They don't have a 130 year head start in cellphones, either. I don't think experience making rotary dial pulse-dialling landline phones really helps you design a modern cellular handset, do you?
Not directly, no. But if you've been making phones over their entire evolutionary curve and you have over a century of progress, trial and error to fall back on you're probably in a better position to make a solid product than if you only just started. Apple might be making mistakes now that Nokia sorted out in 1997 and Ericsson in 1994...
I think you're underestimating how important the UI is to the average user. I had a 3G nokia before the iPhone: the UI was so poor and it took so long to do anything that I never even bothered to set my email up on it. Web browsing was a joke. What good are features if you can't be bothered to use them because the UI is so poor?
I'm with you there, and I've been sold on the UI ever since I bought an iPod Touch a year ago or thereabouts -- couldn't get the iPhone in my country until now. But everyone isn't blown away by the iPhone, and many don't give a crap about UI look and feel... it's like trying to dissect what people look for in a car. If everyone went for beauty and performance we'd all be driving sport coupés. And yet some people wouldn't take a Porsche in exchange for their precious Ford pickup. And if you're not impressed by the interface, what does the iPhone have over other phones? More buttons?
Camera - fine for many users, there is the argument that if you want a good camera you should get, well, a camera. The pictures from most of the other smartphones may have more pixels but I've yet to see one that approaches the quality of my 4-year-old point and shoot, for example.
Yes - it
is fine for most people -- at least in full daylight. But in a spec-obsessed world where the main sales point for a digital camera is that it has 1 million pixels more than last year's model and where recess and watercooler gatherings around the latest gadget revolve around specs, features and more specs, the iPhone cam fails utterly to impress. Again with the Ford pickup vs. Porsche -- there are people out there who buy a phone because it's the one with the best cam, just like there are people who prefer a phone with no cam at all.
Front-facing cam: video calling is a massive flop. I don't know anyone that uses it, and the uptake on most 3G networks is low.
Maybe. I thought we were yet to reach a point where front-facing cams on both ends of a phone call are so commonplace it actually has a shot at catching on. And also... it's Apple. A company that makes a huge deal about videoconferencing. iChat, iSight, built-in webcams on all computers except Pro & Mini. A company that takes pride in changing the way people use devices (=iPhone boosted net surfing on cellphones from 15% to 90% or something like that).
MMS - This is an omission, but arguable if that's better than email. It's probably coming eventually anyway.
I never use it myself, but going by some comments I've seen regarding the iPhone you'd think that MMS is vital to their survival...
Dock/case: no phone I've had in the last 5 years has come with either of these (not counting microfiber bags).
Well, my last phone was a SonyEricsson P1i and it came with a charger, a dock, a fake leather sleeve and an USB cable. And I believe a dock was included with the 1st gen iPhone.
Case durability: can't speak for the 3G, but my v1 iPhone is holding up fine, thanks.
Yes, I suppose the v1 was sturdy enough but these reports of cracks in the iPhone 3G case are pretty damn frequent. And Apple has a history of, perhaps intentionally, choosing materials that scratch and crack and buckle and whatnot. There was the Cube... hinge problems on PB G4 (Titanium)... the white and black MacBooks that look like they're 60 years old after a few months of typing... the iPods with a clear plastic front (1st Gen Nano + 1st gen Video iPod) that would scratch when you wiped it off with a clean cloth, or if you merely looked at it funny... these are issues that weren't on my map until I got into Apple products. Over the years I've had all these cellphones, they are invariably made from some sort of painted plastic and they have a clear plastic display. And I can drop them on the tarmac or keep them in a pocket full of keys, coins and lint, and they look good as new. Then I got a black iPod Nano V1, and after a day both the front and the back looked like they had been used for skating practice by Tonya Harding. I don't think you can find materials THAT unsuitable for life on the road unless you actively look for them... after all, it's a win-win situation for Apple. First you buy one of their gadgets. Then it gets completely trashed from normal usage. So you buy a second unit, and this time you pay Apple for some overpriced silicon skin, or a "sock" to protect this m-o-b-i-l-e use from everything that a mobile device is supposed to be built to endure.
Got a link for that? I'd say over a million 3Gs in the first weekend was over expectations: the shortages of handsets would seem to bear that out.
A quick stop at Google turns up results along these lines...
"iPhone sales below expectations"
"Apple iPhone sales below expectations in the UK"
"Apple iPhone initial sales below market expectations, says IMS Research"
"Apple's much-hyped iPhone performed nowhere near Wall Street expectations during its first 30 hours on sale"
"Early iPhone Data Disappoints, Sending Apple Stock Lower"
"Europe sees low iPhone sales, exclusives over soon?"
"iPhone Europe sales sluggish"
"Sluggish Sales - The iPhone in Europe, Lost In Translation?"
Etc... etc...
I've said it before on here and I'll say it again: WM/Symbian are about to get their asses handed to them on a plate. In 5 years the iPhone will be the dominant smartphone platform. You can call me out on it then if I'm wrong.
That's on the assumption that the OS and the UI are so irresistible that once you've fiddled with an iPhone you won't have anything less... but if that was the case, shouldn't OS X be the dominant platform by now?
There is so much more to it than being the best and the most innovative. Ask French carmaker Citroën. They pioneered the "think different" approach long before Steve Jobs was born. And in the year he was born, they introduced a radically designed car, the DS, jam packed with so many groundbreaking innovations that it should have wiped all competition off the map. It was the iPhone of 1955. Independent hydropneumatic suspension, swivelling headlights, inboard power disc brakes and numerous other jawdropping bells & whistles considered otherworldly in 1955. 53 years later it remains the most comfortable ride in existence -- even with a flat tire or one wheel completely removed.
So... world domination for Citroën, right? Well, the DS was indeed hyped to no end by the media and Citroën did take 12,000 advance orders on the day of the unveiling, but... in the long run it just didn't cut it. The radical design introduced some technical problems, there were frequent mechanical failures (you know, cracked casing... dropped calls... sluggish interface and poor 3G performance.

) And apart from these issues, the design was just too bold for the average joe. In the end he went for something more conservative from one of the mainstream manufacturers, with their tried and true pre-WW2 technology.
Therefore I predict that in 5 years (and 10), average Joe will be using a conservative and non-intimidating smartphone with physical buttons, and the iPhone software wouldn't touch such a device with a 40 foot pole -- ergo, iPhone will not be the dominant smartphone platform.