5 ms·

"The iPhone is heralded as the most revolutionary mobile phone in human history, but the cold and harsh truth is that for all the cheering and punditry, the iPh

"The iPhone is heralded as the most revolutionary mobile phone in human history, but the cold and harsh truth is that for all the cheering and punditry, the iPhone's impact on the world is negligible." Don't care for Android vs. iPhone arguments but lets at least admit that iPhone was a significant catalyst that moved forward the smartphone movement initially at the least. Androids would probably still exist if Apple never put out the iPhone but the iPhone has certainly been one of the biggest influences on Android's development not to mention the entire mobile industry. In that regard I see the author's statement as pretty narrow. Its like saying Unix had no impact on computing because Microsoft had the lion's share.

mwk 15y ago
The Unix Windows analogy was the first thing I thought of when i read that quote. also, the author's definition of revolutionary seems to oscillate between impact on the world and the impact on the industry.
- mirzmaster 15y ago
  I don't think the Unix-Windows analogy is very apt, actually, as both have been revolutionary in different ways (by any measure). *nix has gone on to power much of the software on which the Internet runs. Windows powers much of the software user's directly interact with. By comparison, Apple/iOS and Android are competing more directly. The author of the article is arguing that more revolutionary than being the first (or even the best) at something is subsequently making that innovation accessible to as many people as possible. This is something both Unix and Windows have achieved, Android is trying to achieve, but I'm not sure Apple is even interested in. Perhaps a more apt analogy would be the invention of the automobile vs. the assembly line. True, the automobile was a genuine innovation, but the assembly line put the automobile within reach of everyone. With this view in mind, it's okay that Apple wants to focus on pushing the envelope in what its car can do. Likewise, it's okay that Google wants to focus on making those or similar innovations accessible to as many as possible.
jeffjose 15y ago
This. This was the only thing in that article that I felt was wrong. Credit where credit is due. Steve showed us what was capable with a smartphone. iPhone would be remembered for that, just that.
- dannyr 15y ago
  From the article: "The iPhone is heralded as the most revolutionary mobile phone in human history..." What kind of credit do you want? "IPhone is more important than air." "If not for the IPhone, the world would stop spinning." "IPhone has prevented 1,000,000 world wars since it was released."
  - masklinn 15y ago
    Your strawmen are not exactly impressive. The very phrase you quoted specifies that it's revolutionary as a mobile phone. Do you know of any mobile phone "more important than air", "making the world spin" or "preventing wars" through its intrinsic properties?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - dannyr 15y ago
      Damn, I forgot to add the #sarcasm hashtag.
  - pooriaazimi 15y ago
    It's 'iPhone', not 'IPhone'. Using the latter dos not make you look any smarter... And it's really annoying.
masklinn 15y ago
> Androids would probably still exist if Apple never put out the iPhone While Android would definitely exist (it predates the iPhone's unveiling by years) it would be a very, very different beast. It might have moved towards its current state over time, but its first handsets would have been much more similar to the Blackberries of the time. In fact, this (recorded) origin still plagues the platform to this day, it's one of the sources of the structural issues leading to "insufficient" responsiveness.
- geuis 15y ago
  Android was released September 20, 2008. The first iPhone, thus iOS, was released June 27, 2007. I fail to see how Android predates iOS by years. *Edit for folks who are voting this down: I am not making any kind of argument in favor of one platform or another. I am simply commenting on what was said in the parent comment. The release dates are simple fact. Go to Wikipedia like I did and find it for yourself. Apple got to the market over a year before Google released its first product based on Android. The first version of iOS was in development for a long time, as was the first version of Android, before the world ever really got to see them. Thus, saying that Android was in development years before iOS implies that iOS was some last minute project Apple threw together. It's simply not true in either case.
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    Google didn't wake up on June 28th 2007 and say, "Shit, we'd better make a phone OS", and then release it 15 months later. Both were under development for years before they were released. The idiots who think Android is just an iOS clone, forget this point.
    - geuis 15y ago
      No one is making any kind of argument that Android is an iOS clone. At least I'm not. Yes, both were in development for years before the world got to see anything. To the original point of my comment, though, Android didn't predate iOS by years as the parent comment says. That comment implies that iOS copied from Android, which I am refuting.
joenathan 15y ago
You conveniently missed the sentence right after your quote "Sure, it had a huge impact on the smartphone market..."
Joeri 15y ago
I think the iphone had two innovations that moved the industry forward: (1) a first-class finger-driven interface and (2) a desktop-class browser optimized for mobile viewing instead of a dedicated mobile browsing engine. Android would probably have gotten the high-quality browser with or without the iphone, but the touch interface wasn't likely to happen in isolation. The notion that the way to improve the UI of mobile devices was to make it much less precise is preposterous, and it took apple to show people the way. So yes apple did have an impact, but from the context of what the article considers meaningful, it is indeed not a very big one.

mwk 15y ago

The Unix Windows analogy was the first thing I thought of when i read that quote. also, the author's definition of revolutionary seems to oscillate between impact on the world and the impact on the industry.

mirzmaster 15y ago
I don't think the Unix-Windows analogy is very apt, actually, as both have been revolutionary in different ways (by any measure). *nix has gone on to power much of the software on which the Internet runs. Windows powers much of the software user's directly interact with. By comparison, Apple/iOS and Android are competing more directly. The author of the article is arguing that more revolutionary than being the first (or even the best) at something is subsequently making that innovation accessible to as many people as possible. This is something both Unix and Windows have achieved, Android is trying to achieve, but I'm not sure Apple is even interested in. Perhaps a more apt analogy would be the invention of the automobile vs. the assembly line. True, the automobile was a genuine innovation, but the assembly line put the automobile within reach of everyone. With this view in mind, it's okay that Apple wants to focus on pushing the envelope in what its car can do. Likewise, it's okay that Google wants to focus on making those or similar innovations accessible to as many as possible.

jeffjose 15y ago

This. This was the only thing in that article that I felt was wrong. Credit where credit is due. Steve showed us what was capable with a smartphone. iPhone would be remembered for that, just that.

dannyr 15y ago
From the article: "The iPhone is heralded as the most revolutionary mobile phone in human history..." What kind of credit do you want? "IPhone is more important than air." "If not for the IPhone, the world would stop spinning." "IPhone has prevented 1,000,000 world wars since it was released."
- masklinn 15y ago
  Your strawmen are not exactly impressive. The very phrase you quoted specifies that it's revolutionary as a mobile phone. Do you know of any mobile phone "more important than air", "making the world spin" or "preventing wars" through its intrinsic properties?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - dannyr 15y ago
    Damn, I forgot to add the #sarcasm hashtag.
- pooriaazimi 15y ago
  It's 'iPhone', not 'IPhone'. Using the latter dos not make you look any smarter... And it's really annoying.

masklinn 15y ago

> Androids would probably still exist if Apple never put out the iPhone While Android would definitely exist (it predates the iPhone's unveiling by years) it would be a very, very different beast. It might have moved towards its current state over time, but its first handsets would have been much more similar to the Blackberries of the time. In fact, this (recorded) origin still plagues the platform to this day, it's one of the sources of the structural issues leading to "insufficient" responsiveness.

geuis 15y ago
Android was released September 20, 2008. The first iPhone, thus iOS, was released June 27, 2007. I fail to see how Android predates iOS by years. *Edit for folks who are voting this down: I am not making any kind of argument in favor of one platform or another. I am simply commenting on what was said in the parent comment. The release dates are simple fact. Go to Wikipedia like I did and find it for yourself. Apple got to the market over a year before Google released its first product based on Android. The first version of iOS was in development for a long time, as was the first version of Android, before the world ever really got to see them. Thus, saying that Android was in development years before iOS implies that iOS was some last minute project Apple threw together. It's simply not true in either case.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  Google didn't wake up on June 28th 2007 and say, "Shit, we'd better make a phone OS", and then release it 15 months later. Both were under development for years before they were released. The idiots who think Android is just an iOS clone, forget this point.
  - geuis 15y ago
    No one is making any kind of argument that Android is an iOS clone. At least I'm not. Yes, both were in development for years before the world got to see anything. To the original point of my comment, though, Android didn't predate iOS by years as the parent comment says. That comment implies that iOS copied from Android, which I am refuting.

joenathan 15y ago

You conveniently missed the sentence right after your quote "Sure, it had a huge impact on the smartphone market..."

Joeri 15y ago

I think the iphone had two innovations that moved the industry forward: (1) a first-class finger-driven interface and (2) a desktop-class browser optimized for mobile viewing instead of a dedicated mobile browsing engine. Android would probably have gotten the high-quality browser with or without the iphone, but the touch interface wasn't likely to happen in isolation. The notion that the way to improve the UI of mobile devices was to make it much less precise is preposterous, and it took apple to show people the way. So yes apple did have an impact, but from the context of what the article considers meaningful, it is indeed not a very big one.