3 ms·

As long as we're offering opinions on the iPhone's killer feature, mine is that it was access to desktop web sites. Remember WAP[1] and WML[2], the HTTP and HT

As long as we're offering opinions on the iPhone's killer feature, mine is that it was access to desktop web sites. Remember WAP[1] and WML[2], the HTTP and HTML substitutes for mobile phones too anemic/limited to support the real thing? Back then, many web sites simply didn't support access from a mobile device. (It's the polar opposite of "mobile first" or "mobile only".) A few did, but many just tossed up an error page. With the iPhone, Apple put together all the key ingredients to be able to say, if you're on the go and suddenly need to access your bank's web site to check your balance or whatever, you will be able to, even if your bank doesn't support mobile devices. The experience may not be great, but it will at least be possible. Those key ingredients included a big screen, a fast enough processor and large enough RAM to handle pages that were somewhat bloated, a browser that supported enough (JS, etc.) to make most pages work, and special features for making the most of desktop-oriented pages by zooming in on text. To some extent, Apple brought these key ingredients together by designing it that way, but they also did it by not entering the market until powerful enough hardware was available. The iPhone flipped mobile web access on its head. Instead of implementing whatever was convenient and punting on 50+% of the web, leaving users at the mercy of web sites to decide if mobile access was worth it to them, Apple created a device and browser that took responsibility for doing anything and everything it could to make sites work. The web is a killer feature for the internet, and getting meaningful access to the web was a killer feature for internet-connected mobile devices. Paradoxically, it worked so well that the platform was enormously successful and it became essential to offer mobile web support. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Markup_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Markup_Language

justinboogaard 6y ago
This is a great insight, I’m reading this from my iPhone now!
junon 6y ago
Agreed. When I didn't need to boot up BREW or whatever it was called to access google at what felt like 1Bps anymore, it was a game changer. This alone was a huge improvement - I had real access to the web all of a sudden, from anywhere.
auganov 6y ago
Windows Mobile came with a regular browser for years before the iPhone. There was nothing crazy about first iPhone's specs either, pretty in line with the rest of the market. While it wasn't big with regular consumers, WM had a decent smartphone market share at the time (Windows Phone would never come close). Amongst executives, managers and the likes, it was absolutely dominating. When it first came out, many WM users (including Microsoft) considered the iPhone to be a joke. At best, another player in a crowded market. Sure, people liked some features. But they were considered easy-to-replicate gimmicks (and many were indeed quickly copied by enthusiasts). WM was way ahead as a platform. iOS didn't even let you install apps! Apple PCs/laptops were fairly niche at the time too. It wasn't obvious how Apple had a defensible advantage. Quite frankly, I still tend to think it's as much about Apple knocking it out of the park with the UX (and marketing), as it is about Microsoft doing literally everything wrong in response. WM could have become what Android is today.
mercer 6y ago
I disagree in that internet on the original iPhone was terrible, and everyone I knew who bought one didn't really do much browsing on it. It was the UI/UX. Being able to touch-drag was so different from the indirectness of the buttons on previous phones, or using a pen on a squishy screen (I was the nerd that was previously into Palm and Windows CE(?) devices). I remember that what my friends who had the original iPhone showed off wasn't primarily the browser, but rather the pinch-zoom feature on the photos they took, the drag-bounce effect in apps, and of course just the whole thing of having a big screen with no keyboard or somewhat gaudy keypads. But I agree also agree with you in that my own first iPhone was the iPhone 3G, and the 3G part and later the app store became a major thing for the device, whether it was browsing the web, or using internet-centered apps (chat, sms, reddit, etc.).
atleta 6y ago
Nokia smartphones had http+html browsers back in 2001. I don't know how many mobile optimized sites were there, but the browser on my 9210 was pretty usable (though not everything worked, of course). I used to save full pages on my desktop and copy it on the 9210 to read while on the go. (Well, we didn't have Pocket back then, and while I definitely wanted to develop something similar, I just couldn't make myself do it in Symbian's C++ dialect.)

justinboogaard 6y ago

This is a great insight, I’m reading this from my iPhone now!

junon 6y ago

Agreed. When I didn't need to boot up BREW or whatever it was called to access google at what felt like 1Bps anymore, it was a game changer. This alone was a huge improvement - I had real access to the web all of a sudden, from anywhere.

auganov 6y ago

Windows Mobile came with a regular browser for years before the iPhone. There was nothing crazy about first iPhone's specs either, pretty in line with the rest of the market. While it wasn't big with regular consumers, WM had a decent smartphone market share at the time (Windows Phone would never come close). Amongst executives, managers and the likes, it was absolutely dominating. When it first came out, many WM users (including Microsoft) considered the iPhone to be a joke. At best, another player in a crowded market. Sure, people liked some features. But they were considered easy-to-replicate gimmicks (and many were indeed quickly copied by enthusiasts). WM was way ahead as a platform. iOS didn't even let you install apps! Apple PCs/laptops were fairly niche at the time too. It wasn't obvious how Apple had a defensible advantage. Quite frankly, I still tend to think it's as much about Apple knocking it out of the park with the UX (and marketing), as it is about Microsoft doing literally everything wrong in response. WM could have become what Android is today.

mercer 6y ago

I disagree in that internet on the original iPhone was terrible, and everyone I knew who bought one didn't really do much browsing on it. It was the UI/UX. Being able to touch-drag was so different from the indirectness of the buttons on previous phones, or using a pen on a squishy screen (I was the nerd that was previously into Palm and Windows CE(?) devices). I remember that what my friends who had the original iPhone showed off wasn't primarily the browser, but rather the pinch-zoom feature on the photos they took, the drag-bounce effect in apps, and of course just the whole thing of having a big screen with no keyboard or somewhat gaudy keypads. But I agree also agree with you in that my own first iPhone was the iPhone 3G, and the 3G part and later the app store became a major thing for the device, whether it was browsing the web, or using internet-centered apps (chat, sms, reddit, etc.).

atleta 6y ago

Nokia smartphones had http+html browsers back in 2001. I don't know how many mobile optimized sites were there, but the browser on my 9210 was pretty usable (though not everything worked, of course). I used to save full pages on my desktop and copy it on the 9210 to read while on the go. (Well, we didn't have Pocket back then, and while I definitely wanted to develop something similar, I just couldn't make myself do it in Symbian's C++ dialect.)