Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The Real First Apple Phone
oreillynet.com — The first Apple Phone with a date patent listed as December 10, 1985 (more than a quarter of a century old) and filed in 1982. You ’ll note in the diagram reproduced below that unlike the Apple iPhone introduced in 2007, the 1985 version was a flip-phone :-)
khaled- 1350 diggs
- digg it
- TicTacAtak, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6Imagine how the "current" iPhone would look like if this came out and progressed through time...
Definently would have been better then the old HUGE motorolla phones.- khaled, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3haha, indeed!
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27lol, 1985
- shadekeiko, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5mmmm, tasty.
- GoatBnn, on 10/12/2007, -59/+11I was born in 85.
- SLYK, on 10/12/2007, -9/+83@GoatBnn
you were buried in 2007 - Rhelim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15To the people saying this guy's math sucks, that 1985 to 2007 isn't a quarter of a century, he said it was filed in 1982. That WOULD make it a quarter of a century old, would it not?
- theblt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8And they didn't release it because.....?
- seravi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"Imagine how the "current" iPhone would look like if this came out and progressed through time...
Definently would have been better then the old HUGE motorolla phones. "
The phone in the patent is a normal phone (with phone jack and such) ... so I do not think it would make any difference if it came out. - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Well one thing's for sure... the 1985 Apple Phone won't scratch as easily as the iPhone...
- jackcall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Rhelim: He said *more* than a quarter of a century, besides the patent makes reference to "Giftware Business, Aug. 1982, p.47; Pac Man-American Tele-Communication Corp. Pushbutton Phone" and was filed on Nov. 26, so let's just wait until 2008 with the whole "more than a quarter of a century" and just say that it's 24 years old or *almost* a quarter of a century.
- G-RaZoR, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I want it!!! (mainly just because it has an Apple product)
Kevin Rose, I'm talking about you. - Rhelim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Jackcall
Sounds good =)
- okokitsme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Think Geek gadget as soon as someone starts making them!
- unloud, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2lolercoaster
- Crepsley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2This is pretty funny, but a little stupid after you already saw the REAL iPhone
But its still funny - rcran, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Over a quarter century? I don't think anyone was alive then.
- djdragon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2ghey
- dumpling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ow, my pants. That would just plain hurt to get in the pockets.
- grabraham, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Patent was Filed in 1982 Granted in 85
- halosniper7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"more than a quarter of a century old"
1985-2007
25 years?- kevbryant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2agreed. "If my calculations are correct" hello. a quarter of a century from 1985 would 2010. Guess we're not dealing with hard facts here.
- raybury, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Obviously someone is digging from the future. Like making crank calls from the future, but without changing history because no one who matters is affected.
- shadekeiko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9one score and 2 years ago...
- ondre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Check out Rhelim's comment above.
It's not quite that the math is off, it's just the way the words are placed that makes it look miscalculated:
"with a date patent listed as December 10, 1985 (more than a quarter of a century old) *and* filed in 1982." - raybury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ondre
Filed November 26, 1982 + 25 years = Monday after Thanksgiving this year, so not yet "more than a quarter of a century old."
- dslemons, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"...quarter of a century old"? Do you mean a fifth of a century? Even though that's awkward as hell to say.
- Rabbethan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6it was filled in 82, not 85.
2007-1982=25 - halosniper7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1but is that more? jk, what ever.
- Rabbethan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6it was filled in 82, not 85.
- dslemons, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Damn halosniper you beat me to it.
- KevinLiu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Reminds me of the Sports Illustrated football phone!
- Snakedal337, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Know whats ironic though, just like the iphone of today, for 1985, that phone would have been years ahead, wasn't it like, 92-95 before the first flips were finally highly adopted?
- walterd93, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5The iphone is not more advanced than other modern phones in any way except for multi-touch sensing(stolen) and UI.
- raybury, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Sorry my son, you may be too young to realize that phones used to have wires, and be limited to the vicinity of walls, and that this was so ubiquitous that the wire connection location would be omitted from pictures, just like hair dryers in drug store adds all look like they don't have a plug. What appears to be a small, StarTac-esque screen on that phone is actually a transparent plastic tab that covers a small piece of cardboard on which you would write your telephone number. This apple-shaped phone is similar to the "football phone" once given away with Sports Illustrated subscriptions, which were sold to men whose wives would not let them buy Playboy so they could get the once-a-year swimsuit issue without going to the local small-town drug store and having the pharmacist look at them funny.
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@raybury: Figure 7. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD281686&id=Sxw-AAAAEBAJ&pg=RA1-PA3-IA1&dq=apple+phone#PRA2-PA3-IA1,M1
@Snakedal337: Nope, pretty standard phone for the times. Other than looking (as what style would have dictated back then) pretty.
- slimc9999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apple FTL
- sprinter9109, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Is the antenna a worm? lol
- jasonpoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's patented by which company?
- guitarh3ro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Will it blend?
- speaker219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6you really need to stop that now.
- supermanred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I want one! Even if it does blend!
- Me0wmix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Not really a "iPhone," since you can't "iPhone" with that phone.
- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Patent != product. Patent == idea. Product = reality.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There are some severely humor-impaired Diggers on this thread...
- Gatesophile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Am I the only one would actually buy (and LOVE) this phone? (since it's landline and NOT a cell phone)
Probably. :( - zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Is that the phone they featured in MacWorld 1986 Keynote?? The phone that was going to change the world of phones?
- buckeye45, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3this got dugg 720 times?
- malikbhye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0...one more reason for me to buy it ..cuz, "first Apple Phone with a date patent listed as December 10, 1985", the day I was Born. Awesomeee
- meetjoeblack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Patent? It just seems like another "football" phone....
- Karmavs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1_design_ patents can be gotten for almost anything
- nitrojunky24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1definitely don't put it in your pocket and break off that antenna!
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by