5 ms·

Now you're nit-picking. Your original comment was that Apple had rewritten history to make the iPhone seem revolutionary, when it wasn't. Which I disagree with.

Now you're nit-picking. Your original comment was that Apple had rewritten history to make the iPhone seem revolutionary, when it wasn't. Which I disagree with. As another old fart, I was there at the time and remember just how revolutionary it seemed on launch --not as rewritten history, years later. Now you're using the fact that people can't remember for sure which iPhone model introduced feature X or feature Y as evidence that history was rewritten by Apple, when all it shows is that, years later, people can't accurately remember the minutiae of which details changed between which models.

seba_dos1 4y ago
I was there as well. I witnessed the announcement of OpenMoko, iPhone, Android, drooled over Nokia Internet Tablets that were way outside my price range, browsed discussions about them on Slashdot like crazy. Got excited over rumors about a smartphone from Apple just to be extremely disappointed once it actually arrived. There really wasn't anything revolutionary in actual devices, the whole "revolution" was cultural and marketing-induced. The craze over iPhones wouldn't have happened at all without iPods being as popular as they were, and other smartphones were already heading towards everything Apple did anyway. There was a period of time where Apple was actually bringing some innovations to the table a few years later, but that didn't last long anyway.
- laumars 4y ago
  Exactly. And iPods wouldn’t have existed without MP3 players, which themselves were just a natural evolution from Walkmans and other portable music players. The cassette is an evolution of reel to reel tape and the industry was already primed with vinyl. And vinyl wasn’t even the first format for music playback. As I posted elsewhere, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. The only people who call things “revolutionary” are marketing firms and fanboys.
Messier43 4y ago
I agree with the rewriting history part, but perhaps not by apple itself, but by people falsely attributing stuff to apple. The only revolutionary that apple had was a unified big promoted appstore and marketing as magic and pompous as they usually do. They did not have a single feature that they invented or was revolutionary. At that time people were already happily surfing, navigating, filming and listening to music on other phones like the Nokia N95 (which was a beast at this time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N95), including the possibility to install Symbian apps. What was missing, were proper App stores to find those apps. Also capacitive Touchscreens were on the market. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada The the only revolutionary thing Apple provided were Appstores and lots and lots of marketing.
- CoryAlexMartin 4y ago
  A problem that I've come to notice with a lot of tech people is they either don't notice or don't value good implementation, even if that implementation is leagues ahead of everything else. It's important to develop taste and be able to look beyond feature lists. It doesn't matter that the LG Prada had a capacitive touchscreen or that the Nokia N95 had a web browser: the iPhone had a smooth, vibrant and responsive multi-touch operating system with natural scrolling and a surprisingly good touch keyboard. On the LG Prada you're poking at list items and dragging scrollbars while the device beeps at you and choppily redraws those lists like a terminal. On the Nokia N95, you're navigating the web with a jumpy cursor controlled by directional buttons, and typing with a numpad. There was nothing like the iPhone, and now everything is like the iPhone.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    > A problem that I've come to notice with a lot of tech people is they either don't notice or don't value good implementation That may be because Apple's implementation was absolutely lacking. The first iPhone was a vibrant, shiny feature phone disguised as a smartphone. They put their bet towards marketing and fashion, not tech and revolution - which paid off for them, as it turned out that was enough. Don't be surprised that techies aren't impressed by that though. In fact, I don't think the iPhone would be so successful if it didn't come out from Apple even if it was exactly the same as it was - it would likely find its niche, but it wouldn't be a significant threat to Nokia and others. (actually, the real iPhone wasn't that much of a threat either, it was Android that actually killed Nokia - or made it kill itself to be exact) > There was nothing like the iPhone, and now everything is like the iPhone. Many things were either like the iPhone already or were heading towards being like the iPhone. Apple's implementation advantage comes from the fact that it was designed from scratch as a touch-based interface, while existing platforms were only slowly iterating towards that, but they were getting there regardless. Some existing players, like Nokia, had teams that were already going there, and other teams that were actively sabotaging those efforts, which obviously left the door for Apple wide open. Apple's implementation sure was good enough, because marketing alone would quickly dry off otherwise. It wasn't revolutionary though. I'm certain that we would have very similar trends too had Apple not gone into mobile phone market at all. Maybe we wouldn't end up in a world where restricted walled gardens are the expected state of things on computers that we carry with ourselves all the time. Or maybe it would be worse, who knows. It wouldn't, however, be much different in how we interact with those devices, because writings were on the wall and Apple just happened to enter the market with a new thing at the right time with enough preexisting clout, as evidenced by multiple companies working on implementing Apple's "revolutions" at the same time as Apple, or even beating them by years in some cases.

seba_dos1 4y ago

I was there as well. I witnessed the announcement of OpenMoko, iPhone, Android, drooled over Nokia Internet Tablets that were way outside my price range, browsed discussions about them on Slashdot like crazy. Got excited over rumors about a smartphone from Apple just to be extremely disappointed once it actually arrived. There really wasn't anything revolutionary in actual devices, the whole "revolution" was cultural and marketing-induced. The craze over iPhones wouldn't have happened at all without iPods being as popular as they were, and other smartphones were already heading towards everything Apple did anyway. There was a period of time where Apple was actually bringing some innovations to the table a few years later, but that didn't last long anyway.

laumars 4y ago
Exactly. And iPods wouldn’t have existed without MP3 players, which themselves were just a natural evolution from Walkmans and other portable music players. The cassette is an evolution of reel to reel tape and the industry was already primed with vinyl. And vinyl wasn’t even the first format for music playback. As I posted elsewhere, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. The only people who call things “revolutionary” are marketing firms and fanboys.

Messier43 4y ago

I agree with the rewriting history part, but perhaps not by apple itself, but by people falsely attributing stuff to apple. The only revolutionary that apple had was a unified big promoted appstore and marketing as magic and pompous as they usually do. They did not have a single feature that they invented or was revolutionary. At that time people were already happily surfing, navigating, filming and listening to music on other phones like the Nokia N95 (which was a beast at this time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N95), including the possibility to install Symbian apps. What was missing, were proper App stores to find those apps. Also capacitive Touchscreens were on the market. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada The the only revolutionary thing Apple provided were Appstores and lots and lots of marketing.

CoryAlexMartin 4y ago
A problem that I've come to notice with a lot of tech people is they either don't notice or don't value good implementation, even if that implementation is leagues ahead of everything else. It's important to develop taste and be able to look beyond feature lists. It doesn't matter that the LG Prada had a capacitive touchscreen or that the Nokia N95 had a web browser: the iPhone had a smooth, vibrant and responsive multi-touch operating system with natural scrolling and a surprisingly good touch keyboard. On the LG Prada you're poking at list items and dragging scrollbars while the device beeps at you and choppily redraws those lists like a terminal. On the Nokia N95, you're navigating the web with a jumpy cursor controlled by directional buttons, and typing with a numpad. There was nothing like the iPhone, and now everything is like the iPhone.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  > A problem that I've come to notice with a lot of tech people is they either don't notice or don't value good implementation That may be because Apple's implementation was absolutely lacking. The first iPhone was a vibrant, shiny feature phone disguised as a smartphone. They put their bet towards marketing and fashion, not tech and revolution - which paid off for them, as it turned out that was enough. Don't be surprised that techies aren't impressed by that though. In fact, I don't think the iPhone would be so successful if it didn't come out from Apple even if it was exactly the same as it was - it would likely find its niche, but it wouldn't be a significant threat to Nokia and others. (actually, the real iPhone wasn't that much of a threat either, it was Android that actually killed Nokia - or made it kill itself to be exact) > There was nothing like the iPhone, and now everything is like the iPhone. Many things were either like the iPhone already or were heading towards being like the iPhone. Apple's implementation advantage comes from the fact that it was designed from scratch as a touch-based interface, while existing platforms were only slowly iterating towards that, but they were getting there regardless. Some existing players, like Nokia, had teams that were already going there, and other teams that were actively sabotaging those efforts, which obviously left the door for Apple wide open. Apple's implementation sure was good enough, because marketing alone would quickly dry off otherwise. It wasn't revolutionary though. I'm certain that we would have very similar trends too had Apple not gone into mobile phone market at all. Maybe we wouldn't end up in a world where restricted walled gardens are the expected state of things on computers that we carry with ourselves all the time. Or maybe it would be worse, who knows. It wouldn't, however, be much different in how we interact with those devices, because writings were on the wall and Apple just happened to enter the market with a new thing at the right time with enough preexisting clout, as evidenced by multiple companies working on implementing Apple's "revolutions" at the same time as Apple, or even beating them by years in some cases.