Gee...but I thought that each of the various iterations of Verizon's Droidphones was the next "iPhone killer."
Guess not.
Guess not.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Verizon Loses Ground to AT&T's iPhone as RIM and Palm Fade
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who is talking about the razor? I'm pretty sure there were blackberries and I know there were windows phones (cause I was resisting getting a PDA/phone combo for the longest time preferring a pure PDA). And I believe Palm as well.
The iPhone was not the first by far.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)
There's still plenty of dumbphones on the market. It's just that most of the profit and growth is in smartphones today.
Lesser Evets said:
There's still plenty of dumbphones on the market. It's just that most of the profit and growth is in smartphones today.
Agreed... iPhone was not the first smart phone. Apple just took a good thing and made it way better and sexy.
The thing I always hated about smart phones before my iPhone was how difficult and convoluted it was to do anything. Little attention to usability. It was more about cramming in features and let the user sort it out. Apple changed that mentality.
You can also rule out any phone with a stylus. You can lose it. That isn't smart.
The iphone was the real original smart phone as we know it. Before that, the so called smart phones were phones with some features. The features were nice but hardly differentiated them from the pack. Before the iphone came along, the game major selling point seemed to be the physical size of the phone more than anything.
I disagree. The so called smart phones before the iphone were not really smart phones in any sense compared to the iphone. I mean compared to phones of decades ago, the ability to send a text message would make a phone "smart" to some.
Steve Jobs talked about other smartphones in the 2007 intro to the iPhone (BlackBerry, Treo, Q and Nokia E62 were his examples of the competition)
So there were smart phones before the iPhone, even Apple thinks so. There is no real standard for what makes a "smartphone". But the term "smartphone" applies to the BlackBerry which was out there before the iPod. Just because Apple makes a better "smartphone" does not change the what that word means.
Last edited:
it was to me!
I have a bb bold for work, and I cannot use it (have not read the instruction book) other than to make calls. Web? You need to use the carrier's portal, in 2010! Maps? An insult. BB bold is pure crap when compared to the iPhone.
On the other hand, my three year old uses my iPhone and iPad with no problems. Yup, iPhone and now the ipad is the first true smart phone/computer for the rest of us.
The iPhone is the first in a generation of "Smarter Phones" and is still the best of that generation. The previous generation of smartphone was usually defined by something that provided a full keyboard and a web browser with wireless data access and the ability to install applications (e.g.: you could get a GPS turn-by-turn navigation app on these devices with a bluetooth GPS receiver or one connected via the dock connector on them).
Palm's entry into the previous generation of smartphones was accomplished by merging the Palm Pilot with a mobile phone (phone was just another application). RIM and Microsoft rose up to compete with Palm bringing us Blackberry and Windows Mobile, respectively. Then the traditional mobile phone manufacturers tried to play catch-up and develop their own "smartphone operating systems".
Eventually Apple took the same approach as Palm. They merged the iPod with a mobile phone, but they added a revolutionary multitouch interface to make the stylus a thing of the past (the same multitouch interface they had been working on for a future "tablet" product that would eventually become the iPad). Now once again the competition is scrambling to catch up.
There are only two ways the competition will stand a chance here.....
1) Apple does what Palm did and becomes complacent.
2) Competition innovates and creates a new kind of mobile phone interface to change the entire game and gets there before Apple does (similar to multitouch replacing the stylus)
Anyway, of this generation of "smarter" phones, iPhone is the first and still the best (in my opinion). We won't find out how dominate it is until we see it available on all carriers. I'll bet that Android phone manufacturers are not nearly as optimistic as Android fans are with regards to a Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint iPhone release. I think they see a potentially huge hit to their sales on the horizon.
Sounds like Android *ziiiing =D
No, I kid I kid. Android is still leaps beyond what BB ever was.
RIM is dying a slow and steady death. It would be surprising to see RIM either still doing business or not purchased in five years.
I am not a BB fan by any stretch of imagination but RIM is doing the right things - they are just very slow. The PlayBook looks very interesting from a strategy standpoint - huge developer potential, it has got everything Android has and more. And looking at the demos - they seems to definitely have got the UI right.
Once dual core smart phones start rolling out - that's any time now - RIM is going to put the PlayBook OS on them and it would be a very strong competitor on both Enterprise and Consumer fronts. They get security right - which no one else does. That's a boon for Enterprise. For consumers the new OS has lot of potential in terms of media, great multi tasking, stability etc.
The real loser is Nokia. They have no strategy - not one that looks promising at least.
Please don't speak for me. I know what smart phone I want and it's not made by Apple.
Very true...iPhone is completely intuitive. An avowed Apple hater at work tried out my iPhone...didn't want to admit how much he liked it...but I could tell he was captivated by it yet wouldn't admit it. Sure...it's not for everyone. Thank God for choices...but if I have another person come trotting up to me with their latest Droid 'iPhone killer" exclaiming, "It's just like an iPhone..." I think I am going to scream. "It's just like an iPhone..." BUT IT'S NOT AN IPHONE.
If you want an iPhone, get one...if not, shut up about the iPhone and putting it down.
Another of my coworkers pulled out his Droid the other day, telling me how much better (bigger) the screen was, yadda, yadda, yadda....His DULL screen...sluggish performance...and non-intuitive interface had him eating his words in a few minutes....but to each his own.
Steve Jobs talked about other smartphones in the 2007 intro to the iPhone (BlackBerry, Treo, Q and Nokia E62 were his examples of the competition)
So there were smart phones before the iPhone, even Apple thinks so. There is no real standard for what makes a "smartphone". But the term "smartphone" applies to the BlackBerry which was out there before the iPod. Just because Apple makes a better "smartphone" does not change the what that word means.
Well I disagree with Steve Jobs then. In my opinion the phones prior to the iphone were no where near being smart phones.
I sure hope the rumors of a Verizon iPhone are true, because it would be nice to have an iPhone competitor to AT&T.
lol, no.
I had an iPhone, got rid of it for a Nexus One and haven't been happier. It's not envy. I'm currently with AT&T (and satisfied customer of theirs), out of contract, and have 200 bucks to spend. Believe me, if I wanted an iPhone I could get one today. But I don't want one.
I don't think I'd have an iPhone if it didn't have the iPod app.
So if Apple didn't go into the mobile phone market there would not be any smartphones?
So if Apple didn't go into the mobile phone market there would not be any smartphones?
It's a bit ridiculous, isn't it. It's like saying the Model T wasn't a car because a better car came out after it.
no choice
Just because I bought an iPhone doesn't mean I like AT&T more than Verizon. An iPhone on Verizon's network would be a huge improvement, at least where I live (DC area).
The industry needs to give consumers more choice, to open up the competition. Standardize the networks so that phones can work on any network. And regulate signal strength - hold these companies to higher standards.
If you could use an iPhone on any network, which would you choose?
Just because I bought an iPhone doesn't mean I like AT&T more than Verizon. An iPhone on Verizon's network would be a huge improvement, at least where I live (DC area).
The industry needs to give consumers more choice, to open up the competition. Standardize the networks so that phones can work on any network. And regulate signal strength - hold these companies to higher standards.
If you could use an iPhone on any network, which would you choose?
You have no idea what you're talking about. First smart phone? PalmOS based smart phones were around several years before the iPhone, including the various Palm Treos, and my great old Kyocera 7135. There were also Windows Mobile based phones.
I'm a big Apple fan now, with my family all on iPhones and all Macs at home, but that doesn't mean I've become a mindless fanboy. There's lots wrong with iPhones and Macs and Apple in general. It's just much better than the alternatives.