5 ms·

Did Android Really Look Like BlackBerry Before the iPhone?

70 points by dimitar 15y ago

salem 15y ago
Well, if you go back to 2003, there was the Motorola A760, which looked a lot like current android phone but without capacitive touch (resistive touch/stylus, no keyboard though). Oh, and it ran linux, and apps via java. http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_a760-392.php http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_a760-392.php
- kalleboo 15y ago
  And Steve Jobs himself reportedly used to use the 2002 Sony Ericsson P800 http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_p800-pictures-326.php http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_p800-pictures-326.php
- wmf 15y ago
  Yeah, I had a P800 running UIQ back in the day. But I think the bottom line is that if you put a UIQ phone, a WinCE phone, an iPhone, and a G1 in a lineup, the G1 would be a lot closer to the iPhone than the others. And the similarity has only increased over time.
  - Causification 15y ago
    Know what would be a heck of a lot closer? A Clie TH55. http://reviews.cnet.com/sc/30733801-2-440-front-2.gif http://reviews.cnet.com/sc/30733801-2-440-front-2.gif
    - sbuk 15y ago
      Which is not dissimilar to a Palm Treo, and Palms OS was very similar to Newton.
arn 15y ago
But November 2007 is still 11 months after the original iPhone was introduced.
- ambirex 15y ago
  I also found strange was the "Like the iPhone itself was standing on the shoulders of giants (iPhone to PalmOS: hi daddy!)" But wasn't PalmOS at least inspired by the Newton?
  - weaselspice 15y ago
    Why do you find it strange (iPhone inspired by PalmOS) and then make the same claim (PalmOS inpired by Newton)? Most people accept that ALL mobile OS platforms gained inspiration from others. The only exception are Apple followers who seem to think Apple invented everything and now everyone just blindly copies them :S
  - TomOfTTB 15y ago
    Right and the point I'd make is his example doesn't hold weight because the first Android touchscreen device looked exactly like an iPhone. Same number of icons per screen, same resolution, same gestures, same icon placement on the applications (at the bottom and constant). Surely the iPhone inherited from Palm and Windows Phone/PocketPC and both those inherited from Newton. But none of those devices looked exactly the same.
    - mikepavone 15y ago
      I bought a G1 back in February 2009 around when Android 1.1 was released and it didn't look "exactly like an iPhone". It didn't support multi-touch, it didn't have an on-screen keyboard and the launcher was quite different in operation from iOS. Applications weren't (and still aren't) added to the main launcher screen by default and instead get added to the application drawer. Apps have to be manually added to the home screens. Android of that era also made extensive use of a long-press gesture (I distinctly remember it as I found it quite un-intuitive at the time) which didn't show up in iOS until version 3.2 (except for in the homescreen anyway). Physically, the devices were quite dissimilar too. The G1 had a smaller screen, was much thicker, had a slideout keyboard and a trackball in addition to five face buttons (Call, End Call, Home, Back and Menu).
runjake 15y ago
I don't get this article's logic. The original iPhone was unveiled in January 2007, 11 months before the timeframe of November 2007. The grid of icons thing had been in mobile phones for years and years before Android or the iPhone. What Android borrowed was the capacitive multitouch-style interface of the iPhone. I played extensively with the Android SDK public releases before it incorporated touch. So did perhaps hundreds or thousands of others. It clearly wasn't going the direction the iPhone was, at the time. He talks about facts this and facts that. But the fact is, he's wrong. Android borrowed from the iPhone's new paradigms. Has it been that long ago that we've already forgotten history? Note that none of his facts come from personal experience. They come from dug up videos. And again, what's the big deal? Everyone's all of a sudden screaming theft. Iterative improvements are good. They promote evolution and competition (eg. one upping each other's designs).
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  I agree with everything you said but the one thing you didn't mention is he makes the mistake of dating the prototype to the Techcrunch post. When in fact the prototype was obviously from an earlier version (hence the SDK looking like an iPhone). As he said in the article Android had been in development for years before Google bought the company. What is noteworthy about the "Blackberry" phone is the entire paradigm is different. The navigation is different. The desktop-esque icons on the home screen are different (the blackberry prototype had a dock type system where as Android has the icons on the desktop). The resolution is different (notice Android phones with keyboards have smaller screens but a similar resolution ratio where as the blackberry protype had a wide, short screen) Notice how the touchscreen in the video works like the keyboard prototype and nothing like modern day android. Look at the 3 minute mark. See he's navigating through a dock. See how the commands are through menus and not icons like modern day android. Notice no pinch and zoom (he uses a button on the side). Notice no swipe (he's using a button on the right hand side). It's as if they took a keyboard prototype and rushed out a touch version (and then added all Apple's look, feel and gestures later) Compare the phone shown in the video to the G1 (http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/681/tmobile-g-1.jpg http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/681/tmobile-g-...) which had gestures, 4 icons per screen, swipe to get between screens and so on.
jinushaun 15y ago
I remember vividly back in 2007 all the Blackberry-clone screenshots of Android with multiple buttons and scroll wheel. Not just the one referenced in the article, but many screenshots and no screenshots of a full touch interface. And then around the time the SDK was released in November, there started appearing the full touchscreen interface we see today.
- cube13 15y ago
  Google was demoing the Blackberry-style configuration as late as February 2008, too. For a second, I thought I was going crazy, then I found this picture: http://news.cnet.com/2300-1037_3-6230132.html http://news.cnet.com/2300-1037_3-6230132.html
sahaj 15y ago
Anyone notice that Sergey uses the word "Apps" in the video. I find it incredible when people claim that Apple introduced the word App, and therefore the trademark "App Store" is valid. So glad that was squared away during the Amazon suit.
- myspy 15y ago
  The term applications or apps is used on OS X too. And for a very long time.
  - sbuk 15y ago
    I recall referring to 'apps' when discussing MacPaint and Hypercard in the late 80s. Apple have used the 'apps' term for many years.
    - thomholwerda 15y ago
      It's actually a much older term than that. http://www.osnews.com/story/24882/The_History_of_App_and_the_Demise_of_the_Programmer http://www.osnews.com/story/24882/The_History_of_App_and_the... [disclaimer: I'm the author of both the parent article as well as the article linked to in this comment]
      - sbuk 15y ago
        I'm sure it is, I wasn't suggesting otherwise; just concurring with the poster I replied to that Apple have used the term for a long time and that they certainly used the term long before OS X was released. Programmer, by the way, referred to their wares as 'software' and 'programs' (hence the nomenclature), not just apps. Your observation that "marketing and legal" call the shots is trite. And wrong. The issue, as with everything, is accountants and money men.
jessedhillon 15y ago
TL;DR fanboy bullshit.
- sbuk 15y ago
  From which point of view?
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    It looks like Android, but that's not my point. My point is that only fanboys care about a discussion of whether or not Android looks like X, or if Apple copied Y, etc. I think productive people who actually create things that people use have better things to do than fight these wars so I flagged it -- HN is supposed to be for such people, and so why do we have fanboy ammo on the front page?
aaronyo 15y ago
The article doesn't even speak to the obvious rebuttals: 1) the "touch screen" Android interface is mostly driven by buttons, 2) the iPhone was launched 11 months earlier, 3) the blackberry looking phone is the one the guy was carrying around for 6 mo. Right or wrong, an argument that does not address obvious rebuttals is not an argument, it's wishful thinking in an echo chamber.
- Terretta 15y ago
  "the "touch screen" Android interface is mostly driven by buttons" That's what I kept thinking while watching the video. Blackberry and Blackberry Pearl were all about pushing or selecting things using a rocker or ball, and that's what's shown in this video for making selections. What the iPhone changed was direct interaction, making the OS interact and respond the way the spinning globe does in this video.
ZeroGravitas 15y ago
The point I'd make is that you still get BlackBerry style android phones, and crazy folding ones and many other form factors. If you only compare a single blackberry-style phone from the pre-iPhone era and one slab phone (which doesn't look particularly iPhoney-except in relation to the hardware keyboard phone) then you'll make a good rhetorical point for people who already believe that Android is an iPhone clone. I don't know if you'll convince anyone else. There was a similar, older comparison which resized the phones and kept hardware keyboards shut, which again, seems a bit disingenuous if the point is to show similarity.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
salem 15y ago
Also, what about Microsoft surface, which had some multitouch concepts, and had been talked up for years before the iPhone.

70 points by dimitar 15y ago

salem 15y ago

Well, if you go back to 2003, there was the Motorola A760, which looked a lot like current android phone but without capacitive touch (resistive touch/stylus, no keyboard though). Oh, and it ran linux, and apps via java. http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_a760-392.php http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_a760-392.php

kalleboo 15y ago
And Steve Jobs himself reportedly used to use the 2002 Sony Ericsson P800 http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_p800-pictures-326.php http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_p800-pictures-326.php
wmf 15y ago
Yeah, I had a P800 running UIQ back in the day. But I think the bottom line is that if you put a UIQ phone, a WinCE phone, an iPhone, and a G1 in a lineup, the G1 would be a lot closer to the iPhone than the others. And the similarity has only increased over time.
- Causification 15y ago
  Know what would be a heck of a lot closer? A Clie TH55. http://reviews.cnet.com/sc/30733801-2-440-front-2.gif http://reviews.cnet.com/sc/30733801-2-440-front-2.gif
  - sbuk 15y ago
    Which is not dissimilar to a Palm Treo, and Palms OS was very similar to Newton.

arn 15y ago

But November 2007 is still 11 months after the original iPhone was introduced.

ambirex 15y ago
I also found strange was the "Like the iPhone itself was standing on the shoulders of giants (iPhone to PalmOS: hi daddy!)" But wasn't PalmOS at least inspired by the Newton?
- weaselspice 15y ago
  Why do you find it strange (iPhone inspired by PalmOS) and then make the same claim (PalmOS inpired by Newton)? Most people accept that ALL mobile OS platforms gained inspiration from others. The only exception are Apple followers who seem to think Apple invented everything and now everyone just blindly copies them :S
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  Right and the point I'd make is his example doesn't hold weight because the first Android touchscreen device looked exactly like an iPhone. Same number of icons per screen, same resolution, same gestures, same icon placement on the applications (at the bottom and constant). Surely the iPhone inherited from Palm and Windows Phone/PocketPC and both those inherited from Newton. But none of those devices looked exactly the same.
  - mikepavone 15y ago
    I bought a G1 back in February 2009 around when Android 1.1 was released and it didn't look "exactly like an iPhone". It didn't support multi-touch, it didn't have an on-screen keyboard and the launcher was quite different in operation from iOS. Applications weren't (and still aren't) added to the main launcher screen by default and instead get added to the application drawer. Apps have to be manually added to the home screens. Android of that era also made extensive use of a long-press gesture (I distinctly remember it as I found it quite un-intuitive at the time) which didn't show up in iOS until version 3.2 (except for in the homescreen anyway). Physically, the devices were quite dissimilar too. The G1 had a smaller screen, was much thicker, had a slideout keyboard and a trackball in addition to five face buttons (Call, End Call, Home, Back and Menu).

runjake 15y ago

I don't get this article's logic. The original iPhone was unveiled in January 2007, 11 months before the timeframe of November 2007. The grid of icons thing had been in mobile phones for years and years before Android or the iPhone. What Android borrowed was the capacitive multitouch-style interface of the iPhone. I played extensively with the Android SDK public releases before it incorporated touch. So did perhaps hundreds or thousands of others. It clearly wasn't going the direction the iPhone was, at the time. He talks about facts this and facts that. But the fact is, he's wrong. Android borrowed from the iPhone's new paradigms. Has it been that long ago that we've already forgotten history? Note that none of his facts come from personal experience. They come from dug up videos. And again, what's the big deal? Everyone's all of a sudden screaming theft. Iterative improvements are good. They promote evolution and competition (eg. one upping each other's designs).

TomOfTTB 15y ago
I agree with everything you said but the one thing you didn't mention is he makes the mistake of dating the prototype to the Techcrunch post. When in fact the prototype was obviously from an earlier version (hence the SDK looking like an iPhone). As he said in the article Android had been in development for years before Google bought the company. What is noteworthy about the "Blackberry" phone is the entire paradigm is different. The navigation is different. The desktop-esque icons on the home screen are different (the blackberry prototype had a dock type system where as Android has the icons on the desktop). The resolution is different (notice Android phones with keyboards have smaller screens but a similar resolution ratio where as the blackberry protype had a wide, short screen) Notice how the touchscreen in the video works like the keyboard prototype and nothing like modern day android. Look at the 3 minute mark. See he's navigating through a dock. See how the commands are through menus and not icons like modern day android. Notice no pinch and zoom (he uses a button on the side). Notice no swipe (he's using a button on the right hand side). It's as if they took a keyboard prototype and rushed out a touch version (and then added all Apple's look, feel and gestures later) Compare the phone shown in the video to the G1 (http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/681/tmobile-g-1.jpg http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/681/tmobile-g-...) which had gestures, 4 icons per screen, swipe to get between screens and so on.

jinushaun 15y ago

I remember vividly back in 2007 all the Blackberry-clone screenshots of Android with multiple buttons and scroll wheel. Not just the one referenced in the article, but many screenshots and no screenshots of a full touch interface. And then around the time the SDK was released in November, there started appearing the full touchscreen interface we see today.

cube13 15y ago
Google was demoing the Blackberry-style configuration as late as February 2008, too. For a second, I thought I was going crazy, then I found this picture: http://news.cnet.com/2300-1037_3-6230132.html http://news.cnet.com/2300-1037_3-6230132.html

sahaj 15y ago

Anyone notice that Sergey uses the word "Apps" in the video. I find it incredible when people claim that Apple introduced the word App, and therefore the trademark "App Store" is valid. So glad that was squared away during the Amazon suit.

myspy 15y ago
The term applications or apps is used on OS X too. And for a very long time.
- sbuk 15y ago
  I recall referring to 'apps' when discussing MacPaint and Hypercard in the late 80s. Apple have used the 'apps' term for many years.
  - thomholwerda 15y ago
    It's actually a much older term than that. http://www.osnews.com/story/24882/The_History_of_App_and_the_Demise_of_the_Programmer http://www.osnews.com/story/24882/The_History_of_App_and_the... [disclaimer: I'm the author of both the parent article as well as the article linked to in this comment]
    - sbuk 15y ago
      I'm sure it is, I wasn't suggesting otherwise; just concurring with the poster I replied to that Apple have used the term for a long time and that they certainly used the term long before OS X was released. Programmer, by the way, referred to their wares as 'software' and 'programs' (hence the nomenclature), not just apps. Your observation that "marketing and legal" call the shots is trite. And wrong. The issue, as with everything, is accountants and money men.

jessedhillon 15y ago

TL;DR fanboy bullshit.

sbuk 15y ago
From which point of view?
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  It looks like Android, but that's not my point. My point is that only fanboys care about a discussion of whether or not Android looks like X, or if Apple copied Y, etc. I think productive people who actually create things that people use have better things to do than fight these wars so I flagged it -- HN is supposed to be for such people, and so why do we have fanboy ammo on the front page?

aaronyo 15y ago

The article doesn't even speak to the obvious rebuttals: 1) the "touch screen" Android interface is mostly driven by buttons, 2) the iPhone was launched 11 months earlier, 3) the blackberry looking phone is the one the guy was carrying around for 6 mo. Right or wrong, an argument that does not address obvious rebuttals is not an argument, it's wishful thinking in an echo chamber.

Terretta 15y ago
"the "touch screen" Android interface is mostly driven by buttons" That's what I kept thinking while watching the video. Blackberry and Blackberry Pearl were all about pushing or selecting things using a rocker or ball, and that's what's shown in this video for making selections. What the iPhone changed was direct interaction, making the OS interact and respond the way the spinning globe does in this video.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago

The point I'd make is that you still get BlackBerry style android phones, and crazy folding ones and many other form factors. If you only compare a single blackberry-style phone from the pre-iPhone era and one slab phone (which doesn't look particularly iPhoney-except in relation to the hardware keyboard phone) then you'll make a good rhetorical point for people who already believe that Android is an iPhone clone. I don't know if you'll convince anyone else. There was a similar, older comparison which resized the phones and kept hardware keyboards shut, which again, seems a bit disingenuous if the point is to show similarity.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

salem 15y ago

Also, what about Microsoft surface, which had some multitouch concepts, and had been talked up for years before the iPhone.