4 ms·

The iPhone was a software innovation that was years ahead of the industry at the time, enabled by that one hardware innovation that you’re sounding rather dismi

by wrs 3y ago

The iPhone was a software innovation that was years ahead of the industry at the time, enabled by that one hardware innovation that you’re sounding rather dismissive of.

ajross 3y ago
I don't think I'm "dismissing" anything. I replied to a comment that made what I think is an incorrect point about how the product was received at release. It's too easy to take a successful product and mythologize its origins, when in fact history was complicated and in a lot of ways the early iPhone kinda sucked. Again, there were existing app ecosystems on Symbian/Nokia and Windows, and none of that stuff, or anything like it, ran on an iPhone. You couldn't even get your email on the device outside of a handful of open source web clients (its inability to run the gmail client was a big hole, heavily reported at the time).
- wrs 3y ago
  The early iPhone sucked in ways similar to how the early iPod sucked, and was received with similar reactions. In both cases, the folks who predicted failure focused too much on the technical deficiencies of the V1 product and not enough on the game-changing difference in approach. In the iPhone’s case that meant betting fully on a multitouch screen with a rich, smoothly animated GUI, and wresting software control away from the carriers. I think the latter in particular was not sufficiently appreciated.
  - ajross 3y ago
    Are you trying to argue with me as a proxy for the linked article? I didn't write it, and I didn't say any of that stuff you seem to be responding to. I'm explaining why it wasn't seen as a paradigm shift at the time, and that its dominance evolved over time (which is hardly surprising). Hyperbolizing history is generally a bad idea. The iPhone, as released, was a very mixed product.
    - wrs 3y ago
      I disagree with exactly that: I watched the intro live as someone in the industry (so it isn't "history" to me), and I and many others, including Andy Rubin [0], definitely saw it as a paradigm shift at the time, for the two reasons I stated. BTW, it was also a common belief in the industry that the emphasis on web applications was basically a smokescreen, because the SDK was not ready and Steve didn't want to focus attention on something that didn't exist yet. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5229618/android-started-over-the-day-the-iphone-was-announced https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5229618/android-started-...
- spectre3d 3y ago
  >You couldn't even get your email on the device outside of a handful of open source web clients Totally false. The first iPhone shipped with Mail, which handled POP and IMAP accounts very well, including gmail accounts.

by wrs 3y ago

The iPhone was a software innovation that was years ahead of the industry at the time, enabled by that one hardware innovation that you’re sounding rather dismissive of.

ajross 3y ago

I don't think I'm "dismissing" anything. I replied to a comment that made what I think is an incorrect point about how the product was received at release. It's too easy to take a successful product and mythologize its origins, when in fact history was complicated and in a lot of ways the early iPhone kinda sucked. Again, there were existing app ecosystems on Symbian/Nokia and Windows, and none of that stuff, or anything like it, ran on an iPhone. You couldn't even get your email on the device outside of a handful of open source web clients (its inability to run the gmail client was a big hole, heavily reported at the time).

wrs 3y ago
The early iPhone sucked in ways similar to how the early iPod sucked, and was received with similar reactions. In both cases, the folks who predicted failure focused too much on the technical deficiencies of the V1 product and not enough on the game-changing difference in approach. In the iPhone’s case that meant betting fully on a multitouch screen with a rich, smoothly animated GUI, and wresting software control away from the carriers. I think the latter in particular was not sufficiently appreciated.
- ajross 3y ago
  Are you trying to argue with me as a proxy for the linked article? I didn't write it, and I didn't say any of that stuff you seem to be responding to. I'm explaining why it wasn't seen as a paradigm shift at the time, and that its dominance evolved over time (which is hardly surprising). Hyperbolizing history is generally a bad idea. The iPhone, as released, was a very mixed product.
  - wrs 3y ago
    I disagree with exactly that: I watched the intro live as someone in the industry (so it isn't "history" to me), and I and many others, including Andy Rubin [0], definitely saw it as a paradigm shift at the time, for the two reasons I stated. BTW, it was also a common belief in the industry that the emphasis on web applications was basically a smokescreen, because the SDK was not ready and Steve didn't want to focus attention on something that didn't exist yet. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5229618/android-started-over-the-day-the-iphone-was-announced https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5229618/android-started-...
spectre3d 3y ago
>You couldn't even get your email on the device outside of a handful of open source web clients Totally false. The first iPhone shipped with Mail, which handled POP and IMAP accounts very well, including gmail accounts.