5 ms·

> The iPhone changed the game I never understand blanket statements like these about the iPhone being a game changer; the iPhone wasn't half as capable as a wi

> The iPhone changed the game I never understand blanket statements like these about the iPhone being a game changer; the iPhone wasn't half as capable as a windows mobile phone for quite awhile; if the makers of windows mobile phones hadn't stagnated for so long I doubt Apple would have been anymore of a blip than Palm was; moreover, I'm not sure the iPhone changed the game much at all, they really just iterated on their competitors' innovations. To me, Apple used their inertia from their innovative iPods to have a great marketing success.

karlshea 7y ago
> I never understand blanket statements like these about the iPhone being a game changer; the iPhone wasn't half as capable as a windows mobile phone for quite awhile The second part of your sentence answers the first part of your sentence. It's shockingly obvious why the iPhone was a game changer if you're doing anything other than looking at capabilities and checking off lists of features. > To me, Apple used their inertia from their innovative iPods to have a great marketing success. But on the other hand you think the iPod was innovative. When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying about the iPhone ("Less space than a nomad. Lame."). In a comparison test with other MP3 players it didn't come out on top, either. Slick hardware and good UX is way more important than people in tech give it credit for. I used Windows Mobile before the iPhone came out and it was complete trash, regardless of how many features it technically had.
- rxhernandez 7y ago
  > It's shockingly obvious why the iPhone was a game changer if you're doing anything other than looking at capabilities and checking off lists of features. It lacked MMS; it wasnt even really a phone, much less a capable smartphone. You're grossly over simplifying if you call things like that a list of features. I used windows mobile phones for years before the iPhone. The iPhone was complete trash to me because I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that. > When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying about the iPhone I said precisely nothing about the iPod release. What I implied was that the iPod was viewed as innovative by the time the iPhone was released (hence my usage of the word inertia; inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod). > Slick hardware and good UX is way more important than people in tech give it credit for. The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think) The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess.
  - matchbok 7y ago
    Eh, no. Windows phone was not good. Horrible UX for the average person. Companies don't make phones for computer science graduates. The modern touch-based UI was entirely an Apple creation.
  - karlshea 7y ago
    > You're grossly over simplifying if you call things like that a list of features. What I'm saying is lists of features don't matter. It didn't even have 3G on launch, but because it made so much more sense to use is why it was successful. > I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that. You couldn't. The average person didn't know how to use those features on windows mobile. > inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod What was different about the iPod in 2008 vs 2001? The wheel was touch instead of clicky? The basic interface never really changed, it's just that it started to be more widely viewed as innovative. > The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think) I'll give you webos had a far better interface, but it was evolutionary post-iPhone. And it WAS initially successful. But did you ever use one? It was slow as shit and the hardware was jank, which is why sales lagged. And then Apple poached some of the Palm guys to work on iOS. > The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess. Look at the phones pre-2008 (including Android). Look at the phones post-2008. It's delusional to think that was "marketing prowess," it was the average person looking at how the iPhone functioned and it made way more sense to them than the god-awful interfaces everyone had to deal with. Most phones didn't even have threaded SMS until iOS. No one else had a desktop-class web browser. Apple completely changed the expectations for mobile UX.
mft_ 7y ago
Slick capacitive multi-touch coupled with iOS: that was the game-changer. I'd had a couple of Windows Phones, complete with their plastic cases, resistive touchscreens, and stylii. Some of the apps might have been more capable than the iPhone's at launch, but the hardware was primitive in comparison.
- rxhernandez 7y ago
  Most smart phone hardware keyboards > software keyboard. The iPhone caused a regression in capabilities in that regard; so I'd say the two cancelled out. (Though I seem to remember a capacitive screen on one of my windows mobile phones; I could be wrong though)
  - baybal2 7y ago
    That was HTC Touch
r00fus 7y ago
> I'm not sure the iPhone changed the game much at all, The iPhone was the first phone that a) had a plan with data as a guarantee and b) had an appstore that didn't suck. a) meant that you could browse get maps & real webpages (albeit with ATT it was 2G/EDGE) anywhere you got signal. b) was without peer for years. The alternatives really sucked. I know, I tried all of them. Do you remember installer packages or having to DL the app on a PC to sync? Yeah, this was a game-changer. It was as others mention, also the first widely available device with capacitive touch (Apple called it multitouch) and it was a UX coup with iOS.

karlshea 7y ago

> I never understand blanket statements like these about the iPhone being a game changer; the iPhone wasn't half as capable as a windows mobile phone for quite awhile The second part of your sentence answers the first part of your sentence. It's shockingly obvious why the iPhone was a game changer if you're doing anything other than looking at capabilities and checking off lists of features. > To me, Apple used their inertia from their innovative iPods to have a great marketing success. But on the other hand you think the iPod was innovative. When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying about the iPhone ("Less space than a nomad. Lame."). In a comparison test with other MP3 players it didn't come out on top, either. Slick hardware and good UX is way more important than people in tech give it credit for. I used Windows Mobile before the iPhone came out and it was complete trash, regardless of how many features it technically had.

rxhernandez 7y ago
> It's shockingly obvious why the iPhone was a game changer if you're doing anything other than looking at capabilities and checking off lists of features. It lacked MMS; it wasnt even really a phone, much less a capable smartphone. You're grossly over simplifying if you call things like that a list of features. I used windows mobile phones for years before the iPhone. The iPhone was complete trash to me because I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that. > When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying about the iPhone I said precisely nothing about the iPod release. What I implied was that the iPod was viewed as innovative by the time the iPhone was released (hence my usage of the word inertia; inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod). > Slick hardware and good UX is way more important than people in tech give it credit for. The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think) The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess.
- matchbok 7y ago
  Eh, no. Windows phone was not good. Horrible UX for the average person. Companies don't make phones for computer science graduates. The modern touch-based UI was entirely an Apple creation.
- karlshea 7y ago
  > You're grossly over simplifying if you call things like that a list of features. What I'm saying is lists of features don't matter. It didn't even have 3G on launch, but because it made so much more sense to use is why it was successful. > I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that. You couldn't. The average person didn't know how to use those features on windows mobile. > inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod What was different about the iPod in 2008 vs 2001? The wheel was touch instead of clicky? The basic interface never really changed, it's just that it started to be more widely viewed as innovative. > The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think) I'll give you webos had a far better interface, but it was evolutionary post-iPhone. And it WAS initially successful. But did you ever use one? It was slow as shit and the hardware was jank, which is why sales lagged. And then Apple poached some of the Palm guys to work on iOS. > The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess. Look at the phones pre-2008 (including Android). Look at the phones post-2008. It's delusional to think that was "marketing prowess," it was the average person looking at how the iPhone functioned and it made way more sense to them than the god-awful interfaces everyone had to deal with. Most phones didn't even have threaded SMS until iOS. No one else had a desktop-class web browser. Apple completely changed the expectations for mobile UX.

mft_ 7y ago

Slick capacitive multi-touch coupled with iOS: that was the game-changer. I'd had a couple of Windows Phones, complete with their plastic cases, resistive touchscreens, and stylii. Some of the apps might have been more capable than the iPhone's at launch, but the hardware was primitive in comparison.

rxhernandez 7y ago
Most smart phone hardware keyboards > software keyboard. The iPhone caused a regression in capabilities in that regard; so I'd say the two cancelled out. (Though I seem to remember a capacitive screen on one of my windows mobile phones; I could be wrong though)
- baybal2 7y ago
  That was HTC Touch

r00fus 7y ago

> I'm not sure the iPhone changed the game much at all, The iPhone was the first phone that a) had a plan with data as a guarantee and b) had an appstore that didn't suck. a) meant that you could browse get maps & real webpages (albeit with ATT it was 2G/EDGE) anywhere you got signal. b) was without peer for years. The alternatives really sucked. I know, I tried all of them. Do you remember installer packages or having to DL the app on a PC to sync? Yeah, this was a game-changer. It was as others mention, also the first widely available device with capacitive touch (Apple called it multitouch) and it was a UX coup with iOS.