3 ms·

I vividly remember exactly the same arguments about touchscreens before iPhone came. Everyone was agreeing that physical keyboards rock and touchscreens suck (m

I vividly remember exactly the same arguments about touchscreens before iPhone came. Everyone was agreeing that physical keyboards rock and touchscreens suck (me too). There were non-Apple smartphones with touchscreens, but no one was buying them because touchscreens suck. If Apple did a focus-group at that time, they'd never release an iPhone. But Apple brand name was so strong, that they were able to push through and against public opinion and made touchscreens successful. Now we have another iteration of the same discussion, but with car media touchscreen dashboards.

DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
> Now we have another iteration of the same discussion, but with car media touchscreen dashboards. there ought to be a safety argument against touchscreens in automotive infotainment systems.
- shaan7 5y ago
  You don't even have to go to safety. I did a test drive couple of years of Honda Jazz (known as Honda Fit in some markets) where the AC controls are touch-only. It was almost impossible to adjust it without taking your eyes off the road. Deal breaker.
  - sverhagen 5y ago
    Didn't you just exactly "go to safety"?
    - shaan7 5y ago
      What I meant was it is not limited to safety-related operations (hazard lights, for example). Even for relatively non-essential features (AC in this case), it helps to have physical buttons that you can recognize with your fingers.
stavros 5y ago
> If Apple did a focus-group at that time, they'd never release an iPhone. If Apple did a focus group at the time, they'd never release a phone with a resistive touch screen, which they didn't, because they suck. When capacitive was mature, that's when we got the iPhone.
- deepsun 5y ago
  Agree, you're right. It's just miracle that a large slow company got to that market first.
throwaway946513 5y ago
So glad my '22 Subaru has a tune and volume knob for it's stereo, along with a manual transmission and physical climate control knobs.
908B64B197 5y ago
> But Apple brand name was so strong, that they were able to push through and against public opinion and made touchscreens successful. It wasn't a brand thing. The iPhone touchscreen just worked. And you could see that a lot of clever engineering went into its design (it's more than just a physical keyboard drawn on a screen [0]). And BlackBerry simply couldn't compete. Two years later they released the Storm [1], one month or so before or after Apple released the iPhone 3G (and the App Store). I remember thinking it was a prototype when someone showed a Storm to me. Scrolling was janky, the whole phone was sluggish and slow and the keyboard barely worked. Blackberry couldn't even figure out how to get Wifi on the thing, so it was stuck using cellular while my iPhone was just streaming video. And of course, no apps. It was 2 years behind the original iPhone and shipped two years later. I wonder why RIM couldn't compete at the time. Talent gap? [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/creation-of-the-first-iphone-touchscreen-interview-with-scott-forstall-tony-fadell-and-greg-christie.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/creation-of-the-first-iphone... [1] https://bgr.com/general/worst-smartphone-ever-blackberry-storm/ https://bgr.com/general/worst-smartphone-ever-blackberry-sto...

DyslexicAtheist 5y ago

> Now we have another iteration of the same discussion, but with car media touchscreen dashboards. there ought to be a safety argument against touchscreens in automotive infotainment systems.

shaan7 5y ago
You don't even have to go to safety. I did a test drive couple of years of Honda Jazz (known as Honda Fit in some markets) where the AC controls are touch-only. It was almost impossible to adjust it without taking your eyes off the road. Deal breaker.
- sverhagen 5y ago
  Didn't you just exactly "go to safety"?
  - shaan7 5y ago
    What I meant was it is not limited to safety-related operations (hazard lights, for example). Even for relatively non-essential features (AC in this case), it helps to have physical buttons that you can recognize with your fingers.

stavros 5y ago

> If Apple did a focus-group at that time, they'd never release an iPhone. If Apple did a focus group at the time, they'd never release a phone with a resistive touch screen, which they didn't, because they suck. When capacitive was mature, that's when we got the iPhone.

deepsun 5y ago
Agree, you're right. It's just miracle that a large slow company got to that market first.

throwaway946513 5y ago

So glad my '22 Subaru has a tune and volume knob for it's stereo, along with a manual transmission and physical climate control knobs.

908B64B197 5y ago

> But Apple brand name was so strong, that they were able to push through and against public opinion and made touchscreens successful. It wasn't a brand thing. The iPhone touchscreen just worked. And you could see that a lot of clever engineering went into its design (it's more than just a physical keyboard drawn on a screen [0]). And BlackBerry simply couldn't compete. Two years later they released the Storm [1], one month or so before or after Apple released the iPhone 3G (and the App Store). I remember thinking it was a prototype when someone showed a Storm to me. Scrolling was janky, the whole phone was sluggish and slow and the keyboard barely worked. Blackberry couldn't even figure out how to get Wifi on the thing, so it was stuck using cellular while my iPhone was just streaming video. And of course, no apps. It was 2 years behind the original iPhone and shipped two years later. I wonder why RIM couldn't compete at the time. Talent gap? [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/creation-of-the-first-iphone-touchscreen-interview-with-scott-forstall-tony-fadell-and-greg-christie.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/creation-of-the-first-iphone... [1] https://bgr.com/general/worst-smartphone-ever-blackberry-storm/ https://bgr.com/general/worst-smartphone-ever-blackberry-sto...