Before Apple introduced the iPhone(counternotions.com)
counternotions.com
Before Apple introduced the iPhone
http://counternotions.com/2009/08/26/pre-iphone/
64 comments
Honestly, you know what the difference was? Sex appeal. Pure and simple. When iPhone came out, I had the flashiest PDA available. It had WiFi and I could do phone calls over VoIP and watch movies.
But man I dropped that thing like a J2EE Enterprise Hooker when the iPhone came out. I mean it's sleek and it's gorgeous and the fracking menus have momentum! Are you kidding?! Even the texture feels good, the glass plate is smooth. If ever there was a piece of tech that could get you laid, this was it.
That's why I got an iPhone. The fact that it had all those cool technical abilities and a great free SDK is just how I rationalized it to myself later.
But man I dropped that thing like a J2EE Enterprise Hooker when the iPhone came out. I mean it's sleek and it's gorgeous and the fracking menus have momentum! Are you kidding?! Even the texture feels good, the glass plate is smooth. If ever there was a piece of tech that could get you laid, this was it.
That's why I got an iPhone. The fact that it had all those cool technical abilities and a great free SDK is just how I rationalized it to myself later.
I lost functionality when moving from a 3G Nokia N95 and a webkit browser to an iPhone with 2G only and a much less reliable webkit browser.
I was still happy - the iPhone indeed had sex appeal.
I was still happy - the iPhone indeed had sex appeal.
I think I agree with what you're saying, I just have a really hard time describing hardware or software as being "sexy". I'd just say that the iPhone, unlike all of its predecessors, simply didn't suck. It was a joy to use it. Maybe we mean the same thing. Certainly, I didn't expect people to want to fuck me because I had one.
There's a fundamental problem with the concept of 'cool' that causes blast-damage to the semantics of words around it. Long ago, the word 'awesome' actually described something that inspired a sense of awe. Now it's something people say when someone offers them a can of cold, unsolicited soda. 'Wicked' once meant 'evil'. Now a mildy impressive not-even-very-extreme-sports move, like a skateboard grind on a concrete curb is 'wicked'. The word 'sweet' once referred to something that contained sugar. Now an expensive car is a 'sweet ride'. In days gone by, one had to advocate complete and total social reform in order to be 'radical'. Later, all one needed was acid-washed denim and poofy bangs.
Alas, sex hasn't been an essential part of sexy for a long, long time.
Alas, sex hasn't been an essential part of sexy for a long, long time.
True enough, but the post to which I replied didn't just use the word "sex appeal" in a to me alien way, he also mentioned that this device would "get him laid". Jokingly, of course, but I'm still unsure we even mean the same thing.
If he simply meant that the iPhone was "awesome" by the definition you just mentioned, then I'm in agreement, but if he meant that he liked the device because of the reactions he thought he'd get from his surrounding due to having one, then we do not.
If he simply meant that the iPhone was "awesome" by the definition you just mentioned, then I'm in agreement, but if he meant that he liked the device because of the reactions he thought he'd get from his surrounding due to having one, then we do not.
I mean both, actually. Not only did it have a fundamentally appealing design in every detail, but it was also (in the early days) a great opener!
"Ooooooo, is that the eye-Phone? Can I touch it? OMG, this ball-tilt game is awesome!" ;)
"Ooooooo, is that the eye-Phone? Can I touch it? OMG, this ball-tilt game is awesome!" ;)
So true...it's the perfect platform for Mystery's Photo Routine, because it encourages the use of pinch-to-zoom and stipe-to-pan - you're that much closer to kino escalation. ;-)
What I don't understand is why you need to plug it in to upgrade, I'd rather I could just update over the air like apps from app store do. My Nokia N96 is capable of this in principle (though it never works because my network doesn't approve the updates).
An iPhone update is ~350 Mb or so, which might not be suitable 1) to download over air or 2) store on the device while still running the older software version (350 Mb is a lot of space).
An interesting note: The Apple ][ OS was 411 KB.
I don't think so, considering the machine had 48 KB (or 64 KB on the IIe).
You're right! I meant the first graphical Apple computer! The "Classic" Mac OS.
Seems so high. The floppies only held 400KB and if you only had one drive you needed to hold a System folder, the Application you needed to run and still have room to save your document.
1-8
these apply to the US only.
9. Mobile devices were phones first and last, not usable handheld computers
Pocketpc and Palm phones were fully fledged handheld computers for years before. If you don't believe me check the list of apps at
http://www.smartphonemag.com/awards/winners_ppc_2005.html
10. Even the smartest phones didn’t have seamless WiFi integration
Maybe not seemless but functional. A search for 'wifi switching iphone' shows everything isn't perfect yet.
11. Without Visual Voice Mail, messages couldn’t be managed non-linearly
Don't know. Not really my thing.
12. There were no manufacturer owned and operated on-the-phone application stores as the sole source
True the app store is an innovation. It's a great idea apart from the compulsory part.
13. An on-the-phone store having 65,000 apps downloaded nearly 2 billion times was not on anyone’s radar screen
This is a repeat of 12. However it should be noted that there would have been 1000s of pocket pc apps available in 2006.
14-16
These are all basically about the app store. Pretty much repeating 12 and 13.
17. Buttons, keys, joysticks, sliders…anything but the screen was the focus of phones
There where popular touch screen which had only a few buttons. My recently retired HTC Magician (not Magic) was one of these.
18. Phones didn’t come with huge 3.5″ touch screens
Many Did. Some had bigger screens.
19. Pervasive multitouch, gesture-based UI was science fiction
Apple did bring many of these to market for the first time. I'm not sure if anyone had developed a phone intended to be used by hand as opposed to stylus. that said the stylus is pretty powerful in it's own right.
20. Actually usable, multi-language, multitouch virtual keyboards on phones didn’t exist
Deliberate repeat of multitouch. Apart from that many virtual keyboard existed
21. Integrated sensors like accelerometers and proximity detectors had no place in phones
'The first phone from the company to feature an accelerometer was the Sony Ericsson W910 and the Sony Ericsson K850.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
22. Phones could never compete in 3D/gaming with dedicated portable consoles
I had quake running on my HTC Magicician in 2006. There seemed to be a lot of other games available.
23. iPod-class audio/video players on mobiles didn’t exist
Many phones had popular music players.
24. No phone had ever offered a desktop-like web browser experience
Opera
25. Sophisticated SDKs and phones were strangers to each other
No. Wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
so what are we left with
1. helped in the process of freeing US users from bad carrier slavery
2. The app store
3. A user interface designed to be used with fingers including multitouch and swipe.
Good achievements but they didn't 'invent' the genre. If you take away 1. You are left with an evolutionary not revolutionary contribution.
these apply to the US only.
9. Mobile devices were phones first and last, not usable handheld computers
Pocketpc and Palm phones were fully fledged handheld computers for years before. If you don't believe me check the list of apps at
http://www.smartphonemag.com/awards/winners_ppc_2005.html
10. Even the smartest phones didn’t have seamless WiFi integration
Maybe not seemless but functional. A search for 'wifi switching iphone' shows everything isn't perfect yet.
11. Without Visual Voice Mail, messages couldn’t be managed non-linearly
Don't know. Not really my thing.
12. There were no manufacturer owned and operated on-the-phone application stores as the sole source
True the app store is an innovation. It's a great idea apart from the compulsory part.
13. An on-the-phone store having 65,000 apps downloaded nearly 2 billion times was not on anyone’s radar screen
This is a repeat of 12. However it should be noted that there would have been 1000s of pocket pc apps available in 2006.
14-16
These are all basically about the app store. Pretty much repeating 12 and 13.
17. Buttons, keys, joysticks, sliders…anything but the screen was the focus of phones
There where popular touch screen which had only a few buttons. My recently retired HTC Magician (not Magic) was one of these.
18. Phones didn’t come with huge 3.5″ touch screens
Many Did. Some had bigger screens.
19. Pervasive multitouch, gesture-based UI was science fiction
Apple did bring many of these to market for the first time. I'm not sure if anyone had developed a phone intended to be used by hand as opposed to stylus. that said the stylus is pretty powerful in it's own right.
20. Actually usable, multi-language, multitouch virtual keyboards on phones didn’t exist
Deliberate repeat of multitouch. Apart from that many virtual keyboard existed
21. Integrated sensors like accelerometers and proximity detectors had no place in phones
'The first phone from the company to feature an accelerometer was the Sony Ericsson W910 and the Sony Ericsson K850.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
22. Phones could never compete in 3D/gaming with dedicated portable consoles
I had quake running on my HTC Magicician in 2006. There seemed to be a lot of other games available.
23. iPod-class audio/video players on mobiles didn’t exist
Many phones had popular music players.
24. No phone had ever offered a desktop-like web browser experience
Opera
25. Sophisticated SDKs and phones were strangers to each other
No. Wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
so what are we left with
1. helped in the process of freeing US users from bad carrier slavery
2. The app store
3. A user interface designed to be used with fingers including multitouch and swipe.
Good achievements but they didn't 'invent' the genre. If you take away 1. You are left with an evolutionary not revolutionary contribution.
You dismiss many of the point on the ground "existed, but maybe not as usable".
That's exactly why iPhone became popular: because it made many of nice features actually usable for the John S. User, not only for John Geek.
That's exactly why iPhone became popular: because it made many of nice features actually usable for the John S. User, not only for John Geek.
I can only count one. Can you point the others out?
Accelerometers for instance: when I dial using the keypad, then move the phone to my ear, the accelerometer detects this movement and switches off the keypad, so my ears don't dial extra numbers on my behalf.
I don't know, but did the phone you mention (first to have accelerometer) make good use of them?
I don't know, but did the phone you mention (first to have accelerometer) make good use of them?
It's not an accelerometer that does this, it's a proximity sensor. It's a little preposterous to imagine the phone can account for every possible way I take my phone to my ear.
The iPhone uses the accelerometer primarily to rotate the screen. There's not a whole lot more (apart from some niche applications) that any phone manufacturer does besides that.
The iPhone uses the accelerometer primarily to rotate the screen. There's not a whole lot more (apart from some niche applications) that any phone manufacturer does besides that.
"niche applications?" Have you seen Pocket Universe? http://www.craicdesign.com/
The first time you look up at the night sky, see a star, hold your iPhone (3gs for best experience) up in front of that star and see the display show exactly the same view, with labels, you _know_ the compass and accelerometer have a purpose -- nay, a holy calling.
The first time you look up at the night sky, see a star, hold your iPhone (3gs for best experience) up in front of that star and see the display show exactly the same view, with labels, you _know_ the compass and accelerometer have a purpose -- nay, a holy calling.
> 3gs for best experience
Yes cause the only the 3gs (amongst iPhones) has a compass. So that isn't really relevant to the discussion of what the iPhone introduced to the world. Other phones had a compass (and GPS for that matter) a lot earlier.
Yes cause the only the 3gs (amongst iPhones) has a compass. So that isn't really relevant to the discussion of what the iPhone introduced to the world. Other phones had a compass (and GPS for that matter) a lot earlier.
App store is also an evolutionary step (imo in a good way). Here, in Europe, most of the big carriers had (most still have) their own app stores which you could buy games and applications from with your bill or prepaid credit.
Many of these points are not correct. I had an excellent Siemens SX66 (HTC BlueAngel) years before the iPhone was introduced. The screen was a nice 3.5" touchscreen, had excellent wifi and unlimited internet (at about $10 less than it is now, with no 5gb cap), and allowed me to install thousands of third party applications. Not to mention that Microsoft had a pretty decent .NET PocketPc framework that made writing apps a breeze.
While it's true that the iPhone did introduce some nifty features and concepts that changed the smartphone landscape, this list is overblown and incorrect.
While it's true that the iPhone did introduce some nifty features and concepts that changed the smartphone landscape, this list is overblown and incorrect.
The point isn't that you had an exception to the rule in your pocket. The point is that these things are now, thankfully, mainstream and popular. Oh, and comparing the stylus touchscreens and the iPhone's capacitive touchscreen is kind of like saying processed bologna and ever-delicious bacon are the same because people call them both meat.
So the iPhone was so great because it was so popular? Isn't that a bit self referential?
Actually the stylus is pretty powerful. I'm considering getting one for my new Magic. Apart from being able to hand write it is quicker to type as well.
> processed bologna and ever-delicious bacon are the same because people call them both meat.
They're both just dead animals to me.
Actually the stylus is pretty powerful. I'm considering getting one for my new Magic. Apart from being able to hand write it is quicker to type as well.
> processed bologna and ever-delicious bacon are the same because people call them both meat.
They're both just dead animals to me.
Seems like some people don't like being reminded of the truth. Every time you mention bacon it brings up images of animals being forced to spend their lives in cruel and squalid conditions. But it is better than the cognitive dissonance that consumers experience when you point this out.
Bring it on.
Bring it on.
Regarding your comment about the stylus, which was relevant: Any system that doesn't require an extra, easily-lost piece to use is good; I type faster than I handwrite; bullshit re:typing faster. It's far more efficient to use two fingers with no disconnect from your muscle memory than it is to use a single digit that's got a few inches disconnect.
As for this little snipefest:
Look, dejb, it's not that we don't understand where you're coming from about the animals. We do. The problem is that rscott is using bacon/balogna as a comparison, and you're taking him literally. Want me to take your counterpoint literally? When I see a stylus, I see electrons. Fuck this argument, fuck this site, fuck this existence, it's electrons. You can't argue, you're a bucket of electrons. There. Now I've shat on this whole debate. Let's all go home rather than contemplate the cognitive dissonance that humans experience when you point this out.
"Bring it on"? You're a fucking commenter on a fucking Internet thread on a site that's about discussing fucking technology! I'm sorry, but I don't give a shit about your stance regarding animal rights when it's not relevant to this thread. Want my attention? Find a good article about what you think is interesting and submit it. I'd love to read more about this. I don't know a thing about it. But right now, we're discussing the iPhone, not fucking animals.
For the record, I have no cognitive dissonance thinking about bacon. I've never seen a dead pig and so the concept is abstract to me. I don't care to make it any more physical because first off, I don't eat bacon, and second off, I don't really give a damn about pigs. It's not in me. Perhaps I'm a psychopath or some shit. But you're either misguided or trolling, and either way it's irritating and a teeny bit hurtful to the community. Cut it out.
As for this little snipefest:
Look, dejb, it's not that we don't understand where you're coming from about the animals. We do. The problem is that rscott is using bacon/balogna as a comparison, and you're taking him literally. Want me to take your counterpoint literally? When I see a stylus, I see electrons. Fuck this argument, fuck this site, fuck this existence, it's electrons. You can't argue, you're a bucket of electrons. There. Now I've shat on this whole debate. Let's all go home rather than contemplate the cognitive dissonance that humans experience when you point this out.
"Bring it on"? You're a fucking commenter on a fucking Internet thread on a site that's about discussing fucking technology! I'm sorry, but I don't give a shit about your stance regarding animal rights when it's not relevant to this thread. Want my attention? Find a good article about what you think is interesting and submit it. I'd love to read more about this. I don't know a thing about it. But right now, we're discussing the iPhone, not fucking animals.
For the record, I have no cognitive dissonance thinking about bacon. I've never seen a dead pig and so the concept is abstract to me. I don't care to make it any more physical because first off, I don't eat bacon, and second off, I don't really give a damn about pigs. It's not in me. Perhaps I'm a psychopath or some shit. But you're either misguided or trolling, and either way it's irritating and a teeny bit hurtful to the community. Cut it out.
Every time someone acts like a troll, we don't need to read through someone's witty retort in response. He's trolling, he knows it, we all know it, and he's downmodded to oblivion for it. That's enough.
I wouldn't have responded, but I thought he raised a semilegitimate argument re:the stylus, and it seemed rude not to respond to the rest.
For the first time in my life, I've wanted to save a comment. Bravo. I got a bit of a Tarantino vibe out of that comment which adds a whole other level of cool.
Why is it OK for someone to randomly bring their preference for bacon into the conversation but it is not OK for me to mention my preference against it? I actually thought my initial comment was pretty innocuous. The voting response to it at the time genuinely surprised me. Somehow it improved markedly since then, as if to invalidate my second comment.
Some people can just accept what they perceive as injustice. If someone had casually denigrated black skinned people in the fifties in southern US I like to think I would have found a way to let it be known that I didn't agree. Even if it wasn't the main topic of conversation.
> I'd love to read more about this.
> I don't really give a damn about pigs.
These comments appear to be self contradictory. Much of your post is nonsensical. The fact that so many people are prepared to agree with it astonishing.
> and either way it's irritating and a teeny bit hurtful to the community.
The fact that it causes such a level of fuss for such an initially innocuous comment is telling.
> Cut it out.
No.
Some people can just accept what they perceive as injustice. If someone had casually denigrated black skinned people in the fifties in southern US I like to think I would have found a way to let it be known that I didn't agree. Even if it wasn't the main topic of conversation.
> I'd love to read more about this.
> I don't really give a damn about pigs.
These comments appear to be self contradictory. Much of your post is nonsensical. The fact that so many people are prepared to agree with it astonishing.
> and either way it's irritating and a teeny bit hurtful to the community.
The fact that it causes such a level of fuss for such an initially innocuous comment is telling.
> Cut it out.
No.
Why is it OK for someone to randomly bring their preference for bacon into the conversation but it is not OK for me to mention my preference against it?
What wasn't okay was that you ignored his entire point for the sake of stating your beliefs. If you'd stated what you did and then followed up with a counterpoint, then you wouldn't have been downvoted, wouldn't have had to bitch back at him, and I wouldn't have involved myself.
These comments appear to be self contradictory.
I'm willing to give a damn about pigs if you're able to convince me to. As it stands, a damn is not given but I'm willing to change my mind.
Much of your post is nonsensical.
No it's not.
The fact that it causes such a level of fuss for such an initially innocuous comment is telling.
I hate any and all derails as obnoxious and self-inflated as yours was—not the original post, mind you, but the follow-up.
What wasn't okay was that you ignored his entire point for the sake of stating your beliefs. If you'd stated what you did and then followed up with a counterpoint, then you wouldn't have been downvoted, wouldn't have had to bitch back at him, and I wouldn't have involved myself.
These comments appear to be self contradictory.
I'm willing to give a damn about pigs if you're able to convince me to. As it stands, a damn is not given but I'm willing to change my mind.
Much of your post is nonsensical.
No it's not.
The fact that it causes such a level of fuss for such an initially innocuous comment is telling.
I hate any and all derails as obnoxious and self-inflated as yours was—not the original post, mind you, but the follow-up.
> What wasn't okay was that you ignored his entire point for the sake of stating your beliefs.
I replied to his iPhone related points first. Both of them.
> not the original post, mind you, but the follow-up.
When I posted the follow-up the original was at -4 votes in less than an hour on the first post. The vote-down to view ratio must have been off the charts. I was responding to the down voters. I know it is uncool and all to do this but I guess it must have had an effect.
The analogy here is this (in fifties southern US)
- Somebody makes a causally racist comment.
- I mention in my response that I disagree.
- Others express strong but inarticulate disapproval for my comment.
- I respond directly and unambiguously why I think racism is wrong.
- People seem a little less sure of themselves Re the first comment but they are really pissed at me.
- Our hero comes along and chides me for causing such a fuss in a rambling speech.
- The crowd erupts into applause. They didn't understand most of the speech or really care about what was said. But there brief encounter with the morality of their lives is over for now. And the person who has caused them discomfort has been put in their place without them (the crowd) having to articulate their own prejudices.
I replied to his iPhone related points first. Both of them.
> not the original post, mind you, but the follow-up.
When I posted the follow-up the original was at -4 votes in less than an hour on the first post. The vote-down to view ratio must have been off the charts. I was responding to the down voters. I know it is uncool and all to do this but I guess it must have had an effect.
The analogy here is this (in fifties southern US)
- Somebody makes a causally racist comment.
- I mention in my response that I disagree.
- Others express strong but inarticulate disapproval for my comment.
- I respond directly and unambiguously why I think racism is wrong.
- People seem a little less sure of themselves Re the first comment but they are really pissed at me.
- Our hero comes along and chides me for causing such a fuss in a rambling speech.
- The crowd erupts into applause. They didn't understand most of the speech or really care about what was said. But there brief encounter with the morality of their lives is over for now. And the person who has caused them discomfort has been put in their place without them (the crowd) having to articulate their own prejudices.
Care to elaborate, which of the points are incorrect?
How was using multitouch on that nice screen (half the resoliution of the iPhone and 35k colors only)?
Was the WiFi integration seamless?
How was browsing experience with mobile IE?
Installing all those apps was an one click deal, right?
Was distributing them a breeze too?
Distributing a Windows Mobile application involves putting your CAB file on a webpage somewhere, as opposed to paying for a development license and submitting your software to Apple hoping to be eventually approved for inclusion in the App Store (if you want to be available to the non-jailbroken majority of users.) I don't think that particular comparison is very flattering to Apple.
"paying for a development license"
This is the suckiest part. Paying money (every year!) to develop on a device you paid for is insane. I don't know if any other platform has annual development fees. Damned if I'll pay money every year to be "allowed" to write/deploy code on my own device.
This is the suckiest part. Paying money (every year!) to develop on a device you paid for is insane. I don't know if any other platform has annual development fees. Damned if I'll pay money every year to be "allowed" to write/deploy code on my own device.
And downloading a windows mobile app involved users putting aside every shred of hard-won suspicion about random binaries from essentially unknown development shops.
Now how about distributing a for-pay app? How easy was that?
Now how about distributing a for-pay app? How easy was that?
Well, the Windows Mobile model is exactly identical to the established model of trusting, advertising, and distributing any other computer software. I have yet to be convinced that a different model for handhelds is better.
If I had to choose between making development free and easy and making sales and advertisement easy, I'll take the easy development. There are always a lot of people who will create interesting things for free, but many of those people might not feel like creating interesting things in Objective-C after paying for a development license and then not being able to distribute their things if Apple doesn't approve of the thing they wrote.
If I had to choose between making development free and easy and making sales and advertisement easy, I'll take the easy development. There are always a lot of people who will create interesting things for free, but many of those people might not feel like creating interesting things in Objective-C after paying for a development license and then not being able to distribute their things if Apple doesn't approve of the thing they wrote.
It seems pretty obvious that your hypothetical objections have not been a problem in practice; no other mobile device has an app ecosystem on the scale of the iPhone and iPod Touch.
I disagree -- I don't know how to find reliable statistics for how many, but there are a huge number of free Windows Mobile apps to suit nearly every need. I have a Scheme interpreter with a little IDE on my HTC phone+, and a GBA emulator for it too. I think that the relatively large number of iPhone apps are a natural consequence of the big userbase and are in spite of their App Store model, not because of it.
+ http://www.mazama.net/scheme/pscheme.htm if you're interested!
+ http://www.mazama.net/scheme/pscheme.htm if you're interested!
I think you've stumbled into a perfect way to win HN arguments -- appealing to Lisp
I thought it was pretty clear in my first few sentences which points I was referring to.
Furthermore, your assumption about the screen and wifi is incorrect. Mobile Opera was available and was pretty decent. Yes, apps were a one click install. You get the app, either through url, or file transfer and press one button. A quick Google search would've cleared that up for you.
Furthermore, your assumption about the screen and wifi is incorrect. Mobile Opera was available and was pretty decent. Yes, apps were a one click install. You get the app, either through url, or file transfer and press one button. A quick Google search would've cleared that up for you.
Yes, you refer to many. I am too dumb to decipher that, can you name those many by numbers?
What exactly is incorrect in my assumptions about the screen:
is not 240x320 half the resolution of 480x320? Is not 16bit color space not as deep as 24bit? Did that HTC indeed have multitouch?
How did that WiFi work seamlesly? Connected on demand to the known networks in the backround, without need for you to do anything? "Prety decent" can mean many things. But it does not mean that you could see the page looking exactly like it did on desktop. Not to mention JS and CSS support. Regarding apps: I am not talking about installing the app once it is on your phone. That's zero clicks on iPhone. I am talking about the whole experience.
How did that WiFi work seamlesly? Connected on demand to the known networks in the backround, without need for you to do anything? "Prety decent" can mean many things. But it does not mean that you could see the page looking exactly like it did on desktop. Not to mention JS and CSS support. Regarding apps: I am not talking about installing the app once it is on your phone. That's zero clicks on iPhone. I am talking about the whole experience.
You make arguments such as But it does not mean that you could see the page looking exactly like it did on desktop. Not to mention JS and CSS support, which is false. Opera Mobile rendered websites properly.
Furthermore, your tone is very combative. It's obvious that you're not actually reading what I write, but rather, just pushing your preconceived notions. It's not necessary for me to make a list for you. I was merely pointing out how many of the items that were supposedly introduced or unique to the iPhone wasn't, and in fact was worked on and implemented by many talented engineers years before the iPhone was released.
As a long time HN user, dialogs such as these really turn me off to the current community.
Furthermore, your tone is very combative. It's obvious that you're not actually reading what I write, but rather, just pushing your preconceived notions. It's not necessary for me to make a list for you. I was merely pointing out how many of the items that were supposedly introduced or unique to the iPhone wasn't, and in fact was worked on and implemented by many talented engineers years before the iPhone was released.
As a long time HN user, dialogs such as these really turn me off to the current community.
As someone not familiar with the phone you mention, and never having used it, I would like to see a list, for comparison purposes. Although the tone is a bit combative and could be toned down some, I don't think they're being overly hostile, but rather are just asking for facts.
I think most people are aware that the iPhone didn't spring out of some black ether. Obviously it built on technology that existed, but then that's the point. They put it together in a way that blew apart the model that existed before and have pretty much pushed the worldwide cellphone market into a new era.
I think most people are aware that the iPhone didn't spring out of some black ether. Obviously it built on technology that existed, but then that's the point. They put it together in a way that blew apart the model that existed before and have pretty much pushed the worldwide cellphone market into a new era.
Well, it _is_ September...
Lacking Flash in a browser or on a phone at all could be regarded as a shortcoming as well. A PPC phone could run flash from before the iPhone existed.
> is not 240x320 half the resolution of 480x320? Is not 16bit color space not as deep as 24bit? Did that HTC indeed have multitouch?
So does that mean the HTC touch HD with a 3.8-inch wide, WVGA (480 X 800 pixel) is now clearly superior?
> How did that WiFi work seamlesly?
Search for 'iphone wifi'. Those in glass houses?
What you are doing is defining everything about the iphone as the ultimate. So anything different to it is deficient. You are conveniently forgetting about it's many deficiencies when it launched in 2007 such as - no mobile broadband.
> is not 240x320 half the resolution of 480x320? Is not 16bit color space not as deep as 24bit? Did that HTC indeed have multitouch?
So does that mean the HTC touch HD with a 3.8-inch wide, WVGA (480 X 800 pixel) is now clearly superior?
> How did that WiFi work seamlesly?
Search for 'iphone wifi'. Those in glass houses?
What you are doing is defining everything about the iphone as the ultimate. So anything different to it is deficient. You are conveniently forgetting about it's many deficiencies when it launched in 2007 such as - no mobile broadband.
Wow, all of my posts now being downmodded excessively. Hacker News is suppose to be one of the few places left for unbias and rational discussion.
I guess that's not the case anymore, especially when it comes to apple products.
I guess that's not the case anymore, especially when it comes to apple products.
Complaining about voting reliably earns a downvote from me. Such comments add nothing to the discussion.
Additionally, snarky jabs at the rest of the HN userbase for not providing unbiased and rational discussion are not a good way of getting unbiased and rational replies. It is more likely to perpetuate fanboy/hater bickering, which we can all at least try to keep to a minimum.
Additionally, snarky jabs at the rest of the HN userbase for not providing unbiased and rational discussion are not a good way of getting unbiased and rational replies. It is more likely to perpetuate fanboy/hater bickering, which we can all at least try to keep to a minimum.
You've been upvoted everywhere. Hacker News has some assholes who like downvoting, but there's more of us than there are of them.
We do like downvoting people who complain about downvotes, so I hope you don't mind my bumping you down here.
We do like downvoting people who complain about downvotes, so I hope you don't mind my bumping you down here.
Get use to it, I know I did :-)
Before Apple introduced the iPhone, some software manufacturers thought it was OK to wipe out everything on your mobile device when upgrading the OS.
"NOTE: Before proceeding please ensure that all data on your Wing is backed up, and the e-mail settings for each of your e-mail accounts are known or are written down. Installing the new software will erase all the data on the device.
NOTE: All third party applications and data that remain on the device prior to downloading the new software will be deleted and un-retrievable. Third party applications will need to be re-downloaded after the new software has been installed."
https://support.t-mobile.com/doc/tm52082.xml
"NOTE: Before proceeding please ensure that all data on your Wing is backed up, and the e-mail settings for each of your e-mail accounts are known or are written down. Installing the new software will erase all the data on the device.
NOTE: All third party applications and data that remain on the device prior to downloading the new software will be deleted and un-retrievable. Third party applications will need to be re-downloaded after the new software has been installed."
https://support.t-mobile.com/doc/tm52082.xml
An interesting note: after I lost my iPhone, restoring the replacement from the backup I didn't realize iTunes had been making reset not just the e-mail settings and contacts, but the ring tone settings, wireless network passwords, etc. As much as I try to stay away from being a fanboy, I was very pleased with the UX.
The article mentions Apple as it had made the iphone and the app store out of thin air. It mentions nokia, motorola and the other manufacturers as being unable to create such a innovative product like the iphone. It is not true.
It is a pity Palm shooted itself after successful devices like Palm Pilot or Tungsten. Palm could have made the iphone. It had extensive experience in touch screen devices. It had previous endeavors in phone-pda hybrids like the Treo.
Palm could have made the jump, if only they haven't split in palm one and palm source and keep the good work on.
And the same story happens with Amazon Kindle and similar devices. I have been reading ebooks in Palm (thanks to plucker, great open source reader) for ages before ebook readers even existed.
It is a pity Palm shooted itself after successful devices like Palm Pilot or Tungsten. Palm could have made the iphone. It had extensive experience in touch screen devices. It had previous endeavors in phone-pda hybrids like the Treo.
Palm could have made the jump, if only they haven't split in palm one and palm source and keep the good work on.
And the same story happens with Amazon Kindle and similar devices. I have been reading ebooks in Palm (thanks to plucker, great open source reader) for ages before ebook readers even existed.
It mentions nokia, motorola and the other manufacturers as being unable to create such a innovative product like the iphone. It is not true.
So they did make one? If they did not, how is that not true?
So they did make one? If they did not, how is that not true?
Because the smartphone market is a small part of the global market. The iphone is also one of the most expensive phones around. In a few years when the market gets more mature we will see a lot more competition from the "other manufacturers". Most of which also provides telecommunication systems.
Obviously they din't, if so we would be talking of the pPhone now.
I take a slight objection to the statement that Android wasn't there until the iPhone came along.
The project was underway long before Google picked them up in 2005, and development on this idea of an open-source phone OS was going on without knowing what Apple was doing. And sure, iPhone is a more robust platform, but there were inklings of a 'free-the-phone-from-the-carrier' movement without Apple's involvement. There were also smaller mobile linux projects underway like Qtopia and Maemo.
The project was underway long before Google picked them up in 2005, and development on this idea of an open-source phone OS was going on without knowing what Apple was doing. And sure, iPhone is a more robust platform, but there were inklings of a 'free-the-phone-from-the-carrier' movement without Apple's involvement. There were also smaller mobile linux projects underway like Qtopia and Maemo.
Article is predicated on the idea that evil and innovation are mutually exclusive. I think it's more true that evil and innovation are pretty tightly coupled.
I don't think evil is related to size or innovation; it's just selective reporting.
E.g. People only care about whether a company is evil if it creates products and services they want to use, or whether the company is so massive that it can't be avoided.
Small companies can't, and companies with crappy products don't, inflict their evil upon you -- so no-one notes whether they're evil or not, skewing results.
It could well be (and I believe it to be the case) that every company is essentially 'evil', but that tendency can only be exposed when they attain the requisite leverage to push what they want, as a priority, onto the market.
E.g. People only care about whether a company is evil if it creates products and services they want to use, or whether the company is so massive that it can't be avoided.
Small companies can't, and companies with crappy products don't, inflict their evil upon you -- so no-one notes whether they're evil or not, skewing results.
It could well be (and I believe it to be the case) that every company is essentially 'evil', but that tendency can only be exposed when they attain the requisite leverage to push what they want, as a priority, onto the market.
Perhaps it's not evil so much as it is difficulty in making decisions? Everybody has good intentions, and most people fuck them up at some point or other. The difference is that when large companies fuck up, it hurts more than when individuals do, and it's more noticeable.
Innovation is one of the disguises evil uses in its larval form.
Let's see what Apple does with its market dominance.
Let's see what Apple does with its market dominance.
There were no manufacturer owned and operated on-the-phone application stores as the sole source
A sole source for applications on a given platform is a Bad Thing. I say this as a supporter of the principle of app stores. It's better for the consumer on most any computing platform to have a single default system for software purchase, download, installation and updates. I find the centralized package management on most Linux distributions to be one of their biggest advantages over other platforms. It's the single part that's a problem; it means that the market does not have the final say on what will become popular on the platform.
A sole source for applications on a given platform is a Bad Thing. I say this as a supporter of the principle of app stores. It's better for the consumer on most any computing platform to have a single default system for software purchase, download, installation and updates. I find the centralized package management on most Linux distributions to be one of their biggest advantages over other platforms. It's the single part that's a problem; it means that the market does not have the final say on what will become popular on the platform.
For me, when someone point me an iPhone the first association that comes to mind is a brilliantly implemented concept of a deck of cards. This is an essence of iPhone - not only touch-based interface, but this touch technology along with carefully designed properly sized, cached content with fast possible switching between "cards". The concept of card tricks. That sells.
There are the second part - implementation - OSX based kernel, llvm-gcc, webkit-based browser, but all these techniques are ordinary.
And of course, they have their sales and marketing. Together that won.
btw, N900 is an very interesting move. It could be positioned as a "standard mobile computer" or "just a hardware". In that case community will write everything, like it was in the story of Linux.
There are the second part - implementation - OSX based kernel, llvm-gcc, webkit-based browser, but all these techniques are ordinary.
And of course, they have their sales and marketing. Together that won.
btw, N900 is an very interesting move. It could be positioned as a "standard mobile computer" or "just a hardware". In that case community will write everything, like it was in the story of Linux.
Some of the points seem a bit of a stretch, but only because they're obvious once you realise you're selling a tiny, internet-connected computer (which can also make phone calls).
One big thing that Apple made easy that he misses is the ability to upgrade your phone software through iTunes just by plugging it in to your computer. I did it a couple of times with Sony Ericcsons and the process was positively baroque.
One relevant failure to note, Apple tried to sell the first iPhone at the market rate. US carriers obviously didn't like that and now we are back to subsidies that are opaque and confusing to consumers, just the way they like it.
(Note the exact same happened with iTunes and the Music Industry. Everyone else caved to them and progress stagnated till Apple shook everything up. Couple of years later, once the immediate threat of everything being DRM encrusted WMA has faded from people's minds, and Apple becomes the evil empire.)