Seven Years Ago Today, Steve Jobs Introduced the iPhone

[Macyourdayy]

I remember, the most disappointing thing about that keynote was people's facial expressions when Steve said the word 'AT&T'.

Why, because the control freaks at Verizon passed on it? Because Verizon's brand of last century's communication system was only compatible with, er, Verizon, because you can't voice call and Internet at the same time, because Verizon couldn't see the future calling? I don't recall anything disappointing in that keynote except that it was 2G because of the US's crap telecommunications policy, it was US only and I would have to continue waiting for the device (from the manufacturer of my choice) I'd been lusting after ever since I'd heard the term "smartphone" (many years earlier). Thank you AT&T for playing ball (even if your shop staff couldn't get my gsm ipad working on their network when I was there a couple of months ago. I can't believe how appallingly useless Tmobile is).

----------

Yup. I haven't seen any mention of LG Prada here so that's a surprise. Although I see the usual naysayers still busy telling us how Apple wasn't innovating with the iPhone and/or is doomed.

But as with the iPod, although unfair and petty, it's hilarious to read the reaction to the original iPhone's introduction from today's point of view.

In fact in 2007, one of resident Macrumors Apple skeptic/naysayers present in this very thread even predicted Apple doesn't have much time left with the iPhone because Windows Mobile will catch up in "less than a year" and become "extremely touch and user friendly" in with "excellent hardware".

Why? Of course it's because Windows Mobile is customizable. You know how being customizable would've made Windows Mobile user and touch friendly within a year of the iPhone introduction in 2007. And yes I'm trying to suppress laughter hard here. With the benefit of the hindsight, that prediction was just amazingly so wrong and misinformed that I don't even know what to say. The same person is still busy telling us how Apple isn't very successful in innovation 7 years later in 2014. You have to love the persistence and unwavering dislike of Apple.

More than anything else it's a good reminder that how much of a disturbance the iPhone was to the industry as a whole and how underrated it was by many. It really became the dividing line where the modern mobile operating system as we know it today shows up in the scene and made the likes of Symbian and Windows Mobile old and cranky.

Thanks for that. Good summary, not too long for those with short attention spans. I can see them with their fingers in their ears going lalalalalalalala......and their faces going purple...eugh

 

[Macyourdayy]

They will never agree with you. They will forever repeat that you don't have file system access, that you can't use another launcher, that you don't have SD cards ..... and so on.
No matter if you don't need any file system access to actually USE AND ELABORATE your data, no matter if typical android user out of geek forums doesn't know what a launcher is and he is just using the stock UI provided by Samsung/lg/HTC/whatever including tons of bloatware pre-installed on most of their devices, no matter if sd card support is awful in many cases .... They will always point out things you can't do on you iPhone ....

I suspect the lack of integrated sd access is dictated by the media companies, just like drm is. For apple to have have access to the latest and widest range of media, they were probably required to limit easy access to pirated media, unlike certain other countries, where "would like you like hundreds of stolen movies and songs with that on an SD card?" is standard.

 

[Shanghaichica]

It's not only that .... In android when you start using sd you'll finish with a mess: part of app in the internal memory, part in the sd. And you can't move any app to the sd .....
I read an article on ars technica where the speak about problem with KitKat and sd support.

Yeah I said that in a post somewhere. It gets messy and not all apps can be moved. I'd rather just gave the internal memory that I need.

----------

lol a mess...why do you need to move any apps to the SD card?

In earlier Android phones I've had to do this but not in anything in the last two years.

Most modern Android phones have plenty of room for onboard apps in the internal memory.

Because it's not that easy to get more than 16GB of internal storage with certain phones. For example in my country, it's only the note 3 that you can get a 32GB version from the carriers. I have an S4 (soon to be sold). My carrier only have the 16GB variet and that only gives me 8GB of actual space to use. It's not enough for me. I like to store a lot of media on my phone.

----------

HTC One
Samsung Note 3

That was off the top of my head.

It's not so much about defending Android as much I object to people making up nonsense and lies. No phone or vendor is perfect but to make up stuff to bad mouth them because it's not your phone of choice is just poor.

In my country the carriers rarely offer 64GB/32GB variants of android phones. I don't want to have to go ordering/importing phones from other countries. Why sould I when I can get a 64GB iPhone direct from my carrier or go to my local apple store and get what I want.

 

[fredaroony]

In my country the carriers rarely offer 64GB/32GB variants of android phones. I don't want to have to go ordering/importing phones from other countries. Why sould I when I can get a 64GB iPhone direct from my carrier or go to my local apple store and get what I want.

You can do whatever makes you happy and if the iPhone suits you the best, and you can afford it, then it's your best option.

Personally, the SD card was never an issue for me in any phone I have ever had.

 

[Dviper27]

Best introduction of all time. Seems like yesterday...

 

[fertilized-egg]

I suspect the lack of integrated sd access is dictated by the media companies, just like drm is.

I doubt it. It's probably more to do with the margin and the simplicity. First and foremost I'm sure Apple loves and wants to keep the extra margin by selling higher storage version. However that can't be the whole story as there are Android phones and Windows Phones without SD card access even when they do not have high capacity options.

My speculation is it's simply more elegant and easier to make phones without the SD card option. It will add a fair amount of complications into the software and the battery management because there are so many factors to be taken into account. Also it's an extra opening in the casing and more space taken up by the slot.

Also for Apple it's another complication in the user experience. They wouldnt want user having to manage the storage across separate partitions or worry about how one app can have its core files and asset files split into different locations, or having to make the system deal with the missing files when the SD card is corrupted or replaced.

There are numerous apps in the App Store that can work as a stand alone manager for the media files and play all sorts of files, including the codecs that are almost strictly used amongst pirated media viewers. I don't think Apple's intention regarding the SD card is really about controlling the media files.

Personally, the SD card was never an issue for me in any phone I have ever had.

I have used non-iPhones both with and without the SD card slot. When I had most trouble with a phone, other than a couple of failing SD cards, was going through the customization of the original Galaxy S. It was notorious for having certain types of lags and to fix the issue there were community made lag fixing patches that changed the partition type, but depending on the patch types it'd cause some stability issues and also it means very little space for app installations.

 

[MacAddict1978]

So who is changing the game?

In 2007 Apple introduced a keyboardless touchscreen iPhone... and everyone followed with their own touchscreen phones.

In 2010 Apple introduced the iPad... and everyone followed with their own tablets.

If you think Apple has done nothing for the last 7 years... what the hell has everyone else done?

Where's their game changer?

Apple innovated what other people had already made and made it better.... but to be fair, you can't credit apple for inventing or creating any of these things.

Tablets already existed (they just sucked), smart phone & touch screen devices already existed (they just sucked).... Even apps weren't an apple thing on the iphone.... other phones had long had them (they just sucked)

Apples innovation has never been in creating a "new" category of ANY kind. They innovate categories and make them better.

Even the iPod wasn't the first mp3 player.... there were plenty before the iPod. And even the iPod wasn't revolutionary until iTunes... and it didn't explode until it became cross compatible with pcs. (Remember when the ipod hardware was even different for mac and pc?)

So I don't think it's fair to slap apple for not inventing anything new in the past 7 years. This has never been their forte. Apple hasn't invented much of anything in the past 50 years.... but they sure innovated and made crap tech tech people would sell their first born for.

 

[Ashish3]

I remember, the most disappointing thing about that keynote was people's facial expressions when Steve said the word 'AT&T'.

How can that be, when it was Cingular, when this keynote happened 7 years ago? AT&T was bought by Cingular later and they ditched their Cingular name and kept AT&T.

 

[kdarling]

The myth is, that it is only a myth. That there were smartphones with touch screens well before the iPhone. ...

Wrong topic. My "it's a myth" reply was to your broad claim that:

the whole Personal Computer industry wouldn't exist without the Macintosh and the Apple II for that matter.

The personal computer industry did, and would still, exist even if Apple had never begun.

You are not the inventor of something, only because you sell the most of it.

I agree, but tell that to those who think Apple should get sole credit for inventing things simply because they sold theirs first or most.

The TRS-80 is as much the first personal computer, as Tablet-PCs are the first tablets.

No one said the TRS-80 was the first personal computer. It was one of several, including the Apple II, that came out at the same time. It was just far more responsible for ushering in the home computer revolution, since it was more affordable and more widely available.

Likewise, Apple was responsible for ushering in the affordable tablet craze, even though they were not the first to implement a touch friendly consumer model. (The 2000 Freepad probably takes that honor.)

Why, because the control freaks at Verizon passed on it?

When Apple approached Verizon in mid 2005, they had no prototypes or even a clear idea of what kind of device they were going to make. Heck, they were still using trackwheel iPods as UI testers. Apple didn't want to allow Verizon's sales partners (like Walmart and Best Buy) to carry their phone. Apple wanted customers to pay full price, while also taking their monthly subsidy stipend. Later, the ill fated ROKR came out.

Small wonder Verizon was not that interested in an Apple phone, and politely said no. (And ironic that later on, Apple did allow sales through those same stores, and also let customers use their subsidy.)

Even AT&T (Cingular)... who had known about Apple's plans to make a phone for a longer time... since early 2005... did not rush to make a deal. They didn't sign a contract with Apple until mid 2006, well into the iPhone development and over a year after Verizon first declined a deal.

By that late date, Apple must've been eager to sign with a large carrier. No wonder Apple agreed to unheard of terms like a multi-year exclusive, and AT&T input on what apps could use their network or had to use WiFI.

 

[sniffies]

How can that be, when it was Cingular, when this keynote happened 7 years ago? AT&T was bought by Cingular later and they ditched their Cingular name and kept AT&T.

I'm pretty sure, the company was already under the name AT&T back then.

 

[fertilized-egg]

By that late date, Apple must've been eager to sign with a large carrier. No wonder Apple agreed to unheard of terms like a multi-year exclusive, and AT&T input on what apps could use their network or had to use WiFI.

That sounds like twisting the truth a bit. Carriers always meddled with the network usage of phones and some found it amazing Apple convinced AT&T to take such gamble on stressing the network by allowing so much.

Mike Lazaridis, the former CEO of RIM/BlackBerry, was directly quoted that he was shocked Apple somehow managed to get AT&T to allow full browsing because he thought it'd collapse the network and AT&T had not allowed that prior to the iPhone. That's somewhat contradictory to the narrative you're painting, which is Apple getting desperate and giving into all demands by AT&T. Article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ackberry-is-failing/article14563602/?page=all

Perhaps you're right. Apple was so pitiful and in such a dire state that AT&T felt they would be generous and give Apple so much special treatments no one else had gotten.

 

[kdarling]

That sounds like twisting truth a bit. Carriers always meddled with the network usage of phones and some found it amazing Apple convinced AT&T to take such gamble on stressing the network by allowing so much.

It would've been quite different on Verizon. For one thing, by 2006 every Verizon smartphone had 3G.

Verizon's user contract also explicitly allowed streaming video, something which AT&T rejected for several years... as their 3G network at the time was far behind Verizon's in coverage and tower backhaul.

Mike Lazaridis, the former CEO of RIM/BlackBerry, was directly quoted that he was shocked at Apple somehow managed to get get AT&T to allow full browsing because he thought it'd collapse the network. That's somewhat contradictory to the narrative you're painting, which is Apple getting desperate and bowing at AT&T's whim.

Here's Cingular's reaction, after Jobs bragged that Apple got "special treatment":

The comments from Jobs triggered a surprisingly sharp rebuttal from Cingular national distribution president Glenn Lurie, who flatly denied that any concessions were made and implied that Jobs' assertions were little more than posturing. "I'm not sure we gave anything," Lurie stated. "I think (Apple) bent a lot."

Lurie similarly drew attention to the necessarily exclusive multi-year contract Apple signed with the American cell service that gives iPhone customers the "luxury" of requiring a Cingular subscription.

If you have the upper hand, you don't give a four year exclusive. That has to go down as one of the worst decisions ever, since it allowed Android a long, unopposed growth period on the other carriers.

 

[fertilized-egg]

To quote Cingular, after Jobs had claimed he got "special treatment":

That sounds mostly like a PR statement to counter Jobs' statement that made AT&T look weak, in other words it's about as trustable as Jobs' statement that Apple got "special treatment" and has no substance in it. On the contrary the quote from Mike Lazaridis is very specific to what was allowed that hadn't been allowed and Lazaridis was even correct in his assessment as well.

In short, do you still claim that it's "unheard of" that carriers changed the requirements and network usage demands of a phone? Wasn't the iPhone the least touched the phone of them all and, if we are to believe Lazaridis, that at least got some special treatments?

If you have the upper hand, you don't give a four year exclusive. That has to go down as one of the worst deals ever, since it allowed Android a very long growth period on the other carriers, with no competition.

Sure you do if you're the new player in the market and the carrier promises serious marketing. Certainly you have a point that Apple didn't have the upper hand, but you're going above and beyond that to make Apple look as if they were in a very weak spot to negotiate. The reality is that for a new player in the industry completely dominated by carriers, Apple did a remarkably good job of getting most of what they wanted and the price was the exclusivity. If Apple bent a lot, then AT&T bent backward nearly breaking their back (and their network)

And it's not even close to being one of worst deals ever. Android's true power was its complete domination of overseas market and the low and mid end smartphones, and those were largely unaffected by the AT&T deal. Heck even BlackBerry did fine for a while even with AT&T despite iPhone. With or without the Verizon deal, the feature phone market would've been replaced by smartphones of all type, and it's highly unlikely Apple could've filled that role. It was the annhilation of Symbian, Windows Mobile and eventually BlackBerry that were done by Android. That would've happened regardless whether Apple signed the exclusivity with AT&T or not.

 

[Gudi]

My "it's a myth" reply was to your broad claim that: The personal computer industry did, and would still, exist even if Apple had never begun.

June 29, 1975 Wozniak tested his first working prototype, displaying a few letters and running sample programs. It was the first time in history that a character displayed on a TV screen was generated by a home computer. (Wikipedia)

If what he claims is true and Steve Wozniak was the first one to see a letter appear on screen right after he hit a key, than no – home computers would never have become personal without Apple, which wasn't founded until a year later. Nevertheless, Woz gives a clear date for when he did this keyboard input/screen output thing on a home computer. You must agree that this is pretty basic functionality. Unless someone can claim to have been earlier, this is the very first PC.

No one said the TRS-80 was the first personal computer. It was one of several, including the Apple II, that came out at the same time.

Things don't just happen at the same time. One is always the inspiration for all the others. The Galaxy Gear came after seeing the Pebble, not the other way around. Android and iOS didn't just coincidental came out at the same time.

As for tablets, Apple was not the first to implement a touch friendly consumer model. The 2000 Freepad probably takes that honor.

No it doesn't. The Freepad was running Suse Linux with Opera as the only additional software. Which is classic PC software. The x86-compatible Geode system-on-a-chip microprocessors however has the characteristics of mobile hardware. Yet the rest of the system doesn't. The battery cells are still cylindrical not flattened out and the main board looks like in a laptop.

But the most important thing missing is an Xcode equivalent IDE with CocoaTouch APIs to write apps for the Freepad. Without that its more firmware than software. You can run all kinds of x86 legacy apps, but that makes it a Tabelt-PC not a Tablet. So far only iOS and Android have convinced developers to rewrite apps for mobile. Anything that isn't either iOS or Android, also isn't a Tablet.

 

[Renzatic]

June 29, 1975 Wozniak tested his first working prototype, displaying a few letters and running sample programs. It was the first time in history that a character displayed on a TV screen was generated by a home computer. (Wikipedia)

Here you go.

Steve Wozniak was only one of many people working in the exact same field at the exact same time. You'd have to make a stretch of epic proportions to claim he invented not only the first hardware to be considered a personal computer, but the entire concept.

No doubt the guy was a genius, but hell...he wasn't the only one.

...and if I really wanted to give you a nice ego blow, I'd also add that the Macintosh wasn't even the first successful GUI based system released. In fact, the first Mac only sold decently for its first year, while the Apple II continued selling in much larger numbers. It was actually the Amiga 500 that became the first widespread commercial success story. The UI wasn't as pretty as what you'd get on the Mac and Lisa, but the hardware was a thousand times more capable than any computer of its time.

Apple didn't invent the PC world, and were hardly the only trailblazers in the industry.

Anything that isn't either iOS or Android, also isn't a Tablet.

You can't redefine definitions to fit your argument. A tablet is a tablet, regardless of if its running Windows 8, Windows RT, Symbian, WebOS, iOS, or Android. And what is a tablet? A computer that is mainly interacted with via a touch based interface.

Because what's the biggest difference between an ARM and x86? Not much, really. They both use the exact same parts in the exact same way. There's nothing particularly special about a tablet that makes it considerably different from a traditional PC from a purely technical standpoint.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Apple innovated what other people had already made and made it better.... but to be fair, you can't credit apple for inventing or creating any of these things.

Tablets already existed (they just sucked), smart phone & touch screen devices already existed (they just sucked).... Even apps weren't an apple thing on the iphone.... other phones had long had them (they just sucked)

Apples innovation has never been in creating a "new" category of ANY kind. They innovate categories and make them better.

Even the iPod wasn't the first mp3 player.... there were plenty before the iPod. And even the iPod wasn't revolutionary until iTunes... and it didn't explode until it became cross compatible with pcs. (Remember when the ipod hardware was even different for mac and pc?)

So I don't think it's fair to slap apple for not inventing anything new in the past 7 years. This has never been their forte. Apple hasn't invented much of anything in the past 50 years.... but they sure innovated and made crap tech tech people would sell their first born for.

I was replying to someone else who said Apple hasn't done anything new in 7 years. Didn't you see the 3 times I quoted user Dirtfarmer?

He is the one that believes that... not me.

Yes... I know Apple did not "invent" the smartphone or tablet. That's why I said Apple "introduced" the iPhone and iPad and then everyone else followed in that direction.

Dirtfarmer said the iPad was not a game-changer. I disagreed. Again... I know Apple did not "invent" the tablet... but the iPad certainly changed the course of the tablet industry.

That's why I replied to Dirtfarmer in the first place. It was his claim that the iPad was not a game-changer that prompted my reply to him.

I never said anything about "invention" or "creation" in my comment... so I don't know why you're giving me the speech about Apple's innovation techniques.

Go back and read my comment and pay attention to the quotes from Dirtfarmer that initiated my response.

 

[MacSince1990]

Best product introduction of all time. Bar none. Steve Jobs was the Thomas Edison of our generation.

The irony in this statement is fantastic

What is so special about a 7-year anniversary? Are you going to do this every year?

 

[SlCKB0Y]

What were the android guys doing?

Image

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

The interesting thing here is that the release of the SDK with support for touch and large screens, as well as the release of this video and hardware reference design took place one month before the infamous photograph of the BlackBerry-esque device. This means that Google wasn't working with just one prototype, but several, which really shouldn't be a surprise at all, if you think about what Google wanted Android to be.

 

[Max(IT)]

Apple innovated what other people had already made and made it better.... but to be fair, you can't credit apple for inventing or creating any of these things.

Tablets already existed (they just sucked), smart phone & touch screen devices already existed (they just sucked).... Even apps weren't an apple thing on the iphone.... other phones had long had them (they just sucked)

Apples innovation has never been in creating a "new" category of ANY kind. They innovate categories and make them better.

Even the iPod wasn't the first mp3 player.... there were plenty before the iPod. And even the iPod wasn't revolutionary until iTunes... and it didn't explode until it became cross compatible with pcs. (Remember when the ipod hardware was even different for mac and pc?)

So I don't think it's fair to slap apple for not inventing anything new in the past 7 years. This has never been their forte. Apple hasn't invented much of anything in the past 50 years.... but they sure innovated and made crap tech tech people would sell their first born for.

Am I the only one thinking this discussion about "Apple didn't invent" are silly ?
You can INNOVATE without inventing anything !
In modern life, it's hard to invent anything, speaking about consumer electronics devices. What can Apple invent ? A time machine ? A teletransporter device ?
What Apple did is take an idea, from someone else maybe, and develop it to an entirely new level, make it usable and desirable.
This also is INNOVATION.
iPhone was an innovation, and iPod was an innovation, and iPad also .... Great innovations in the last few years.

 

[iSayuSay]

Am I the only one thinking this discussion about "Apple didn't invent" are silly ?
You can INNOVATE without inventing anything !
In modern life, it's hard to invent anything, speaking about consumer electronics devices. What can Apple invent ? A time machine ? A teletransporter device ?
What Apple did is take an idea, from someone else maybe, and develop it to an entirely new level, make it usable and desirable.
This also is INNOVATION.
iPhone was an innovation, and iPod was an innovation, and iPad also .... Great innovations in the last few years.

Hence, "Apple didn't invent" is not silly. You said it yourself, Apple takes an idea from someone else and make it better.

In that case, yes Apple does not "invent" smartphone, tablet, nor MP3 player. So, what's wrong with that statement?

 

[haruhiko]

How history has been re-written by Samsung over these years.

 

[Technarchy]

How history has been re-written by Samsung over these years.

Not Samsung. Samsung shills.

 

[davidbrummy]

At the time Palm and Blackberry basically ruled the smart phone market. The iPhone came a long and made everyone go "oh crap I guess we have to up our game".

 

[Renzatic]

At the time Palm and Blackberry basically ruled the smart phone market. The iPhone came a long and made everyone go "oh crap I guess we have to up our game".

That's exactly what it did. When I first saw the iPhone, I wasn't like "this is a watershed moment in the history of humanity, I've never seen anything like this in my entire life, and nothing will ever be the same again". It was more like "wow, Apple made a really cool and sleek smartphone". I was impressed with it, and instantly wanted one, but I didn't think it did anything completely unprecedented and brand spanking new. It just did a lot of stuff better.

I had been playing with touchscreens for awhile by that point. On screens at various banks, on some smartphones, and on my Nintendo DS. Multitouch was, to me, the next step up from that.

 

[haruhiko]

Before the iPhone I had never seen any smartphones that did photo zooming as fluid as the iPhone. None. That's THE most groundbreaking feature I liked in 2007. It was like magic. Apple perfected "the touchscreen phone". Many concepts in the iPhone wasn't the first, like the icon grid, but iPhone is truly the first phone that's built around finger controls - huge buttons, larger app icons and menu items, etc. However, ultimately it's the App Store that changed everything.