Top Inventions of 2007

Gibbs-Duhem writes "Time Magazine is reporting on the best inventions of the year. The top invention is the somewhat well-known iPhone, but there are some extremely cool projects included that I had certainly never heard of, including a device for capturing waste heat from car engines to increase efficiency up to 40%, a novel car designed to run entirely on compressed air claiming to have a range of 2000km with zero pollution, a James Bond style GPS tracking device that police can use to avoid high-speed chases, a small-scale printing press capable of printing and binding a paperback book in 3 minutes for under $3/book (and $50k per machine), a microbe-based technology for turning soft sand into sandstone, a water-based display which uses computer controlled nozzles to produce coherent gaps in the water, and a way to convert type A, B, and AB-negative blood into type O."

I'm sorry but no

[brejc8]

This has gone too far. There is no way you can place the iPhone as the top "Invention". It is a phone just like any other but with a lot of features you would expect on a phone removed. No novelty or ingenuity. The only thing that it has going for it is that it looks nice. If looking nice is a quality of a great invention then I proclaim the Mona Lisa as the greatest invention of Leonardo da Vinci. I will be hearing next that the iPhone gets the Nobel peace prize as well.

Re:I'm sorry but no

[JaredOfEuropa]

I agree. Product of the year, yes perhaps, but it's not an invention or even a significant innovation.

Re:I'm sorry but no

[Red Flayer]

Not for nothing, but how about RTFAing and bothering to address the reasons they picked the iPhone?

I happen to disagree with them as well, for many of the same reasons as you. However, they do (to a certain extent) try to address exactly what you're saying.

Of course, I believe that they picked the iPhone because it'll drive traffic, not because it's truly the #1 invention in their minds. I simply can't see how the iPhone is a better invention than a device/method to strip blood of its AB antigens.

Oh, and PS:

If looking nice is a quality of a great invention then I proclaim the Mona Lisa as the greatest invention of Leonardo da Vinci.

Meh. She's ugly. Plus, that's a painting, not an invention. I proclaim daVinci's wire tensile strength tester as his greatest invention (since it was actually put to use, unlike his helicopter plans).

Yeah

[dedazo]

The iPhone is the coolest and best designed closed-off brick of the year. Nay, the decade.

Such a great device with so much potential, it's just a shame. And I really don't even blame Apple. It's this country's telecomm industry that's broken.

Iphone?

[fixer007]

How is the IPhone even classed as an invention? IT is something that already existed (cell-phone) that someone else added some gee-gaws to.

That's like saying the 2008 Chevy Malibu is the top invention for 2008 because it is so cool and hip!

How sad...

Re:I'm sorry but no

[Pharmboy]

Of course, I believe that they picked the iPhone because it'll drive traffic, not because it's truly the #1 invention in their minds.

Which is reason enough to not RTFA, as it is designed to generate traffic, not provide any useful information. Of course, the editors here at /. could have chosen to NOT quote an article that is solely designed to get linked on /. and digg.

Re:I'm sorry but no

[dirtyhippie]

Of course you're right, the iPhone is not an invention... But I must correct you - there is plenty of novelty and ingenuity in the iPhone - including a number of patents and inventions under the covers.

Re:I'm sorry but no

[ZonkerWilliam]

I agree whole heartedly, maybe there should be a distinction between incremental inventions and novel (meaning really new) inventions.

The air car

[Colin Smith]

It's still a heat engine, which means, maybe 30% efficiency under ideal conditions. Then there's the problem with getting heat into the cylinder fast enough as the air expands so it won't even come close to the ideal.

Compare with an electric motor where 95% efficiency is not uncommon. An air car just doesn't make any sense, particularly when you're using electricity to charge the tanks.

 

Re:I'm sorry but no

[revscat]

There is no way you can place the iPhone as the top "Invention". It is a phone just like any other but with a lot of features you would expect on a phone removed.

RTFA.

The reason they chose to give it to the iPhone wasn't based upon a checklist of features, but because of how well it was designed and the impact it has had. Apple knows how to make products that people enjoy using. That is a difficult thing to do.

The only thing that it has going for it is that it looks nice.

Looks nice and behaves nice.

Most geeks don't understand design, and in fact disregard design considerations as nothing more than eye candy. This is foolish. Design is about taking the human into consideration. Frank Lloyd Wright is a good example: while his structures were beautiful, a large part of their elegance was due to the consideration he gave to his users. He never once forgot that he was creating something that would be used by people.

Apple understands that strong design makes for strong products. The mistake people like you make is that you think design is about looks: skins for Winamp, etc. It's not. Design is about the whole experience, of which elegance and beauty is a part, but only a part.

Re:Yeah

[toleraen]

Why aren't you blaming Apple? They are the ones that could have released this phone without a carrier. Apple brought the idea to market, and AT&T said "Hey, we'll pay you X amount of dollars a month per user for exclusive rights!" Apple saw the $$$$ signs flashing in front of their eyes and signed away. End of story.

Re:I'm sorry but no

[2nd Post!]

Maybe you have no sense of perspective.

Think of the iPhone today and the computer of 10 years from now.

Time is probably thinking the iPhone, today, is like the original Mac or Lisa 25 years ago. In that sense, the iPhone is likely to dictate how all computing will occur in 10 years.

If they are right, then it does qualify as invention of the year.

The iPhone as a weapon against the cell carriers.

[w3woody]

The fact that the iPhone placed as "top invention" speaks more to the ubiquitousness of cell phones in our society and how irritated people are with the current state of affairs with respect to the cell carriers. Most of the Time article about the iPhone spoke about how poor current phones were (the iPhone is "pretty" because "Most high-tech companies don't take design seriously") and how it will encourage carriers to open up their sandboxes ("It's not a phone, it's a platform") than it did about how cool an "invention" the iPhone is.

It's also interesting because many of the complaints about the iPhone revolve around the fact that Apple somehow didn't go far enough to crack the cell carrier hegemony (the iPhone is locked to a single carrier, the iPhone contract is two years) than it goes towards actual design flaws in the physical unit.

In fact, I've never seen people get so worked up before over a single cell phone--and I suggest it's because we all hate the cell carriers and are hoping someone--either a powerful government or a powerful company (either Apple's iPhone or Google's Android OS) will force the cell carriers to improve.

My Two Cents

[Internet Ronin]

Look, I'm an iPhone owner, and I love the damn thing, no question about it.

It was worth every penny, and then some; the SDK should only make it better.

However, that said, labeling it as "Invention of the Year" is a pretty sad state of affairs for the country. I'm pretty medical, environmental, and social breakthroughs deserve FAR more attention.

I'd hate to tell the guy with cancer that the really cool virus that eats cancer cells could've had a ton more funding for R & D if only it had one Time's Invention of the Year.

The iPhone is cool, no question, but it is the height of frivolity, and can't possibly compare with all the other wonderful things mankind is dreaming up and making a reality that deserve far more press coverage than the iPhone has already gotten.

Not that I'm complaining too loudly, my Apple stock just keeps on truckin'

Re:I'm sorry but no

[Anonymous Coward]

Average? Average in the US maybe. Check out Japanese phones some time, 5MP camera, autofocus lens, Xenon flash, VGA screen. They make the iPhone look like a toy for stupid Americans who need everything so dumbed down it's insulting to anyone who can actually read.

Re:I'm sorry but no

[nine-times]

...maybe there should be a distinction between incremental inventions and novel (meaning really new) inventions.

I agree that there's some sort of distinction to be made there, but it's fuzzy at best. Look deeply enough into the most novel of inventions, and you'll find that's it's basically cobbled together from already-existing inventions and well-known principles. That's just how these things work.

But I agree that I don't think of the iPhone as an "invention". Even though I think it's cool and innovative, it just doesn't do anything that hasn't been done elsewhere. I might consider the whole multi-touch thing an invention, but it's only part of the iPhone, and it existed elsewhere first.

Many Of These Aren't New

[illectro]

The Lucky Camera for astronomy technique has been used by amateurs for years. The Elasitc space suit was a concept going back to the 60's. Injectying water into engines is a technique that's been used for decades. These guys should edit slashdot.

Re:The iPhone as a weapon against the cell carrier

[dave420]

Apple is doing NOTHING to break the hegemony. Apple released a phone which does barely nothing more than other phones on the market (and indeed a lot less than some), tied to a single network (which was THEIR choice), and then charged massive amounts of money for the phones. And what happened? People who either don't use phones a lot, or people who love marketing spiel, or people who love apple, bought the flying shit out of them. Apple is one of the bad guys! This article is saying that a product that isn't better than any others, but which costs more and is locked more and runs less software is somehow better than, say, any other mobile out there? That's what's truly horrifying about this. The only thing Apple is changing is how much people will pay for a mediocre phone. And currently that's $400, with a contract. Jesus.

Re:Ignore the iPhone

[ZonkerWilliam]

Everybody's so terrified of risk that innovation is radically reduced.

I think you hit the needle on the head. I think business and people in general are to afraid to loose what they have, so are afraid to use anything that is untried and new in their environments because there's the possibility of loss, whatever that loss may be, financial, medical, etc. Wish it was like the 50-60's when scientists and engineers thought big!

Re:Yeah

[ickoonite]

Apple saw the $$$$ signs flashing in front of their eyes and signed away. End of story.

Corporation seeks to make profit. Film at eleven.

Seriously, what were they supposed to do? Release it untethered to appease the fraction of the population that actually cares about shit like this, i.e. freaks like yourself? Given that they have sold well in excess of a million of these phones, it is clear that most people don't care that the phone is locked (indeed, I am willing to bet that a significant number of those people wouldn't even know what 'locking' was).

Idiot.

:|

Re:The air car

[rubycodez]

in real life compressed air motors get about 7-15% efficiency in industrial applications, the compressed air car is a horrible waste of energy

Those are great inventions?

[Animats]

The bookbinding machine? That was mentioned on Slashdot previously. It's not that novel. Many of the bigger copiers/printers have a binder option. Larger Kinkos outlets can crank out perfect-bound books. The price and cost figures are vaporware; the bookbinding machine isn't actually in production. The Internet Archive has a printing and binding operation in a van (the "Internet Bookmobile"), and has for years. Uses a semi-auto binder.

The programmable water display is one of those cute one-off things. I've seen some similar gadgets, including a projection screen made of mist. That showed up at a venture capital conference in Silicon Valley a few months ago. Modulated water displays were done in Japan in the 1980s, and they've been tried in some US retail locations.

The "air car" has some grand claims. "For various reasons, one of which is industrial secrecy, we havent published all technical details on this site." Right. The thing is actually supposed to be a gasoline-powered hybrid - "The Series 34 CATs engines can be equipped with and run on dual energies - fossil fuels and compressed air". Plus, there's an electric motor and battery in there. "Parking manoeuvres are powered by the electric motor." It's not clear why they need both electrical and compressed air energy storage. The actual range they've achieved [theaircar.com] running on compressed air is only 7.2Km. All they actually have on the road is one prototype car made of welded tubes, with steel compressed air tanks driving an ordinary reciprocating compressor as an air motor. None of their claimed technology (the carbon fibre tanks, the wierd crankshaft linkage, the low-friction seals) is in use. They have a good Monster Garage project, but not a major invention.

The "40% more efficient gasoline engine" thing isn't new. See this 1979 article in Mother Earth News. [motherearthnews.com] Wikipedia has a good article on water injection [wikipedia.org], and there's a link to Crowder's engine. The general consensus today seems to be that turbos and intercoolers have made water injection obsolete. If you use water injection, you have to carry either a water tank about as big as the gas tank, or a condenser and oil/water separation system.

I'm not impressed with Time's selections. There must have been some better work this year, or we're in real trouble in technology.

Re:Hey!

[hedwards]

I don't see the issue, an invention is a technological development, it doesn't have to be feasible to be an invention. It doesn't even have to be cost effective, a lot of inventions and discoveries don't reach the mainstream until they've been improved to the point where they become cost effective.

The white city exposition saw the debut of the ferris wheel and the electric light, but neither of those things saw widespread use until later. It just wasn't realistic to within even one year wire every home in America for electricity.

The telephone and the telegraph likewise were invented, and then later put into use. It wasn't possible at the time to get them up to a useful state in only 1 year, it took a while to string up all those wires.

Even ice cream was difficult to push out until there were better means of refrigeration than were available at the time.

Re:I'm sorry but no

[dirtyhippie]

Uh. Yeah, I'm sure time magazine chooses the best invention of the year in order to get a slashdotting.

Re:not 2000km!

[Rei]

You do realize that Audubon New York [renewablee...access.com], the state's largest bird conservation organization, has gotten behind wind power 100%, right? The effect of wind turbines on birds is generally so ridiculously overstated it's embarassing. Here is the data [currykerlinger.com] from New York on bird kills from turbines: Madison site, 7 turbines, one year, 4 bird deaths. Copenhagen, 2 turbines, two migration seasons, zero bird deaths. That's it. The Madison site was the only site in the entire northeastern US with any reported bird deaths.

Want to save birds? Protest glass windows (especially on skyscrapers), housecats, habitat destruction, excessive pesticide use, climate change, and coal power plants. You know, the things that we do that *actually* kill large numbers of birds.

Don't like the look of wind turbines? Don't live near them; there are plenty of people willing to take your place. I, for one, find them quite attractive. You can go live near a nice pretty coal power plant instead (that is, after all, what those turbines are displacing).

Re:Some more enlightning stuff...

[Rei]

If they can remove it without stopping and giving the police a chance to converge on them from all sides, power to them.

Re:Ignore the iPhone

[inviolet]

I think you hit the needle on the head. I think business and people in general are to afraid to loose what they have, so are afraid to use anything that is untried and new in their environments because there's the possibility of loss, whatever that loss may be, financial, medical, etc. Wish it was like the 50-60's when scientists and engineers thought big!

Next time you are sitting on a tort or product-liability jury, remember that feeling.

The world has changed because we, as a society, via our juries, have switched from "buyer beware" to "seller beware". Only now are we seeing the mass casualties washing ashore. And everything is padded, roped off, banned, covered in uselessly vague warning labels, and painted bright yellow.

Re:Hey!

[moro_666]

can't disagree on the fact that the year is over.

but my question is, where is the invention part of the iphone ? seriously, where is it ? can someone give me 1 example that's actually useful in the phone and that apple introduced as first ?

[x] we did have music playing phones before
[x] we did have videos playing phones before
[x] we did have web browsing phones before
[x] we did have locked down phones before
[x] we did have quite nice looking phones before
[x] we did have overhyped phones before ...
[x] we did have uncomfortable keyboards before
[x] we did have unstable calling quality phones before

so ... what exactly ... no really, what exactly did the iphone give you ? nokias and sony-ericssons had all these features punched into a phone in the beginning of 2006, some models had partial features from these even before. what the heck ? burn the time magazine, it's just a freaking commercial. a phone with all the features of the iphone was on the market already in 2006.

i'll probably get heavily modded down by "true iPhone fans" ... but i don't really care. the phone may be "ok" for apple fans, for me it looks like a heavy rip off (locked software, locket networks ...) , some of us just don't want to admit it.