7 ms·

Steve Jobs single-handedly restructured the mobile industry

82 points by prosa 16y ago

TotlolRon 16y ago
Steve Jobs single-handedly restructured the mobile industry as thousands of Apple employees watched in awe wondering what have they been doing all this time.
- NathanKP 16y ago
  Right, Steve Jobs may have come up with an idea, but to make it work thousands of other employees had to design circuit boards, write code, and do the hard part. Even as a fan of Mac products I think Steve Jobs gets too much credit. The idea is the easy part, making it work is the part that should be respected. Even with respect to the ideas themselves I wonder how much of the iPhone, the app store, and other innovations were envisioned by Steve Jobs personally, and how much of it was thought up by other smart engineers and technicians working for Apple? For example the iconic Apple power adapter is credited to Steve Jobs, yet there are 12 names on the patent. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=C-IOAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=C-IOAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...) So I have to wonder which engineers came up with which aspects.
  - aditya42 16y ago
    If you think the idea is the easy part, I question anything else that you might say. Also, ideas are evolutionary. Go watch Steve Jobs' D8 interview. See how the iPhone didn't start as a phone, and then tell me Jobs doesn't deserve as much credit as he does. Remember that this isn't about the iPhone as a device, but the device as an industry mindset changer. An idea goes beyond just the idea, and Jobs dared to envision and execute a strategy that put the phone before the carrier. If what Jobs did isn't that great, then why didn't anyone else do it?
    - jamesbritt 16y ago
      "If you think the idea is the easy part, I question anything else that you might say." Cue HN permathread on "Ideas are worthless" ...
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      Ah, not to talk down Mr. Jobs but over in Europe regulation has meant that cellphones were carrier-independent devices years before the appearance of the iPhone. That's partly how Nokia's brand got to be so strong. I think Jobs' achievement with the iPhone was to look at existing technology like tablets and say 'look, these really are awesome, but they're limited to simple tasks. Cellphones are awesome because they're so portable and popular, but a bunch of buttons is an overly complex interface for the sort of tasks most people want to do with their phones. We can and we will shrink tablets down to pocket size and market them as phones instead of computers.'
      - CountSessine 16y ago
        >Ah, not to talk down Mr. Jobs but over in Europe regulation has meant that cellphones were carrier-independent devices years before the appearance of the iPhone. That's partly how Nokia's brand got to be so strong. And this is the way that it should be - but it doesn't happen without sensible consumer protection laws.
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    > do the hard part Relatively speaking: any moron can design a circuit board. What I mean is that, given a set of inputs and desired outputs, there are probably tens of thousands of engineers around the world who could design the iPod's circuit board. Given a set of design principles and a vision, there are probably hundreds or even thousands of designers around the world who could have come up with something similar to the iPhone. But how many people can - see that vision and - gather together the right minds and organize them in such a way that they implement it? Most events have compound causes, but Steve Jobs was probably the biggest member of the cause for the iPhone event.
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      Nobody said he didn't deserve a lot of credit. It's the 'single-handedly' they are objecting to.
      - houseabsolute 16y ago
        In that case, I'd say it qualifies as arguing over semantics since "CEO does X" is an oft-used stand-in for "CEO leads company to do X."
        ojbyrne 16y ago
        Semantics perhaps, but the phrasing was particularly off-putting in this article. I know it was the first thing I noticed. I don't think I'd want to work for Chris Dixon.
        houseabsolute 16y ago
        I am impressed by your making that determination from a single article. That kind of decisiveness can be useful. Or maybe you have other data.
        ojbyrne 16y ago
        His posts appear regularly here, and I was being polite.
  - aditya42 16y ago
    Another example of good leadership vs bad leadership is to see what's happening at Microsoft. No dearth of smart people and engineers over there either.
    - pvdm 16y ago
      why Bill Gates hand over the reins to Ballmer, I never understood.
  - forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
    I don't think it is "ideas",it is knowledge and experience, Steve has a lot of that. You are making a fallacy, it is not ideas like I just dream and there it is:ideas, it is ideas like newton calculus ideas as a result of all their life working on them. Steve is trained in figure it out what people need (marketing), materializing it and testing in the real world. Not as easy at it sounds because of unconscious incompetence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence I have seen companies with superb scientist and technical people struggle and fail because of bad managers, like a yacht with 700hp engines and broken rudder.
  - Tamerlin 16y ago
    "Even as a fan of Mac products I think Steve Jobs gets too much credit." I couldn't agree more. Jobs epitomizes everything that so many of us detest about big companies, so I have to wonder why anyone here actually likes or even respects him. He doesn't invent squat, or developed any hardware, written any software... so why is it that it's ok for Jobs to claim sole credit for everything Apple produces? At the same time, Microsoft not only bends over backward to take care of 3rd party software developers (most of the time), Microsoft also explicitly gives credit to the developers that wrote the software. When Jobs released the mac, he had the mac programmed to announce that Jobs was its creator... never mind all of the people at Xerox PARC who actually invented all of the technology inside, including the UI. And when Gates announced Windows 95, he brought out the development team and gave them credit. So who's the better person? Obviously not Jobs.
- jsz0 16y ago
  I don't think anyone wants to discount the work of the engineers but using the Microsoft Courier as a counter example we can see how engineers alone cannot force a product out the door. I remember reading an article a year or two ago about the iPhone development process and at some stage early in the game Jobs had to make the choice between what we know the iPhone to be today or what was a lot closer to an iPod Classic that could make phone calls. Obviously he made the right choice.
  - ojbyrne 16y ago
    It hasn't occurred to you that many articles are shaped by PR departments?
    - aswanson 16y ago
      Sorry ojbyrne, accidental downmod. Meant to upmod this damned phone interface is horrible for HN.
Hovertruck 16y ago
I doubt I'm smart enough to work for Apple, but I doubt I'd ever want to. Why? Everything the company does is something done "single-handedly" by Steve Jobs. Steve may be the driving force of the company and have great insight into what people want/need/etc. But he has a great team to actually implement what he wants, and Apple as a company are the ones who restructured an industry.
- fname 16y ago
  Maybe someone can answer this better than I, but does Steve Jobs name go on every Apple patent?
  - NathanKP 16y ago
    Here is an article which lists at least some of the Steve Jobs patents: http://technologizer.com/2009/05/28/the-patents-of-steve-jobs/ http://technologizer.com/2009/05/28/the-patents-of-steve-job...
    - Enlightenment 16y ago
      I heard that Steve Jobs has patent pending on "How To Be A Douchebag".
  - cpr 16y ago
    Not at all. There are lots of Apple patents without his name. A good friend of mine retired (an Apple Fellow at the end of his career in graphics) with a good bunch of patents with his name on them (along with many others in various groupings). I don't think Jobs was on most of them.
- aditya42 16y ago
  > Everything the company does is something done "single-handedly" by Steve Jobs. Would you like to see a rolling list of the names of all Apple engineers every time you turned your iPhone on or off?
  - 16y ago
watty 16y ago
Generalizations suck, I don't think the main reason for the iPhone success was because they had a "closed system". "The people griping about Apple’s “closed system” are generally people who are new to the industry and didn’t realize how bad it was before."
- megablast 16y ago
  Not only can you not read, but completely missed the point. Apples system is closed compared to Android, but it is open compared to what came before, for most phones. The carriers would lock down handsets so they couldn't use bluetooth, couldn't download ringtones except from the carrier, couldn't plug into your computer. They would not start selling a phone unless it conformed to what they wanted it to do.
  - CountSessine 16y ago
    I'll be voted down for this on HN, but unforunately Android is reversing a lot of this progress. Buy the average Android handset and it has all sorts of stupid carrier modifications that no end-user would ever have requested. It's like the crap-ware that PCs have installed with them straight from the factory, except that you have to do a lot more work to get rid of it. The iPhone is free of this because Apple's success let them give AT&T the finger when it came to carrier modifications. As the iPhone loses ground to Android in the market, expect the pressure on Apple to mount. Would Apple ever have an AT&T splash screen on the iPhone? They sure wouldn't want to, but if that's the only way to keep the iPhone on the market, it'll happen. Who knows how much further it'll go...
jamesbritt 16y ago
Wasn't this already happening with the Blackberry? If you needed a Blackberry for business, then you picked the carrier who let you use one.
- danudey 16y ago
  Are there carriers in the US that didn't offer blackberries? All the carriers in Canada did, and have for years before the iPhone announcement.
wvenable 16y ago
> In the US, before the iPhone, the carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile) had an ironclad grip on the rest of the value chain – particularly, handset makers and app makers. This is like one of those myths where if you say it enough time, people start to believe it. There were tons of smartphones available before the iPhone that let you install any software that you wanted. My first smartphone was the Sony Ericsson P800 and it was released in 2002! I had to change carriers to use to, too. The original iPhone was a great device with a wonderful interface, but it wasn't the invention of the smartphone. It did, however, sell the mainstream consumer market on smartphones. (The business market was long sold on the Blackberry). The author isn't completely wrong -- the explosive growth of smartphones (and not just iPhones) has completely changed the equation. Before, everyone was trying to get on the carriers dumb phones but even if they succeeded it would mostly be a waste of time -- the phones were just too dumb and nobody cared about the crappy experience they provided. There is way too much credit to Apple and Steve Jobs here.
- dieterrams 16y ago
  You might be able to install any software you want, but the on-phone app stores and what they carry have been controlled by the carriers. That's the primary distribution channel, and the one largely responsible for providing app makers with the financial incentive to make apps.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    Before the iPhone, smartphones didn't have on-phone app stores. You downloaded/purchased your applications off the web just like you do on your desktop. There was a good market for software for smartphones with lots of developers and distributors. The article would have us believe that none of that existed before Steve Jobs but that's just not true. Dumb phones had carrier stores (and their firmware heavily customized). However, nobody I know has ever bought app for their regular 'dumb' mobile phone. Even the apps that were for free (like music players) were so horrible that they usually went unused.
    - dieterrams 16y ago
clark-kent 16y ago
Before the iPhone, smartphones i used were not locked down. They were open like the desktop. You could download and install anything you want on them. But very often some app will drain your battery or crash your phone. Apple had to lock down their phone to improve user experience. Pre-iPhone you install apps at your own risk. That was my experience with Windows Mobile.
blhack 16y ago
I'm sorry, the iPhone is a neat phone, but it is far from revolutionary. Hello...palm pilots? I had a palm m100, then m105, then m500, then zire 71 in the early 2000s and there were thousands and thousands of apps for them. Installing them meant connecting it to my PC and transfering them (love that twee del DEE......TWEE del do sound it would make). Putting a cell phone into a PDA was an obvious move. Apple didn't invent it, they were just the first to gain mainstream popularity.
cheald 16y ago
Apple did a lot to start to bring the US up to speed with the rest of the world in terms of mobile technology, yes, and it certainly deserves praise for the success that the iPhone has been, but what Apple provided was a usable platform. "Smartphones" before then had been slow, ugly, generally not that sexy, and it's hard to excite people about your mobile software when they aren't even excited about their hardware. The iPhone did do a lot to help bring mobile software to the average consumer, but the notion that it did it in a vacuum is silly. There were lots of technologies that paved the way for the iPhone to be a success before it. Apple did not singlehandedly invent the concept of the smartphone, nor was it the first to introduce usable mobile computing platforms to consumers. RIM was doing that long before Apple ever had a thought of entering the mobile game. The author simultaneously praises Apple for the single-handed creation/salvation of an entire industry, and then turns around and says "Android's only great because it's stood on the shoulders of giants". Boy, that's a convenient bit of selective application of history. > Yes, Apple has rejected some apps for seemingly arbtrary or selfish reasons and imposed aggressive controls on developers. But the iPhone also paved the way for Android and a new wave of handset development. The people griping about Apple’s "closed system" are generally people who are new to the industry and didn’t realize how bad it was before. Now this is just silly. The people that gripe about Apple's "closed system" are people who know how bad it was, and are frustrated that Apple is repeating many of the "closed system" problems that made mobile software so terrible in the first place. The iPhone is a marvelous device, but it's completely disingenuous to praise the iPhone for bringing accessibility to a "closed market" and then in the same breath to hand-wave its own closed nature away. It's better than the previous iterations; that doesn't make its iteration "best". The people who are frustrated with the closed nature of the platform are people who have tasted how good an accessible platform can be, and who are frustrated at the roadblocks that Apple has placed in their way. I love the iPhone - it's a marvelous piece of hardware, and I absolutely acknowledge that it thoroughly changed the landscape of mobile consumer computing in the US, but I own an Android phone because Apple's policies make me hesitate to buy into a platform that is locked down and guarded by one man's whims, or to financially support a company that is so xenophobic and who actively and aggressively stifles competition. I own an Android phone not because I forget how bad older-school mobile software was (to write, distribute, obtain, run, the whole pipeline), but because I remember clearly how bad the old system was, and to have a phone in my hand that I can do just nearly anything I want with is a very welcome relief and advancement from the mobile platforms of yore.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

82 points by prosa 16y ago

Steve Jobs single-handedly restructured the mobile industry as thousands of Apple employees watched in awe wondering what have they been doing all this time.

NathanKP 16y ago
Right, Steve Jobs may have come up with an idea, but to make it work thousands of other employees had to design circuit boards, write code, and do the hard part. Even as a fan of Mac products I think Steve Jobs gets too much credit. The idea is the easy part, making it work is the part that should be respected. Even with respect to the ideas themselves I wonder how much of the iPhone, the app store, and other innovations were envisioned by Steve Jobs personally, and how much of it was thought up by other smart engineers and technicians working for Apple? For example the iconic Apple power adapter is credited to Steve Jobs, yet there are 12 names on the patent. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=C-IOAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=C-IOAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...) So I have to wonder which engineers came up with which aspects.
- aditya42 16y ago
  If you think the idea is the easy part, I question anything else that you might say. Also, ideas are evolutionary. Go watch Steve Jobs' D8 interview. See how the iPhone didn't start as a phone, and then tell me Jobs doesn't deserve as much credit as he does. Remember that this isn't about the iPhone as a device, but the device as an industry mindset changer. An idea goes beyond just the idea, and Jobs dared to envision and execute a strategy that put the phone before the carrier. If what Jobs did isn't that great, then why didn't anyone else do it?
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    "If you think the idea is the easy part, I question anything else that you might say." Cue HN permathread on "Ideas are worthless" ...
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Ah, not to talk down Mr. Jobs but over in Europe regulation has meant that cellphones were carrier-independent devices years before the appearance of the iPhone. That's partly how Nokia's brand got to be so strong. I think Jobs' achievement with the iPhone was to look at existing technology like tablets and say 'look, these really are awesome, but they're limited to simple tasks. Cellphones are awesome because they're so portable and popular, but a bunch of buttons is an overly complex interface for the sort of tasks most people want to do with their phones. We can and we will shrink tablets down to pocket size and market them as phones instead of computers.'
    - CountSessine 16y ago
      >Ah, not to talk down Mr. Jobs but over in Europe regulation has meant that cellphones were carrier-independent devices years before the appearance of the iPhone. That's partly how Nokia's brand got to be so strong. And this is the way that it should be - but it doesn't happen without sensible consumer protection laws.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  > do the hard part Relatively speaking: any moron can design a circuit board. What I mean is that, given a set of inputs and desired outputs, there are probably tens of thousands of engineers around the world who could design the iPod's circuit board. Given a set of design principles and a vision, there are probably hundreds or even thousands of designers around the world who could have come up with something similar to the iPhone. But how many people can - see that vision and - gather together the right minds and organize them in such a way that they implement it? Most events have compound causes, but Steve Jobs was probably the biggest member of the cause for the iPhone event.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    Nobody said he didn't deserve a lot of credit. It's the 'single-handedly' they are objecting to.
    - houseabsolute 16y ago
      In that case, I'd say it qualifies as arguing over semantics since "CEO does X" is an oft-used stand-in for "CEO leads company to do X."
      - ojbyrne 16y ago
        Semantics perhaps, but the phrasing was particularly off-putting in this article. I know it was the first thing I noticed. I don't think I'd want to work for Chris Dixon.
        houseabsolute 16y ago
        I am impressed by your making that determination from a single article. That kind of decisiveness can be useful. Or maybe you have other data.
        ojbyrne 16y ago
        His posts appear regularly here, and I was being polite.
- aditya42 16y ago
  Another example of good leadership vs bad leadership is to see what's happening at Microsoft. No dearth of smart people and engineers over there either.
  - pvdm 16y ago
    why Bill Gates hand over the reins to Ballmer, I never understood.
- forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
  I don't think it is "ideas",it is knowledge and experience, Steve has a lot of that. You are making a fallacy, it is not ideas like I just dream and there it is:ideas, it is ideas like newton calculus ideas as a result of all their life working on them. Steve is trained in figure it out what people need (marketing), materializing it and testing in the real world. Not as easy at it sounds because of unconscious incompetence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence I have seen companies with superb scientist and technical people struggle and fail because of bad managers, like a yacht with 700hp engines and broken rudder.
- Tamerlin 16y ago
  "Even as a fan of Mac products I think Steve Jobs gets too much credit." I couldn't agree more. Jobs epitomizes everything that so many of us detest about big companies, so I have to wonder why anyone here actually likes or even respects him. He doesn't invent squat, or developed any hardware, written any software... so why is it that it's ok for Jobs to claim sole credit for everything Apple produces? At the same time, Microsoft not only bends over backward to take care of 3rd party software developers (most of the time), Microsoft also explicitly gives credit to the developers that wrote the software. When Jobs released the mac, he had the mac programmed to announce that Jobs was its creator... never mind all of the people at Xerox PARC who actually invented all of the technology inside, including the UI. And when Gates announced Windows 95, he brought out the development team and gave them credit. So who's the better person? Obviously not Jobs.
jsz0 16y ago
I don't think anyone wants to discount the work of the engineers but using the Microsoft Courier as a counter example we can see how engineers alone cannot force a product out the door. I remember reading an article a year or two ago about the iPhone development process and at some stage early in the game Jobs had to make the choice between what we know the iPhone to be today or what was a lot closer to an iPod Classic that could make phone calls. Obviously he made the right choice.
- ojbyrne 16y ago
  It hasn't occurred to you that many articles are shaped by PR departments?
  - aswanson 16y ago
    Sorry ojbyrne, accidental downmod. Meant to upmod this damned phone interface is horrible for HN.

Hovertruck 16y ago

I doubt I'm smart enough to work for Apple, but I doubt I'd ever want to. Why? Everything the company does is something done "single-handedly" by Steve Jobs. Steve may be the driving force of the company and have great insight into what people want/need/etc. But he has a great team to actually implement what he wants, and Apple as a company are the ones who restructured an industry.

fname 16y ago
Maybe someone can answer this better than I, but does Steve Jobs name go on every Apple patent?
- NathanKP 16y ago
  Here is an article which lists at least some of the Steve Jobs patents: http://technologizer.com/2009/05/28/the-patents-of-steve-jobs/ http://technologizer.com/2009/05/28/the-patents-of-steve-job...
  - Enlightenment 16y ago
    I heard that Steve Jobs has patent pending on "How To Be A Douchebag".
- cpr 16y ago
  Not at all. There are lots of Apple patents without his name. A good friend of mine retired (an Apple Fellow at the end of his career in graphics) with a good bunch of patents with his name on them (along with many others in various groupings). I don't think Jobs was on most of them.
aditya42 16y ago
> Everything the company does is something done "single-handedly" by Steve Jobs. Would you like to see a rolling list of the names of all Apple engineers every time you turned your iPhone on or off?
- 16y ago

watty 16y ago

Generalizations suck, I don't think the main reason for the iPhone success was because they had a "closed system". "The people griping about Apple’s “closed system” are generally people who are new to the industry and didn’t realize how bad it was before."

megablast 16y ago
Not only can you not read, but completely missed the point. Apples system is closed compared to Android, but it is open compared to what came before, for most phones. The carriers would lock down handsets so they couldn't use bluetooth, couldn't download ringtones except from the carrier, couldn't plug into your computer. They would not start selling a phone unless it conformed to what they wanted it to do.
- CountSessine 16y ago
  I'll be voted down for this on HN, but unforunately Android is reversing a lot of this progress. Buy the average Android handset and it has all sorts of stupid carrier modifications that no end-user would ever have requested. It's like the crap-ware that PCs have installed with them straight from the factory, except that you have to do a lot more work to get rid of it. The iPhone is free of this because Apple's success let them give AT&T the finger when it came to carrier modifications. As the iPhone loses ground to Android in the market, expect the pressure on Apple to mount. Would Apple ever have an AT&T splash screen on the iPhone? They sure wouldn't want to, but if that's the only way to keep the iPhone on the market, it'll happen. Who knows how much further it'll go...

jamesbritt 16y ago

Wasn't this already happening with the Blackberry? If you needed a Blackberry for business, then you picked the carrier who let you use one.

danudey 16y ago
Are there carriers in the US that didn't offer blackberries? All the carriers in Canada did, and have for years before the iPhone announcement.

wvenable 16y ago

> In the US, before the iPhone, the carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile) had an ironclad grip on the rest of the value chain – particularly, handset makers and app makers. This is like one of those myths where if you say it enough time, people start to believe it. There were tons of smartphones available before the iPhone that let you install any software that you wanted. My first smartphone was the Sony Ericsson P800 and it was released in 2002! I had to change carriers to use to, too. The original iPhone was a great device with a wonderful interface, but it wasn't the invention of the smartphone. It did, however, sell the mainstream consumer market on smartphones. (The business market was long sold on the Blackberry). The author isn't completely wrong -- the explosive growth of smartphones (and not just iPhones) has completely changed the equation. Before, everyone was trying to get on the carriers dumb phones but even if they succeeded it would mostly be a waste of time -- the phones were just too dumb and nobody cared about the crappy experience they provided. There is way too much credit to Apple and Steve Jobs here.

dieterrams 16y ago
You might be able to install any software you want, but the on-phone app stores and what they carry have been controlled by the carriers. That's the primary distribution channel, and the one largely responsible for providing app makers with the financial incentive to make apps.
- wvenable 16y ago
  Before the iPhone, smartphones didn't have on-phone app stores. You downloaded/purchased your applications off the web just like you do on your desktop. There was a good market for software for smartphones with lots of developers and distributors. The article would have us believe that none of that existed before Steve Jobs but that's just not true. Dumb phones had carrier stores (and their firmware heavily customized). However, nobody I know has ever bought app for their regular 'dumb' mobile phone. Even the apps that were for free (like music players) were so horrible that they usually went unused.
  - dieterrams 16y ago

clark-kent 16y ago

Before the iPhone, smartphones i used were not locked down. They were open like the desktop. You could download and install anything you want on them. But very often some app will drain your battery or crash your phone. Apple had to lock down their phone to improve user experience. Pre-iPhone you install apps at your own risk. That was my experience with Windows Mobile.

blhack 16y ago

I'm sorry, the iPhone is a neat phone, but it is far from revolutionary. Hello...palm pilots? I had a palm m100, then m105, then m500, then zire 71 in the early 2000s and there were thousands and thousands of apps for them. Installing them meant connecting it to my PC and transfering them (love that twee del DEE......TWEE del do sound it would make). Putting a cell phone into a PDA was an obvious move. Apple didn't invent it, they were just the first to gain mainstream popularity.

cheald 16y ago

Apple did a lot to start to bring the US up to speed with the rest of the world in terms of mobile technology, yes, and it certainly deserves praise for the success that the iPhone has been, but what Apple provided was a usable platform. "Smartphones" before then had been slow, ugly, generally not that sexy, and it's hard to excite people about your mobile software when they aren't even excited about their hardware. The iPhone did do a lot to help bring mobile software to the average consumer, but the notion that it did it in a vacuum is silly. There were lots of technologies that paved the way for the iPhone to be a success before it. Apple did not singlehandedly invent the concept of the smartphone, nor was it the first to introduce usable mobile computing platforms to consumers. RIM was doing that long before Apple ever had a thought of entering the mobile game. The author simultaneously praises Apple for the single-handed creation/salvation of an entire industry, and then turns around and says "Android's only great because it's stood on the shoulders of giants". Boy, that's a convenient bit of selective application of history. > Yes, Apple has rejected some apps for seemingly arbtrary or selfish reasons and imposed aggressive controls on developers. But the iPhone also paved the way for Android and a new wave of handset development. The people griping about Apple’s "closed system" are generally people who are new to the industry and didn’t realize how bad it was before. Now this is just silly. The people that gripe about Apple's "closed system" are people who know how bad it was, and are frustrated that Apple is repeating many of the "closed system" problems that made mobile software so terrible in the first place. The iPhone is a marvelous device, but it's completely disingenuous to praise the iPhone for bringing accessibility to a "closed market" and then in the same breath to hand-wave its own closed nature away. It's better than the previous iterations; that doesn't make its iteration "best". The people who are frustrated with the closed nature of the platform are people who have tasted how good an accessible platform can be, and who are frustrated at the roadblocks that Apple has placed in their way. I love the iPhone - it's a marvelous piece of hardware, and I absolutely acknowledge that it thoroughly changed the landscape of mobile consumer computing in the US, but I own an Android phone because Apple's policies make me hesitate to buy into a platform that is locked down and guarded by one man's whims, or to financially support a company that is so xenophobic and who actively and aggressively stifles competition. I own an Android phone not because I forget how bad older-school mobile software was (to write, distribute, obtain, run, the whole pipeline), but because I remember clearly how bad the old system was, and to have a phone in my hand that I can do just nearly anything I want with is a very welcome relief and advancement from the mobile platforms of yore.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]