17 Oct
2008
17 Oct
'08
11:24 a.m.
> PUBLIC definitions would only include those
machines that were in such
> massive production that it was the first one that that writer was
> cognizant of. But the REAL first one was the prototype in my uncle's
> basement that never went into production, and that nobody knows about.
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Jules Richardson wrote:
Spot-on. Inventions normally stem from someone hacking
away in a corner; it
takes marketing and a fair amount of polishing to make a product and bring it
to peoples' attention, but the way I see it the hacked prototype still does
what it does 'first'.
Yes. That is the funadmental flaw in any discussion of "first".
Occasionally, there will be some sort of official recognition of which is
"first" - but ask Elisha Gray about the telephone patent!
Authoritative determination of "first" is quite difficult, and is
sabotaged by marketing. Does anybody believe that the "Sleep Number bed"
was the "FIRST bed design to ever take into account personal comfort"?
And, without publicity of "first"s, the discussion will ALWAYS be towards
the one that achieved public notice, NOT the one that was earlier. Many
writers in the industry will dismiss anything that came before they got
involved. Hence, we get Cringely type "history" that ignores CP/M and
asserts that the history of the "computer" (sic: not "microcomputer) was
Apple -> IBM. And if you ask the general public, or "industry experts"
about Processor Technology, Northstar (some sort of drivetrain package for
Cadillac?), or even Morrow, . . .
Oh, you meant
a computer with a screen showing "point addressable"
pixels!
Heh. Define 'point' of course - but even a point on a colour CRT
is made from
three entities, so why can a 'point' not also be a more complicated pattern
(such as a character cell)? Murky waters indeed.