The single most fascinating aspect of the ongoing Apple vs. Samsung trials continues to be the wealth of historical information they're unearthing about the design and development of the iPhone and iPad. Yesterday, Apple senior vice president of worldwide marketing. Phil Schiller, and senior vice president of iOS, Scott Forstall, both took the stand and shared an unprecedented look into the events and timelines surrounding the creation of Apple's iPhone and iPad. Bryan Bishop broke down the testimony for The Verge. Here's the timeline:

• Phil Schiller said the project began with the idea of putting entertainment content on phones. (Because phones back then weren't as good as iPods)
• In 2003, Apple began working on the tablet that would become the iPad
• In 2004, they shifted focus from tablet to phone, and the device that would become the iPhone
• They used a table view as a proof of concept. (We've heard this from Steve Jobs before -- that he was sold on the project after seeing inertial scrolling and the rubber-band physics.)
• Forstall was only allowed to recruit from within Apple, and couldn't tell anyone what they'd be working on until they were on board. (He could tell them they'd be giving up nights and weekends.)
• Forstall repeated the Jobs' mantra that they made the phone they themselves wanted to own
• Of the various "colors", "Project Purple" went ahead as the iPhone project and the building the team took over became the "Purple Dorm", complete with a "The first rule of Fight Club is not to talk about Fight Club" poster on the door.
• Forstall had the idea for tap-to-zoom while using early prototypes.
• Schiller said sales for the original iPhone exceeded expectations.
• Schiller said sales of subsequent iPhones have been greater than all generations previous.
• After the iPhone, Apple moved back to the iPad project.
• Schiller said Apple was going for great design, ease of use, and lust factor with the project.

So, not only have we seen early prototypes of both devices, including the "Project Purple" prototype itself, but we're getting even more information about the timeline and the thinking behind the product development process.

And again, the typically ultra-secretive Apple's willingness to share this information provides tremendous insight into just how genuinely they feel wronged and want to absolutely trounce Samsung in court.

And it's only been the first week.

Source: The Verge

Shortly before WWDC 2012 and the unveiling of iOS 6, Rene wrote a monumental article on the "higher hanging fruit" that Apple could still add to the iPhone and iPad to make them more competitive. Sure, iOS isn't for geeks, but that doesn't mean Apple can't show the geeks some love! I for one wish they'd added a few of the things on his list!

Since WPCentral is asking what users want on Windows Phone, I figured I'd ask if anyone here at iMore feels like I do -- that Apple could give us more! How about you?

Even if you just look at what Android, Windows Phone, and BlackBerry have announced for this year, never mind the existing features, there's a lot Apple could do to add some sizzle to iOS and make those who've chosen non-Apple devices a little more envious of iPhone and iPad owners.

So I'm asking -- if you could have any feature or features added to iOS, what would they be? A new Home screen experience? Maybe actionable notifications? How about direct document access? A permanent widget area? A better fast app switcher? How about some theming options? Or a universal Spotlight search that hooked into Siri?

Synergy, contracts/intents, better navigation gestures, a Flash video player, Gatekeeper, app demos and update pricing? The list can go on and on, but I only want your most important missing features!

No poll this time, just wide open comments and your chance to sound off and tell Apple what you think their feature priorities should be! What do you want to see Apple add to iOS?

It's the weekend and you know what that means -- it's your last chance to win a bunch of great accessory prizes on iMore before the contests end and we announce the winners on Monday! Here's what's up for grabs this week:

• Weekly Photo Contest: Sexy Beach!
• $117 (not billion) dollar giveaway! Tell us what you would buy... and you could win it!
• Jabra FREEWAY Bluetooth Car Kit review
• Qmadix iharmonix Q-i-sound Stereo Bluetooth Speakers review [Giveaway]
• Belkin Rotating Charger 2.1 + ChargeSync for iPhone and iPad review [Giveaway]

In 2011, Apple SVP of Internet Services, Eddie Cue, apparently emailed Apple SVP of iOS, Scott Forstall, that Apple's then CEO, the late Steve Jobs was open to the idea of a Samsung Galaxy Tab sized iPad mini. This came to light as part of the ongoing Apple vs. Samsung, according to The Verge's Bryan Bishop:

Forstall is shown a 2011 email from Eddy Cue, in which Cue forwarded an article that a journalist wrote about dumping the iPad after using a Galaxy Tab. Cue writes "Having used a Samsung Galaxy [Tab], i tend to agree with many of the comments below... I believe there will be a 7-inch market and we should do one. I expressed this to Steve several times since Thanksgiving and he seemed very receptive the last time."

One of the most oft-repeated, and often taken out of context, criticisms levied against the very idea of a 7.x-inch iPad is that in October of 2010, Steve Jobs said that 7-inch tablets were terrible and would be DOA when they hit the market.

That's the same Steve Jobs, of course, who once said no one wanted to watch video on an iPod, before introducing the iPod video, and that Apple would never make a phone, before introducing the iPhone, and that no one wanted to read, before introducing iBooks.

The public statements of CEO's are just that -- public statements, with all the strategy, including misdirection, that that can imply. They're not indicative of anything other than they're exactly what a CEO, in this case Steve Jobs, wants everyone to hear at a certain point in time.

This email correspondence between on the other hand, if accurate, is different. It's an internal communication. It's what Eddy Cue wanted Scott Forstall to hear at that specific point in time.

It doesn't negate any effect Steve Jobs saying 7-inch tablets were terrible could have on the likelihood of Apple making an iPad mini, however, because there never was any beyond misquotes and misunderstandings.

The 7-inch tablets Jobs was referring to were exactly that -- 7-inches in size, made by competitors, not running iPad iOS, and were, frankly, terrible and were, as it turns out, DOA.

What it does show is, perhaps, part of Apple's process and thinking around bringing the rumored iPad mini to market, and their timeline. And that's interesting.

Tim Cook once said the thing that most impressed him about Steve Jobs was Jobs' ability to change his mind, and to change direction with incredible speed.

If and when Apple chooses to release an iPad mini, it will be different in kind from existing small form factor tablets that were on the market at the time. Whether it succeeds or not, it will be different than what Steve Jobs was referring to in 2010 -- it will be what he was "receptive" to in 2011, and for very specific reasons.

It won't be a 7-inch tablet. It'll be a 7.85-inch or thereabouts iPad.

Source: The Verge

Found an interesting article you want to share with iMore? Have a burning question about that feature you just can't figure out? There is ALWAYS more happening just a click away in the forums. You can always head over and join in the conversation, search for answers, or lend your expertise to other members of our community. You check out some of the threads below:

- Configuring VPN in iOS for a Cisco Router
- Google Calendar not working, how can I make it work?
- Facebook "save for later" feature not working (iPhone)
- iPhone 5 Notification LED
- Best Bluetooth Speaker?
- Music in the Cloud or on iPhone??

If you're not already a member of the iMore Forums, register now!

Blazing trails is hard work. Following them is easy. Whether you're an explorer, twin machetes in hand, hacking your way through the densest of underbrush, a developer launching a breakthrough app into a crowded app store, or a consumer electronics giant, packaging existing technologies in a way that finally makes them exciting and accessible to the mainstream, it can cost a fortune and take a tremendous amount of time and effort to bring a winning product to market.

And relatively little to copy it.

That's simply the reality of the modern market. Whether you're a boot-strapping indie dev who managed to produce a hit game only to see a giant gaming house replicate it almost exactly, or a mega corporation who releases market-changing -- even market-creating -- mobile devices only to see a string of like-designed products take over that market -- or at least make the attempt -- that's how the world works.

Samsung almost embarrassingly copied Apple products from power plugs to icons, mobile to desktop, and the massive manufacturing partners and retail competitors are now fighting it out in court solely to determine how much, if any, of that copying was legal. And Apple has copied their share of ideas and implementations as well over the years.

Indeed, innovation stands on the shoulders of what came before, great artists steal inspiration from the great artists that came before, and everything is a remix.

While that might suck for the indie dev who watches the replicated versions of their hard work hit the app store -- in some cases over and over again -- and it might suck for Apple seeing their delightful interface ideas get promiscuously given away for free, it changes nothing.

Even in the case of smash hits, innovators enjoy only a narrow lag between launch and replication to truly reap the profits of their creations. If something is good, if something works, if something is successful, it will be copied, it will be cloned, it will be knocked off. Is it really any coincidence that the company whose products copied Apple's the most have also been the most successful in their own platform space?

The only way to combat copyists and hold copying at bay is to take those windows of success and build on them, and do it in a way that's not as easy to copy.

That's why Apple doesn't just sell phones and tablets.

They sell iTunes and iCloud. They sell AirPlay and Siri. They sell an experience that becomes something that "just works" together. They sell something that, once you buy in, buying in even more provides even greater value than the sum of the parts.

You can own an iPad and a different company's phone or media box or computer. But owning an iPad and and iPhone and an Apple TV and a Mac brings you far greater value. Your apps look the same and work the same across your devices. Your music and movies and TV shows play across devices. Your personal information, browser tabs, and reading positions sync across everything you own.

You can download a network-sponsored app on your iPhone, have the same app just appear on your iPad, and your family can be AirPlaying any event in the Olympics on your big screen TV only minutes later.

That's just one example of many that Apple absolutely nails. It's functionality, customer experience, and brand affection that's non-trivial to copy. It's a product strategy that's almost incomprehensible to those who's strategy is to copy.

Right now, Apple is spending millions of dollars on lawyers, battling Samsung across continents, and revealing prototype devices and product histories they would never have otherwise revealed, because they're indignant that Samsung has copied the iPhone and iPad the way Samsung has likely copied refrigerators and countless other products for decades.

When Steve Jobs launched the iPhone he said Apple was 5 years ahead of the competition. Now, 5 years later, even the competition's best new devices can't match the multitouch user experience of iOS in consistency or quality, or the content of iTunes in accessibility or availability. But they are matching and even beating Apple when it comes to individual features and functionality.

Apple's reaction to Samsung is understandable on a very human level. Most of us have likely wished we could do the same thing when we've felt copied or ripped off. Including those who have felt copied by Apple.

It sucks, really and truly. But ultimately it's a losing battle at best, and a distraction at worst.

Tim Cook said Apple couldn't be the developer for the world, but the alternative is much, much worse.

Regardless of how Apple vs. Samsung plays out, or individual app copying plays out, it's not in the courtroom that innovation has to win. It's in the product design labs, go to market strategies, and retail shelves. Because the copying never stops. And the only thing worse than being copied is losing the ability to innovate and becoming a copyist.