Apple Smart Glasses: Everything We Know About Apple's Answer to Meta Ray-Bans

[transpo1]

smartphones were not dumb before the iPhone. That wasn’t the reason why they didn’t become mainstream, but the iPhone did and every other phonecmamufacruer then copied the iPhone.

Smartphones before the iPhone were a nice product because of the interface. A lot of the pre-iPhone devices ran on Windows CE, so a cut down OS but modelunek on MS Windows. Irrespective of what you thought of Windows at the time, the UX did not transfer well to a phone-sized device, and, outside of tech enthusiasts, people didn’t really want to do „Windowsy” tasks on a phone. It was easier to do those on a PC.

What Apple got right was working out what the general public wanted to use their smartphones for. That’s not about „smart” or „dumb”, it’s about properly understanding your target market.

So they were a niche product with a horrible interface, they had no idea what the general public wanted to use them for, and yet those "smartphones" were not dumb, they were smart? )

Apple nailed the what / how / why of the product category and redefined it and everything afterwards shifted. You can see it in the before / after pictures of smartphones pre-iPhone and post-iPhone era. (And we don't even have to mention Android, which blatantly ripped off iPhone and iOS.)

As Jobs said about pre-iPhone smartphones in 2007, "The problem is they're not so smart and they're not so easy to use."

By your calculations, we can also add "they had no idea what the general public wanted to use them for." These phones may have been useful for a niche audience but we can't call them "smart."

 

[Happy_John]

So they were a niche product with a horrible interface, they had no idea what the general public wanted to use them for, and yet those "smartphones" were not dumb, they were smart? )

Apple nailed the what / how / why of the product category and redefined it and everything afterwards shifted. You can see it in the before / after pictures of smartphones pre-iPhone and post-iPhone era. (And we don't even have to mention Android, which blatantly ripped off iPhone and iOS.)

As Jobs said about pre-iPhone smartphones in 2007, "The problem is they're not so smart and they're not so easy to use."

By your calculations, we can also add "they had no idea what the general public wanted to use them for." These phones may have been useful for a niche audience but we can't call them "smart."

What does „dumb” and „smart” mean in the context of phones and technology?

Not what you’re presenting it as.

„Smart” doesn’t mean „intuitive”. „Smart” means „Internet enabled” - also in “smart home” and “smart watch”.

 

[transpo1]

What does „dumb” and „smart” mean in the context of phones and technology?

Not what you’re presenting it as.

„Smart” doesn’t mean „intuitive”. „Smart” means „Internet enabled” - also in “smart home” and “smart watch”.

In the context of phones and technology:

Before the iPhone, smart meant "internet enabled." After the iPhone, smart meant intuitive, easy to use, touch-screen device, and product that the general public understands and wants.

The iPhone made everything that came before seem dumb.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Smartphone vs Dumb-phone (feature phone) is simply about capabilities.

Running full blown Apps & games, watching videos, full featured web browsing, more complex and desktop OS like interfaces, etc.

The distinction really has nothing to do with how intuitive or internet enabled a device is.

 

[transpo1]

Smartphone vs Dumb-phone (feature phone) is simply about capabilities.

Running full blown Apps & games, watching videos, full featured web browsing, more complex and desktop OS like interfaces, etc.

The distinction really has nothing to do with how intuitive or internet enabled a device is.

That's a fair interpretation but then you have to define: what is a full-blown app? Before the iPhone, smartphones ran what Jobs called "the baby internet." Did that constitute a full-blown app or full featured web browsing? Definitely not. All the things you mentioned didn't seem to come about until the iPhone.

 

[Happy_John]

That's a fair interpretation but then you have to define: what is a full-blown app? Before the iPhone, smartphones ran what Jobs called "the baby internet." Did that constitute a full-blown app or full featured web browsing? Definitely not. All the things you mentioned didn't seem to come about until the iPhone.

No, but again it depends what you mean by the internet - earlier Windows CE "smartphones" ( usually HTCs/XDAs rebranded to the carrier that soft them) could run a "full-fat" terminal, something iPhones couldn't without having been jailbroken. They could run FTP clients. They were fully-fledged network devices. In certain ways they had more functionality than an iPhone. They problem was that these weren't functions that general consumers wanted.

Neither WAP phones nor VOIP phones were smartphones. I think that's a very important distinction to make.

And that was the change the iPhone ushered in. Making the device far more relevant to mass consumers needs. But smartphones didn't start with iPhones, the term smartphphone now might mean "powerful multimedia device", but that wasn't what the term meant originally. It meant a phone-sized computer with computer functionality, and internet capability was a necessary requirement for such a device to be a smartphone.

An iPod classic couldn't ever be described as a smartphone, but the iPod touch was edging into that territory, as it was an iPhone, but one without any cellular modem or means of connecting to a SIM.