Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
...But the world was already moving towards smartphones with touch screens. There were many on the market before the iphone, albeit maybe not as fancy or pretty....

No.

Only Palm and its licenees created credible touch devices.
But these were quite different than the iPhone. They used resistive, single-point touch screens that required a stylus and/or physical keyboard for all but the simplest operations. But at least they actually created an OS an applications that were designed for (limited) touch.
There were other devices, but the touch was a gimmick at best because it made the devices harder, not easier to use because they didn't bother creating UIs designed for touch.

The iPhone was the first touch device where fingers on screen were the primary (nearly the only) input device where the device had any level of usability, much less an entire UI system designed to optimize that kind of input.

If you think the market was moving in that direction before the iPhone, go back a read what Apple's competitors were saying about it. They pretty much universally panned and dismissed the way its touch screen worked. Only after a few years of watching the iPhone eat their lunch did they change their tune.

Apple isn't perfect but give them credit where it's due. They went in a different direction than everyone else and everyone else was forced to follow.
 
So what's the next big thing? I'm not talking about iWatch either. I feel like that is just going to be an extension of iPhone and iOS in general. I mean, what is the next technological breakthrough? What is after multitouch? Neurological software interfaces?

Pop-up holographic screens and keyboards like in the movies. It's inevitable.
 
So Steve Jobs is happy that Android/Google is winning? Can't live in the past.

What exactly are they "winning"?

The most marketshare?

Well that would be a useful metric except:
- Apple still makes the most profits
- iOS is still the primary development platform for mobile
- Every Android OEM except Samsung is breaking even or losing money
- iPhone still outsells every other handset

So again what are they "winning"? Marketshare is just a number if you don't gain any of the benefits from being the marketshare leader. Now if you just simply like Android better that's fine. But they aren't "winning" anything except a useless number.
 
It's interesting to hear that all these "geeks" in the industry instantly recognized the iPhone for what it was whereas the computer geeks generally seemed annoyed.

I remember the general public and the news media being fascinated with the iPhone and talking about how awesome it was, but the geek crowd was doing its usual whining about everything that was wrong with it. No SDK? No multitasking? No 3G? No hardware keyboard? No stylus? No multiple models? No cheap versions? Etc., etc.

Those complaints seem absolutely ridiculous in retrospect, but especially now hearing how immediately some people in the tech industry recognized it as a game changer.
 
What exactly are they "winning"?

The most marketshare?

Well that would be a useful metric except:
- Apple still makes the most profits
- iOS is still the primary development platform for mobile
- Every Android OEM except Samsung is breaking even or losing money
- iPhone still outsells every other handset

So again what are they "winning"? Marketshare is just a number if you don't gain any of the benefits from being the marketshare leader. Now if you just simply like Android better that's fine. But they aren't "winning" anything except a useless number.

I have a feeling the number is only "useless" to you, because it doesn't fall on the side of your opinion.
 
The iPhone's success was a huge vote of confidence for touch only interface for SmartPhones. That's all Google leveraged (notwithstanding minor inspirations in both directions).

I disagree. Palm was able to copy iPhone far better than Google in short order and MS could have as well but poor mgmt did them in. Google won because of their distribution strategy. I still remember getting a seed of the G1 and thinking, this thing is unusable! But the carriers loved it and bought them time to make improvements and allow hardware advances to cover up much of Android's major warts.
 
At least Google immediately recognized what had just happened. Poor Steve Ballmer sure didn't.
 
Here's the thing - it is impossible to achieve what Android did in a short time without having most pieces in place already - technically and vision wise. Remember 2 other companies with massive resources and prior experience - Microsoft and RIM have still not managed to do the catch up in a successful way.

The reality is that Google's vision of Android was already grand and in place. They were already betting on diversity of devices - with and without keyboards, with different screen sizes, from different manufacturers with different CPU architectures, with and without touch screens. The problem for them was they weren't sure if touch screen only devices thrown at the market would fly - that as the article points out was opposed to conventional wisdom back then. So they were prepared for both type of devices - BB style and Touch plus Keyboard. I think that was a smart play to reduce their risk. They said we can't predict the market - let's go with multiple choices and see what sticks.

The iPhone's success was a huge vote of confidence for touch only interface for SmartPhones. That's all Google leveraged (notwithstanding minor inspirations in both directions).

Hm... sounds like you're saying Google had big hopes for Android but didn't know what direction to go in until Apple showed them. Agreed. :D
 
I wish those folks had been inspired to come up with something new instead of just mimicking what Apple did.

Coming up with something new isn't in Google's DNA. I mean, Google's products are fantastic, don't get me wrong. But I cannot think of a single thing that Google has done that actually felt original. Everything they do (search, maps, email, etc.) starts off as someone else's idea or product.

BTW, don't mistake this for talking trash about Google. That's just what they do, and they're really good at it. I'm just puzzled why anyone would have expected Google to suddenly become very innovative in their pursuit of a mobile OS. They just don't work that way.
 
No.

Only Palm and its licenees created credible touch devices.
But these were quite different than the iPhone. They used resistive, single-point touch screens that required a stylus and/or physical keyboard for all but the simplest operations. But at least they actually created an OS an applications that were designed for (limited) touch.
There were other devices, but the touch was a gimmick at best because it made the devices harder, not easier to use because they didn't bother creating UIs designed for touch.

The iPhone was the first touch device where fingers on screen were the primary (nearly the only) input device where the device had any level of usability, much less an entire UI system designed to optimize that kind of input.

If you think the market was moving in that direction before the iPhone, go back a read what Apple's competitors were saying about it. They pretty much universally panned and dismissed the way its touch screen worked. Only after a few years of watching the iPhone eat their lunch did they change their tune.

Apple isn't perfect but give them credit where it's due. They went in a different direction than everyone else and everyone else was forced to follow.

Very well said.
 
Nor does my Android.

The 2 Android phones used in my household by my daughter and my wife started off great, but gradually began exhibiting bizarre behavior like spontaneous rebooting, sudden power drains, crashing apps, lock-ups, etc. My wife switched to an iPhone two years ago and has been absolutely thrilled with it since. My daughter still has a few months to go but she can't wait to get out Android jail. Her Android phone is so screwy at this point that she more or less uses it for texting and nothing else. And she has to keep the screen to its lowest brightness to minimize the insane battery drain.

So, good for you. You've managed to own an Android phone that doesn't suck. Wish we'd been that lucky. Regardless, those Android phones did accomplish something: they created two new Apple die-hards in my house. I'm not griping. :D
 
No.

Only Palm and its licenees created credible touch devices.
But these were quite different than the iPhone. They used resistive, single-point touch screens that required a stylus and/or physical keyboard for all but the simplest operations. But at least they actually created an OS an applications that were designed for (limited) touch.


There were other devices, but the touch was a gimmick at best because it made the devices harder, not easier to use because they didn't bother creating UIs designed for touch.

The iPhone was the first touch device where fingers on screen were the primary (nearly the only) input device where the device had any level of usability, much less an entire UI system designed to optimize that kind of input.

Incorrect. Palm OS was designed around this ethos. While it shipped with a standard plastic stylus as it's 'primary' form of input and it wasn't capactive, Palm devices were capable fo working by finger input and early as Palm Pilots had software keyboards. Palm Pilots also featured very little in the way of physical buttons. some having only a power button, volume control and a home button or two. Palm OS was heavily featured OS on many Palm and Compaq PDA's and early smartphones before Apple entered the market. Palm was creating these devices for years before Apple entered the mobile market.


If you think the market was moving in that direction before the iPhone, go back a read what Apple's competitors were saying about it. They pretty much universally panned and dismissed the way its touch screen worked. Only after a few years of watching the iPhone eat their lunch did they change their tune.
we will never know this because the iphone did happen and it was market changing. Nobody should be doubting that. I'm not talking about Apples affect on the market. All i'm talking about was that Apple was not this tech company that invented everything in some vacuum of space with no influence from others. Yet, whenever you say this, it's immediate "no, apple invented the smartphone, without them we'd never have what we have today!". which is fundamentally a stupid thing to say. heck, if Apple didnt come out with the iphone, maybe we would have skipped touch devices entirely and gone to brain implants? you dont know. I dont know, nobody knows... but to downplay that other companies werne't also working towards the same sort of device is pure ignorance and fanboyishness.

DO I think that Google had a "Gotcha" moment when the iphone was released. Yes I do.
But they did not actually go in a differetn direction at all. They went in the same direction the market was going towards (as someone who used a few smartphones before the iphone came out and saw a move towards more screen, less button). What they did was create a package that was not just easy to use, but fun to use and looked great doing it. its' the same thing they did with the MP3 player market years before. take a "geeky" product that most people wouldn't be caught dead carrying around and make the masses WANT it.

to that. Apple is truly the market leader.


Apple isn't perfect but give them credit where it's due. They went in a different direction than everyone else and everyone else was forced to follow.

responses to your nonsense in bold... scroll down and read Renzatic's post. it's pretty good an explanation
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Palm was able to copy iPhone far better than Google in short order and MS could have as well but poor mgmt did them in. Google won because of their distribution strategy. I still remember getting a seed of the G1 and thinking, this thing is unusable! But the carriers loved it and bought them time to make improvements and allow hardware advances to cover up much of Android's major warts.

Good point. I wonder where MS would have been with Gates still in charge.
 
It was like Palm OS done Apple style with none of the archaic UI elements that made you want to cry.

Do you know that Palm was formed by a bunch of ex-Apple employees that left after the Newton project was discontinued by Steve? Apple has touched more areas of technology than are immediately visible. But only Apple (the company) is determined to deliver the best user experience.
 
Apple isn't perfect but give them credit where it's due. They went in a different direction than everyone else and everyone else was forced to follow.

I wouldnt say they went in an entirely different direction, but they certainly jumped ahead by a solid 3-4 years. Capacitive touchscreen devices were coming, the groundwork had already been laid for everything that was introduced to the mass market with the iPhone for at least a couple of years by that point (longer if you consider the entire history of multitouch). The problem was, no one else was willing to rock the smartphone boat quite like Apple did at the time. The pieces were in place, but it was an unproven market, and the end result was though to be too expensive for mass appeal.

Apple took a huge risk, and they were honestly as surprised as anyone else when it took off like it did. I certainly give them props for kickstarting the mobile revolution, and having the brass to go whole hog in a field everyone else was only toying with. But I won't claim they did something entirely unprecidented with technologies that were never seen before elsewhere.
 
The 2 Android phones used in my household by my daughter and my wife started off great, but gradually began exhibiting bizarre behavior like spontaneous rebooting, sudden power drains, crashing apps, lock-ups, etc. ...

But at least she could customize her home screen right? ;) Seems like a good tradeoff.

I've heard that story a few times. Phone starts off great, they become Android evangelists, then one day they show up with an iPhone. When you ask "What happened to your "Amazing Android" phone, they say "That thing? Oh it sucked after about 6 months. I terminated early and got an iPhone" So what was cheaper , going with the Android phone, paying the early termination and getting an iPhone, or just getting the iPhone.....
 
Do you know that Palm was formed by a bunch of ex-Apple employees that left after the Newton project was discontinued by Steve? Apple has touched more areas of technology than are immediately visible. But only Apple (the company) is determined to deliver the best user experience.

You could say that about any company currently operating in Silicon Valley. Apple doesn't stand alone, they dabble, experiment, and swap employees around as much as anyone else there. They hardly stand alone as the sole purveyors of innovation.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.