS, look no further than any tablet running Windows Mobile, like the HTC Shift X9500.

<http://pastebin.com/6NKYY3Bf>

<comment><USER31> Mis-pasted wrong link?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What I like about the rounded corners debate is the Job's quote/story:

 _Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find._

So, are they everywhere, or are they innovative? ;)

[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt)

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm not convinced that rounded corners are anything more than a trend right now.

Aesthetically, many beautiful objects have sharp corners - tables, windows, and computer screens, not to mention the universal reading tablet, a.k.a. the piece of paper. Our eyes haven't had a problem staying focused inside these rectangles.

The big draw for rounded corners is comfort. But we've been using sharp rectangular folders, binders, magazines, etc. for decades without complaint.

Apple used the rounded corner to great effect, and for now it seems like the only possible design choice. But some point, someone is going to produce an elegant matboard-thin computer tablet with "sharp" corners that don't cut your fingers, and suddenly the rounded corner will seem like a childish relic of the naughts.

<comment><USER34> Obligatory folklore.org [1]... design is often how to incorporate what we already know and see in the digital world... regarding your comment about folders, if you do a google image search for "folder" you'll find most of them are rounded. In drawer at home, most of the folders have rounded edges where possible (ie, not at the hinge of the folder due to increased tear potential).

' Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find. '

[1] [http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The author must think that design is adding random colors and textures, because he keeps saying things like:

"none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability"

"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."

</comment><comment><USER36> Am I the only person who doesn't care? Apple produced a well designed piece of hardware. It is superior to other designs, so therefore I would like my tablets to have that design, regardless of what the actual OS is or what company built it.

On a side note, HN is usually strongly against patents. The argument is that it is all about execution and patents only retard innovation. Why is everyone up in arms when it is Apple getting copied? They innovated and now the rest of the market is absorbing that design into their products, _because it is superior_. This is _good_ , for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER37> Well argued rebuttal of Apple's claim about Samsung copying its tablet design. Although I disagree on color. Before the iPhone, and after, electronic devices have been all sorts of color. For example, the Kindle debuted in off white. Moto Razrs came in pink. Black is not the only logical solution.

As the Nokia Lumia 800 has shown, there is still a lot of room for design in smartphones that don't resemble the iPhone as well. Samsung has no excuse.

<comment><USER38> There is probably a reason why most TVs come in black - it makes the colors and the picture to stand out more.

Go and take a look at the flat-screen TV section of any electronics store. All of them look pretty much alike, and actually also very much like iPad. The main difference is size, and iPad's rounded corners which are nicer to have in a device that you hold in your hands.

You can even compare Nokia's circa 2005 Internet Tablet, the 770 with an iPad. Same black color, bottom corners are rounded. Sure, it still has some more buttons and a resistive screen, but it even came with a "smart cover" (turn the hard cover around, and the magnets in it will put the device to sleep) <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/4554791832/>

<comment><USER39> The article goes even further and makes the claim that "every TV has a black frame", implying that Samsung had no choice for their tablets, and shows a mock-up of a tablet with a red frame for comparison.

In fact, Samsung makes TVs with red frames, which they brag is a feature:

[http://ars.samsung.com/customer/usa/jsp/faqs/faqs_view_us.js...](http://ars.samsung.com/customer/usa/jsp/faqs/faqs_view_us.jsp?SITE_ID=1&PG_ID=0&AT_ID=130181&PROD_SUB_ID=0&PROD_ID=133) [http://www.pause.com/wp- content/gallery/08-07-23-samsung/08-...](http://www.pause.com/wp- content/gallery/08-07-23-samsung/08-07-23-samsung-ps-50a750.jpg)

So designers at Samsung are perfectly aware you can make the bezel other colors.

<comment><USER40> A strip of red is hardly a red frame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The appearance of TV's have converged upon the current form of minimalism and simplicity given the current technology available--all screen, small black border. Isn't this simply what's happening in the tablet market?

Why must the courts protect consumers from potential confusion among competing tablets but not among competing but similar looking TV's?

Seems like an abuse of the legal system, which has soured me to Apple's products.

<comment><USER42> Do you have any evidence that the European design laws were intended to protect against consumer confusion? All the evidence I have seen is that the laws were intended to protect designers of a product sold in country A from copycats in country B. That way you can start on a small scale in Denmark (say), and if it catches on, ramp up and sell throughout the EU.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Very interesting. I agree with a lot of what the author says, and I think that aspects of Apple's case against Samsung are spurious, to say the least. However, I also see one major flaw in his argument.

If this design is obvious, why then do all tablets made trior to the iPad look nothing like the iPad? (Windows Tablets, Apple Newton, Specialist Medical Tablets, Grid Tablet, etc etc)

[http://www.cultofmac.com/109373/what-tablets-looked-like- bef...](http://www.cultofmac.com/109373/what-tablets-looked-like-before-the- ipad-proves-how-revolutionary-apples-tablet-really-was/)

</comment><comment><USER44> There are fair points here but in terms of the bezel having to be black - neither my Kindle (grey) nor the screen surround of my Macbook (brushed silver) are black and they're both completely usable.

</comment><comment><USER45> That's amazing - this site managed to come up with CSS that prevents the font from getting bigger even when I ctrl-+ the page. Thanks for making it impossible for me to read, asshats.

<comment><USER46> Upgrade from IE - it doesn't resize fonts specified in pixels in text resize mode.

<comment><USER45> You wound me sir. I use Chrome on Linux. Linux user since v1.2.3!

<comment><USER46> I take it all back!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> In my opinion, the _real_ problem is not who copied who. Reading through these comments it's clear both companies are standing on the shoulders of giants (and in some cases of each other).

The real problem I'm seeing in most of these comments is that there's a stark denial that somebody, anybody, could possibly design and build a tablet that's as good (or better) than Apple's flagship product because after all, isn't Apple's design by definition the best?

</comment><comment><USER48> Am I the only one who hates design patents?

Wait, you're telling me you created a screen with rounded edges? There's probably over a 1,000 people who conceptually designed iPod/iPad type devices since the late 90s on.

None of this is new. It's absurd to claim it's original.

</comment><comment><USER49> The logic of this article is flawed and deliberately trying to deceive. This is an article which assumes that the designer will value identical design problems as Apple. Hence they incorrectly argue that since Apple's design is simple, it's automatic to come to a similar design. It's trivial to argue that it's not only possible to solve the problems differently, but that other designers (e.g. HTC) have valued different design problems which result in a different looking tablet, that while similar(mostly for technical reasons), is different enough to escape scrutiny.

Not unlike the joke of the expert who knows where the place the chalk 'x' on the broken machine.(<http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/where.asp>) Apple's choice of favouring certain design problems over others is the result of their own research and how they want their users to experience their device. Valuing different problems produces different results, e.g. if Apple were adamant that the device should be held with one hand the design might approximate an artists palette or have a dedicated strap.

It's up to the lawyers from here, however Apple has been having success in demonstrating that the few differences between the devices are confusingly similar. Samsung's case is weakened by copying, not only the look and feel of the applications, but also the packaging, and even the 30 pin connector which rather than being an elegant solution it's a compatibility choice inherited from other iDevices.

To me, as a consumer, while my opinion is worthless in the matter: I feel it's a high profile knock off and something I'd expect to find in the chinese markets. Also it's association with Android damages the Android brand, allowing people to assume that Android is a rough counterfeit.

</comment><comment><USER50> Our eyes don't "see the world as a rectangle". The reason that newspapers, etc. are rectangular has more to do with efficient space packing (and linear text, as the author mentions) than the inherent capabilities of the eye.

<comment><USER50> [https://www.google.com/search?q=goldmann+visual+field&tb...](https://www.google.com/search?q=goldmann+visual+field&tbm=isch)

Not very rectangular. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> My favorite quote, and my motto when making anything

> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when > there is nothing left to take away.

\- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Also, that thing about the margin matching the color of the content sounds awesome.

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm a bit late to this party...

I liked the article title but the article is weak. First of all, there are many ways to create a viable tablet. Apple's approach to enumerate the challenges/problems associated with the new form factor and then to solve them not come up with an ad hoc hack and to protect their unique patentable solutions.

At the same time, other companies were creating netbooks because they were to lazy to figure out how to design a fully functional computer and cram it into a notebook form factor.

Probably one of the key breakthroughs was their realization that it didn't need to be a full computer. Seems so obvious now doesn't it? Also that they needed to augment the current state of the touch based UI. All very obvious in retrospect.

If there is prior art then it will remove some of the violations. If you are going to post stuff like this, do the necessary research on when the iPad IP was patented.

Its appalling to see companies blatantly copying better technology and then selling it. They should respect it, either license the technology, develop their own or work on something that Apple hasn't done yet and isn't in the process of doing.

</comment><comment><USER53> " _Optimally speaking, the color of the margin should be the same as the background color of the content. That way, the margin would be there but not attract your attention. But that is not actually possible with today's technology._ "

What?

There are several comments here which ring with the similar, "this is the only way it could be" tone that is morally disturbing (although always pleasing to hear from the competition...).

(edit: spelling)

</comment><comment><USER54> "Thickness: The batteries make it impossible to create the optional shape for gripping. Instead, the back is shaped to be slightly thicker to fit the batteries, while keeping the edge as thin as possible. Flat back: It simply doesn't work."

These 2 assertions are basically the same, and were made with next to no basis. Had they actually used the Sony tablet? How do they know that it "It simply doesn't work."? I haven't used the Sony tablet before, but I did use the REB2100 color ebook which is similar to the Sony design where the batteries are in one edge instead of being flat on the back. It is much easier to hold than the ipad. I will argue that a tablet with an edge heavy side like the Sony, if it isn't currently easy to hold with 2 hands for gaming or other applications due to sharp edges, can be redesigned more like the 1st gen macbook air where user can hold the heavy edge comfortably by either a single hand or both hands.

</comment><comment><USER55> Every designer I know will tell you it take much longer and requires much more difficulty to make something complicated look very very simple.

Most peoples reaction to something designed very well is: "oh of course you do it like that, how would you do it anyway else".

But this is naive thinking, there are plenty of ways to design and most are not simple. The beauty of the iPad is that people understand it at a glance, that is incredibly profound. I think it is really unfortunate that the writer of this article took the stance that they undesigned it, simply wrong. They intelligently designed every aspect of this device which is exactly what his diagrams point out.

Apple's computers, tablets, phone, iPod, all look very unique and were certainly designed not undesigned. All of these objects are man made and inherently require design for them to take shape.

</comment><comment><USER56> I would normally give a company the benefit of the doubt, but after the SGH-i607 (Blackjack)[1] I just assume Samsung is a copy type company for design.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-i607>

</comment><comment><USER57> The author is not giving Apple credit for the design it deserves. Why did no other tablets look like the iPad before the iPad then? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias>

I don't remember any of the Windows based tablets looking this way. Or even the Newton, not even the Dynabook looked like the iPad.

Edit: And the author overlooks the fact that multi orientation is a unique design feature onto itself.

</comment><comment><USER58> It is not so simple. Tablet computers before the iPad did not look anything like the iPad:

[http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after- th...](http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-the-ipad/)

in _hindsight_ , it seems like the only completely obvious way to design a tablet, but that fact in itself is the mark of great design.

<comment><USER59> That picture, which is shown much too often, is a perfect illustration only of selection bias.

Going through past tablets and choosing the ones that were not black rectangles proves nothing except that _some_ tablets did not look like the ipad. Some tablets _now_ also don't look like the ipad.

<comment><USER60> It's also a perfect illustration of why this and Samsung's arguments to the contrary are invalid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Perhaps the articles author should employ a morphological chart to properly investigate the many different design solutions available to Samsung and everybody else before declaring Apple's design the definitive one: <http://wikid.eu/index.php/Morphological_chart>

</comment><comment><USER61> The author seems to argue that only unsuccessful design is entitled to protection.

<comment><USER18> No, just that only non-obvious design should be entitled to protection. A thumb-width, neutrally colored bezel, a rectangle screen, and non-lethal corners are obvious. Apple's suggestions are to specifically engineer a device that looks unlike an Apple product, rather than designing a device in the obvious way.

Apple wants to corner the market on simple design. Imagine if your coffee cup couldn't be designed to be round, have a handle that goes from the top to the bottom, or have an opening on the top to drink from.

<comment><USER60> >>Apple wants to corner the market on simple design. Imagine if your coffee cup couldn't be designed to be round, have a handle that goes from the top to the bottom, or have an opening on the top to drink from.

I don't understand this point of view at all. It's seems loaded and emotive. I'll ask you this; why can other hardware manufacturers make tablet devices that are aesthetically appealing to consumers that aren't using a near identical visual language.

<comment><USER18> Can you link me to one? I'm having a hard time finding a tablet that does not look like an iPad. The HP Touchpad, the Playbook, Motorola Xoom, even the Kindle Fire looks like a 7" iPad. The Nook Tablet is about the only one, and it's just a silver iPad with a notch cut out of the corner for some reason. Eee Transformer? iPad with an optional keyboard.

The Acer Iconia has a silver lining around the bezel. That and the Nook are about as "different" as I'm seeing. They're all 7" or 10" TV screens. No one is screaming that their TVs or monitors all look the same, but they're all black boxes with a screen.

<comment><USER60> Sure; any of these at the bottom of the picture - [http://gdeluxe.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-03455...](http://gdeluxe.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-034552.jpg)

<comment><USER18> The Sony tablet was pointed out in this article as a poor design that was over engineered. I pointed out the Nook Tablet as one exception. The rest (beyond the clamshell designs) all look similar to the iPad. Basically you're saying companies should have to design their tablets with two screens because a one screen black box is too similar to the iPad?

<comment><USER60> No. I am saying that all the examples and the ones that you mention, perhaps except the HP TouchPad, are different enough not to be plagiarising from Apple, unlike Samsung's devices, which are flagrant rip offs of Apple design's _for a tablet_. For instance the radius of the corner could reasonably be anything between <5mm - >25mm, changing the aesthetic substantially. The bezel could have a different finish; acid etched for instance, it could be a different size or had an inlaid trim. Using a morphological chart you could discover many more options <http://wikid.eu/index.php/Morphological_chart>, some good, some of them not so good. Quite simple really. Of course you are entitled to disagree with my opinion, however to claim that other devices merely "all look similar to the iPad" is not really understanding what design is, just like the articles author. 'Design obviousness' to me is an indication of a successful design. It is also a bias of hindsight. It's tantamount to stating that anyone can produce an Andy Warhol piece.

>>The Sony tablet was pointed out in this article as a poor design that was over engineered.

The article is neither factual or authoritative. It is opinion and supposition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Three of my favorite design quotes:

"Best design is least design."

"Best design is invisible."

"Give less a chance."

<comment><USER60> <http://tenprinciplesofgooddesign.com/> from Dieter Rams. Jonathan Ive's and by extension Apple's approach to design expressed in 10 simple statements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I didn't just read the article, I unread it.

</comment><comment><USER64> Design by simplification is hard. And surprisingly not intuitive. Look at a Picasso and realize it took hundreds of years of western art before something so "simple" could be appreciated.

It's made even harder because engineers and business managers often insist on extra functionality or visual clutter.

(Often there are good usability or marketing reasons for this, but too often it's simply the desire to be "part of the process".)

Now you do give up something with simplicity. In art you force the user to supply context and sometimes even interpretation; in software design this can actually be a plus. One of the things you give up in software, and hardware, design is novelty. When you boil a solution down to its essence there's often not room for differentiation. You have to change either the constraints, smaller batteries, for example, or change user expectations.

This makes competing against something so "undesigned" very difficult without trying to completely re-conceptualize a product.

This is what Apple did with the iPhone. Now it helped them in that the basic "smart phone" was so utterly, indescribably awful before they entered the market. I imagine the process Jobs went through involved looking at the current market and deciding that there was no way to fix any of that. So they started from scratch. A big deal was realizing that they weren't simply making a phone with some connectivity features and a bigger display, but they were designing a small, portable communication platform that needed to have absolutely minimal impact on, well, portability. They looked at the problem and built just enough to solve the basics and provide a minimal amount of hardware and software to support the ideas. Anything added needs to have minimal impact on the basics.

Now they didn't get it perfect, by any means. But they did a good, credible job. Good enough that if you are a competitor you are going to have a hard time solving the same problems, with the same constraints, and not come up with something that a layman would have a hard time distinguishing from the original.

Now I'm against software patents myself, and think hardware patents should be much more difficult to get and keep. But legal issues aside, if you want to compete against the iPhone and iPad, and not seem like an also-ran, you are going to have to come up with a different interaction paradigm. A device built into spectacles with a heads up display and vision tracking? Something totally audio based; Siri anyone? I can see the attraction to a phone with _no_ display or buttons at all.

I don't know the solution(s) myself, this is not an area I'm interested in developing in.

But I'll probably want to own whatever the next "Steve Jobs" comes up with. A Samsung iPhone/iPad knockoff? Not so much...

</comment><comment><USER65> About the corners, It's not just about comfort. When CNC machines cut surfaces, the corners are naturally rounded, that's the main reason tablets, smartphones and pretty much everything coming out of a factory has rounded edges.

</comment><comment><USER30> By those standards Apple ripped off 50% of the UMPCs ever made along with quite a few tablet PCs and PDAs.

(Cue poorly-drawn comic of Bill Gates hurling a TC1100 through Apple's front window.)

<comment> Apple-Guy Ever heard of the Apple Newton PDA?

<comment><USER30> IBM 700T

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> > _Apple never designed the iPad. They undesigned the tablet. They focused on > creating the simplest form possible. Every single decision is based on > usability, readability, comfort, and focusing your eyes on the content > itself._

IANAD, but everything I have read about design indicates that this is precisely what design _is_. So, the premise that Apple "undesigned" the iPad is a shaky one. That doesn't make Apple's list of demands any less silly, though.

</comment><comment><USER67> This guy's argument seems to lead to, "Apple has designed the ultimate possible tablet shape," which I don't believe in the least. Samsung obviously copied their design concept, and didn't even _try_ to improve on it. How about a rubberized, textured back, like the Kobo ebook reader?

</comment><comment><USER68> I agree with some of the author's argument but he seems to be missing the logical fallacy in the use of the word "undesign".

Thats equivalent to arguing that a flat screen tv is obtained by "undesigning" a TV from the 90's and thus there is no real innovation involved!Simlarly a laptop then was made by "undesigning" a desktop computer!

Yes an iPad is what a tablet should look and feel like but it is so obvious because Apple pointed these seemingly "simple" things out and they absolutely deserve credit for it.

If you go ahead and "undesign" a Boeing 747 airliner and make it work as efficient and smooth as a bird shouldnt you deserve credit for it?

</comment><comment><USER69> I consider Apple's design aesthetic to be the "mercedes" of phones, laptops, etc.

I've never mistaken another car for a mercedes (I'm thinking of the e-class), nor have I ever mistaken another laptop for a macbook, nor have I ever mistaken another mp3 player for an ipad.

i mistook someone using a samsung tablet for them using an ipad - I thought that's what it was, looking at them interacting with it fairly closely, etc.

I disagree with the argument in this article and elsewhere. The fact is, you could make basically the exact same arguments for why things HAVE to look like a MacBook or an iMac. But I've never seen anyone who cares about APPLE products in particular, mistake another computer for a MacBook or another computer for an iMac - have you?

When an expert does a double-take two minutes in and realizes that's not the Apple product it looks exactly like, then a line has been crossed.

you guys can mod me down, doesn't change this fact.

<comment><USER70> Mercedes luxurious design of cars is nothing like Apple's design of tech.

Apple is BMW of computers and BMW is Apple of cars - just look at this and honestly tell me this is beautiful and simple:

[http://l.yimg.com/dv/izp/mercedes_benz_e_class_e320_bluetec_...](http://l.yimg.com/dv/izp/mercedes_benz_e_class_e320_bluetec_sedan_2009_dashboard_dashboard.jpg)

Compare that to the 5er sedan of same year (if we go back to e60 of mid 2003 things look even worse for Mercs)

[http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/09/19-bmw...](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/09/19-bmw-5-gt- live-frankfurt.jpg)

I'm not even talking about A6

<http://0.tqn.com/d/cars/1/0/1/P/1/09a6_interior.jpg>

This is all personal I suppose, but I take issue when people relate Apple with Mercedes, just not the same level of attention to details between the two.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Upvoted primarily for the Shearer's potato chip plug.

</comment><comment><USER72> This would be a lot more believable if all of the Tablets that came before the iPad also looked identical to the iPad and Samsung devices.

They didn't: <http://twitpic.com/67ykpa>

<comment><USER73> Some did: <http://www.2imgs.com/6c941c36e5>

<comment><USER21> The HP Slate didn't come before the iPad, in fact it came to market 10 months later. Neither did the Joojoo, unless you think Apple developed the iPad in one year's time.

This doesn't look like an iPad to me: [http://www.rainbowskill.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/10/hp-50...](http://www.rainbowskill.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/10/hp-500-tablet-pc.jpg)

<comment><USER74> The HP Slate was shown three weeks before the iPad, so it couldn't be a copy (although at that point the iPhone aesthetic was well known).

<http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/06/the-hp-slate/></comment></comment></comment></comment>