Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes, I'm an iPhone and Android developer. :rolleyes: Explain to me what specific FUNCTIONALITY the iPhone had over the Microsoft OS at that time. Actual detailed functionality, like the specific things I pointed out. Ouside of multi-touch.

for one, when you closed the web browser it closed. i used to have an ipaq and you had to reboot the thing to get IE closed out

----------

It was a demonstration of a prototype of a new product that was six months away from going on sale. There's absolutely no comparison to the benchmark controversies reported this week.

i've had every iphone since the 3g, the five bar thing was there until ios 5 or 6. lots of stories of people saying they had 5 bars and nothing on the phone worked because it really didn't have any signal
 
Yes, I'm an iPhone and Android developer. :rolleyes: Explain to me what specific FUNCTIONALITY the iPhone had over the Microsoft OS at that time. Actual detailed functionality, like the specific things I pointed out. Ouside of multi-touch.

I'm not going to play this game. Just like in your original reply to me, these conversations always result in inane and arbitrary reasons why any individual feature isn't new or revolutionary or whatever.

I made specific claims supported by evidence. If you'd like to discuss them, that's fine. If not, feel free to move on.
 
i've had every iphone since the 3g, the five bar thing was there until ios 5 or 6. lots of stories of people saying they had 5 bars and nothing on the phone worked because it really didn't have any signal

Funny that you mention that because I recall that now with my 4 - I always chalked it up to ATT, not the phone. Interesting!
 
With the release of the iPhone, web browsing actually become *usable* on a smart phone. I'm not sure whether to feel sorry that you aren't aware of what the situation was like when you're attempting to act as though it was nothing new, or feel glad for you that you apparently never had to deal with it back before it actually became good. :confused:

I did use Web browsers extensively on pre-iPhone Windows OS smartphones, like the Tilt 2. Opera had a really good browser that was certainly usable, and I DID use it all the time. That is the truth. The iPhone Web browser was better, yes, primarily because of multi-touch zooming and scrolling. That DID make the experience much better, but not because of the Web browser per se, but because of multi-touch, which again I'm saying the latter was the only thing truely revolutionary about the original iPhone. But that was really good. However, other phones would have gotten that feature in a year or so, and there were a LOT of feature the iPhone did have that other phones did that I already listed. Heck the iPhone took like 3 generations just to get copy / cut / paste if you all remember.

To me, the iPhone 3G, which was also not revolutionary, was definitely where Apple hit the sweet spot vs other Smart phones - when they acquires 3rd party apps (ESSENTIAL!) as well as 3G (making the internet actually usable). That when I bought one and kept updating until Apple decided that they were never going to increase screen size to follow the market. But that's another story. :)
 
Last edited:
I'll bet it doesn't work that way now. Apple seems like much more of a matrixed organization under Cook than it was under Jobs. With Jobs if you were good at something that's all you ever did, which to me seems a bit limiting.

I think you're right. Jon Ive and others have talked about how much more collaboration is going on now, and how it was one of his goals after Forestall... who was almost as much a control freak as Jobs was... left the company.
 
I'm not going to play this game. Just like in your original reply to me, these conversations always result in inane and arbitrary reasons why any individual feature isn't new or revolutionary or whatever.

I made specific claims supported by evidence. If you'd like to discuss them, that's fine. If not, feel free to move on.

I love this logic. What specifics? What evidence? I'm serious. Where? Actually list them and I'll discuss them.
 
There are two pieces of evidence which point to the iPhone being a revolutionary product in its class:

1: None of the smartphone devices/designs/UIs which existed at the time continue to exist now - with the exception of Blackberry which is going down the tubes for thinking the market would always want something that didn't behave like an iPhone.

2: That just about every smartphone on the market since has looked and felt much like an iPhone.

It's possible to argue all kinds of things about there being other products with individual features on the market beforehand, but there were none that had it all, that packaged it is such a way, that featured the ease of use and functionality, and which didn't need to operate carrier-controlled data restrictions and via carrier-owned content stores.

Oh, and for whomever that said hard-wiring the 5-bar signal strength would mislead consumers, pleeeeeze! If Steve had wandered around a city or out into the countryside during the demonstration there might be a point, but he was on a stage, moving a few feet. No reasonable person who saw that signal indicator and took notice of it would have expected it to fluctuate much, if at all.
 
You can start here and reread our conversation.

There are no specifics there, just generalizations.

----------

There are two pieces of evidence which point to the iPhone being a revolutionary product in its class:

1: None of the smartphone devices/designs/UIs which existed at the time continue to exist now - with the exception of Blackberry which is going down the tubes for thinking the market would always want something that didn't behave like an iPhone.

2: That just about every smartphone on the market since has looked and felt much like an iPhone.
.

Well, HTC was a major smartphone players pre-iphone, and they still exist. They chose a different route of changing their phones based on changing market conditions instead of just keeping to one-phone-fits-all mentality. Both sides have merits.

Market-wise, Apple always wins in these battles because of their loyal fanbase. This doesn't mean that the product is revolutionary - just mas marketed a lot better. Now they have competition in mass marketing with Samsung, and they (and their fans) certainly HATE that. :)
 
I did use Web browsers extensively on pre-iPhone Windows OS smartphones, like the Tilt 2. Opera had a really good browser that was certainly usable, and I DID use it all the time. That is the truth.

Yep, Opera was good.

There was also a web browser / doc viewer called Picsel which was unique in that it could display HTML, PDF, Word, Excel and PowerPoint... whose pages showed up in miniature on a lower carousel for quick navigation.

Picsel also had a visual page history, panning with kinetic scrolling, and even a double-tap gesture to zoom in or out.

This was all back in 2003. I wouldn't be surprised if mobile Safari owed some of its features to Picsel.

The iPhone Web browser was better, yes, primarily because of multi-touch zooming and scrolling.

I think it was better partly because of the larger screen size as compared to most (but by no means all) other smartphones of the time.

I say this because I did most of my mobile web browsing from 2000-2006 on a cellular wireless equipped HP Jornada Windows CE handheld with a 640x240 screen, using full WinCE IE 4.0 (not wimpy IE Mobile).

Let me tell ya, that was one sweet browsing experience for the time, since most websites were built for 640 across, so you rarely had to side scroll. Most websites were built for IE back then, too.

As for nowadays, I like using my iPad a lot, but I also quite often still use a beat up 7" Android 2.2 tablet simply because it has Flash, which is handy, so as not to have to avoid some websites still using it.

--

Anyway, Apple certainly deserves credit for making mobile web browsing nicer and much more popular.
 
Last edited:
There are no specifics there, just generalizations.

Shall I summarize?

Revolutionary features:

1. OS. Evidence - Every major OS vendor has redesigned their OS to compete with the iPhone.

2. Web browser. Evidence - desktop class rendering engine that went on become the industry standard.

3. Reduced carrier control - Concessions from carrier to allow direct upgrades no bloatware are a huge advantage for the iPhone to this day. Among other things.

Unlike the BlackBerry, the iPhone had a fully Internet-capable browser. That meant it would strain the networks of wireless companies like AT&T Inc., something those carriers hadn’t previously allowed. RIM by contrast used a rudimentary browser that limited data usage.

“I said, ‘How did they get AT&T to allow [that]?’ Mr. Lazaridis recalled in the interview at his Waterloo office.


4. iTunes integration - Destroyed the iPod industry that Apple created and moved portable music from specialized devices to just another smartphone app.
 

That's the Android Prada released at the end 2011. It has nothing to do with the original Prada phone except the name.

Also it's weird because the first Prada phone was terrible. I mean it was nothing like the iPhone in use. Yes it was a touch based phone with a capacitative screen but the experience was so different that it was more like trying to use a resistive device with a finger. Then there's the whole OS part.

If anything the Prada phone is a good showcase for two things - 1) How a device that looks similar can be so different in usage. 2) How people can keep repeating a talking point even though they have never used that device and it's not really similar when you try it.
 
Wow, I just read the whole article, it really sounds like working on the iPhone project must have been simultaneously the most stressful and most amazing thing in the world. That feeling when you're doing something that no one has ever done.
 
Yes, Steve Jobs had many talents, but most people don't realize he was also an accomplished ringmaster at the circus. He did this under the pseudonym "Steve Brazen", and wore a golden, jungle safari outfit while whipping up the large crowds to a crescendo. Later on this ability translated well to his duties at Apple.
 
Wow, I just read the whole article, it really sounds like working on the iPhone project must have been simultaneously the most stressful and most amazing thing in the world. That feeling when you're doing something that no one has ever done.

Yes it's incredible that there was not a single crash in that rather long presentation. I mean there were so many moving parts that could've gone wrong at any moment. Just look at Microsoft with their Surface presentation last year where the nervousness was just palpable throughout the presentation and Sinofsky had the embarrassing moment of the device crashing on him. If I were an iPhone engineer watching the first iPhone keynote my heart would be pounding so much that my expected life span would've been reduced.
 
I've already addressed all these, which are actually still not very specific in terms of actual functionality if the device itself, but I'll also elaborate on yor generalizations:

Shall I summarize?

Revolutionary features:

1. OS. Evidence - Every major OS vendor has redesigned their OS to compete with the iPhone.

Right. Because noboby ever redesigns their OS to make them more modern. Everything is in response to Apple. :D Actually, and I said this at the time, I kind of agree with you that many OS's DID try to copy Apple, and because of that I think it actually slowed down mobile OS development. It certainly simplified (um..dumified) it. It took years before I could AGAIN do what I could do on my old Microsoft mobile OS, in terms of customizations to the OS itself. I really think without the iPhone, OS's would be more advanced at this stage. I know that's not going to be a popular opinion. :)

2. Web browser. Evidence - desktop class rendering engine that went on become the industry standard.

I've already explained in many posts above (as have others) that there were desktop class rendering engines (terminolgy that actually makes zero scence) with many pre-iPhone browsers. It was pretty much only multi-touch that made this exprience much better.



3. Reduced carrier control - Concessions from carrier to allow direct upgrades no bloatware are a huge advantage for the iPhone to this day. Among other things.

Unlike the BlackBerry, the iPhone had a fully Internet-capable browser. That meant it would strain the networks of wireless companies like AT&T Inc., something those carriers hadn’t previously allowed. RIM by contrast used a rudimentary browser that limited data usage.

“I said, ‘How did they get AT&T to allow [that]?’ Mr. Lazaridis recalled in the interview at his Waterloo office.

The carriers had no control over Browsers in Smartphones (vs proprietary phones) at that time. Zero. That was an OS thing. Bloatware is a who cares thing. Direct updates is something that you are totally right about. I give you that as it's STILL an irritant with Android phones.

4. iTunes integration - Destroyed the iPod industry that Apple created and moved portable music from specialized devices to just another smartphone app.

This did happen, but certainly not with the 8 GB iPhone 1 vs the 160 GB iPod, and that's the phone we are talking about. Not until we got 32GB / 64GB + phones did this truly take place, and that was NOT the iPhone 1. But by then everyone had that storage and there were many alternative DRM free music internet marts (amazon, Google play, etc). Heck I STILL can't fit my 128GB of music on any current iPhone.

My main point is that maybe for a LOT of people, especially huge Apple fans, the iPhone was a revolution because no one had ever used an actual smartphone before that, even though they existed for years. For those of us who used smartphones from almost day one, the original iPhone release was kinda blah. It had a few things that were new, but a whole lot of ommisions that were already standard in the market (the biggest being 3rd party apps and 3G). Apple just had the fanbase and marketing skills to push smartphones into the mainstream, which they certainly did at a MUCH faster pace than would have happened otherwise, which is good. As for the first iPhone itself, other than multi-touch which was wonderful, bleh..
 
Last edited:
The carriers had no control over Browsers in Smartphones (vs proprietary phones) at that time. Zero. That was an OS thing. Bloatware is a who cares thing. Direct updates is something that you are totally right about. I give you that as it's STILL an irritant with Android phones.

Bloatware is a "who cares" thing? What fantasy land are you living in?

Every so-called "smart phone" I had up until the iPhone had bloatware that you couldn't get rid of. And branding galore -- I had a Nokia smartphone that ran on T-Mobile and you couldn't change the color scheme to anything but their gawd-awful Magneta color.

Carrier control was a big thing, whether you realize it or not.
 
I'm not going to play this game. Just like in your original reply to me, these conversations always result in inane and arbitrary reasons why any individual feature isn't new or revolutionary or whatever.

I made specific claims supported by evidence. If you'd like to discuss them, that's fine. If not, feel free to move on.

I wouldn't bother with him. It's like arguing why a Bugatti Tire "wheel" is revolutionary and innovative compared to a wooden wagon "wheel". You'll keep pointing out the tremendous work and innovation to build that "wheel" and yet it gets dismissed because "yeah BillyJoBob already had wheels years before, nothing special, move on" lol
 
I've already explained in many posts above (as have others) that there were desktop class rendering engines (terminolgy that actually makes zero scence) with many pre-iPhone browsers. It was pretty much only multi-touch that made this exprience much better

That part just doesn't sound right. As a former Windows Mobile, Symbian and Palm user I can definitely tell you the first iOS Safari was a humongous jump over the previous mobile browsers. What "many pre-iPhone browsers" on mobile were anywhere as good in rendering pages?
 
Bloatware is a "who cares" thing? What fantasy land are you living in?

Every so-called "smart phone" I had up until the iPhone had bloatware that you couldn't get rid of. And branding galore -- I had a Nokia smartphone that ran on T-Mobile and you couldn't change the color scheme to anything but their gawd-awful Magneta color.

Carrier control was a big thing, whether you realize it or not.

I'm not talking about bloatware on propriety carrier OS phone. It was a non-issue on any Microsoft OS phone. I could customize anything on most phones I had. And some of the carrier apps were actually really useful at the time, like streaming TV apps, something that that the first iPhone did not have and a lot of people missed.

----------

That part just doesn't sound right. As a former Windows Mobile, Symbian and Palm user I can definitely tell you the first iOS Safari was a humongous jump over the previous mobile browsers. What "many pre-iPhone browsers" on mobile were anywhere as good in rendering pages?

For me, Opera was. I saw no real difference in it's rendering engine vs the first iPhone safari, plus it had FLASH. Navigation as a whole different thing though - iPhone won hands down.

----------

I wouldn't bother with him. It's like arguing why a Bugatti Tire "wheel" is revolutionary and innovative compared to a wooden wagon "wheel". You'll keep pointing out the tremendous work and innovation to build that "wheel" and yet it gets dismissed because "yeah BillyJoBob already had wheels years before, nothing special, move on" lol

Right, these analogies really tell the whole story. No way did I go point by point and explain. :rolleyes:
 
I'm not talking about bloatare on propriety carrier OS phons. It was a non-issue on any Microsoft OS phone. I could customize anything on most phones I had. And some of the carrier apps were actually really useful at the time, like streaming TV apps, something that that the first iPhone did not have and a lot of people missed.


Yeah, it wasn't a "propriety carrier OS phon," it was a device running Symbian, one of the "premiere" phone OSes at the time. I later bought another Symbian device, marketed by AT&T, which had numerous AT&T bloatware apps and settings that could not be changed (also, surprise, the color scheme!)
 
I had a blackberry from work until earlier this year.
It had the ability to browse the web.
That ability was an absolute frustration to deal with.
I have a personal iPhone. Using it is a pleasure.
I played around with some smartphones some friends had in 2007, before the iPhone came out.
They were a PITA to use. My friends agreed they were a PITA to use.
The original iPhone when it first came out was a pleasure to use.
What the iPhone did wasn't particularly new. It didn't even do some of what some other phones could. (Which was actually a bonus when it came to bloatware.)
How it did it was revolutionary.
It was special. Unique.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.