3 ms·
On the one hand, you're right. There were numerous flaws, in hardware, in software, in pricing, marketing, etc. On the other hand, it was awesome. It could d
by __d 4y ago
On the one hand, you're right. There were numerous flaws, in hardware, in software, in pricing, marketing, etc.
On the other hand, it was awesome. It could do things that nothing had done before, and weren't done by anything else for years (even to today) after.
You can argue that Apple made the wrong compromises, and the success of the Palm Pilot suggests that a lot of people agree with you. But then the Palm had a crappy screen too, so maybe that wasn't as much of an issue as you think.
And it was smaller than an iPad Mini. The Newton group had plans for smaller and larger models that were never brought to market. It was hard to get the battery life and CPU power into a smaller device back then. Still, the Palm, iPaq and various PocketPCs clearly hit a sweet spot of size.
- paulpauper 4y agothe palm was a lot smaller and cheaper
- __d 4y agoAnd simpler. It used Graffiti rather than a full neural net-based HWR. It used compiled 68k C applications, not NewtonScript. It was a fairly ruthlessly simple device. Consequently, it was much cheaper to make, and could fit in a smaller package.
- jandrese 4y agoPalm Pilots were a good example of "worse is better". Apple pushed the boundaries of the possible a bit too hard and ended up with a device that mostly worked but was expensive and had too many issues for the price point. Palm was less ambitious but their product was cheaper and more reliable.
- musicale 4y agoAnd netbooks are smaller and cheaper than the MacBook Pro.