2 ms·

There were a lot of factors, but I think aesthetics was a major component. The iPhone was a lot more than one more addition to the smart phone wars. IMO it crea

There were a lot of factors, but I think aesthetics was a major component. The iPhone was a lot more than one more addition to the smart phone wars. IMO it created a product class for a bunch of consumers who probably never would've bought a blackberry or palm pilot. For a lot of reasons, some related to timing and others related to design. But a big component was the marketing, and aesthetics was a big reason for the success of the marketing.

heavenlyblue 9y ago
Sadly, I've got to disagree with your point of view, and you do seem to have a hugely engineer-y viewpoint on what is "aesthetic". There's a functional aspect going together with the novelty factor in introducing a new, touchable screen that does not require physical buttons to be controlled - but it is just a matter of driving the wave of what is fashionable today (or well, tomorrow). The lack of detail _can_ be aesthetic, but it does not mean that something with a huge amount of detail could not be as aesthetic. Depending on when and where you're introducing your product: - single-button switch supporting voice control for your lights? Works for me. - voice-controlled power drill? Not so much (unless it's actually a hired human handling the power drill with his own hands and listening to my commands).
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > but it does not mean that something with a huge amount of detail could not be as aesthetic Yes, that's why my initial comment indicated I agree with jmull.