5 ms·

Hindsight, of course, is 20/20--but to be fair to this journalist, there were some very real reasons to think the iPhone wouldn't really succeedn (at least not

Hindsight, of course, is 20/20--but to be fair to this journalist, there were some very real reasons to think the iPhone wouldn't really succeedn (at least not in an industry shifting way). At the time, the carriers maintained almost full control over the whole ecosystem and if entrenched players like Nokia couldn't force their hand on anything, what reason did people have to believe Apple could? Moreover, the initial price point was exorbitant for a phone in that day--and people should remember that the real explosion of iPhone sales didn't happen until the 3g brought about the subsidized model. What was underestimated was the public's desire for a smart phone catering to people as people not people as employees. And let's not forget that it brought about a "touch-revolution." In 2007, all the anti-Apple group could talk about was how "without a physical keyboard, it's just going to suck." With all of that said, reading this piece suggests the author was more drumming up pageviews by presenting a contrarian view than actually writing an article he believed in.

jack-r-abbit 15y ago
> let's not forget that it brought about a "touch-revolution." And let's not forget that when the iPhone was released it was not the first app enabled touch screen phone. I would say that Palm did just as much (if not more) for the touch revolution. It just did it in a bit more clunky way. The iPhone brought the sexy into the mix.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  I wasn't aware that the palm brought any touch features that weren't in the Newton.
  - jack-r-abbit 15y ago
    I'm not either. But I am aware that the Newton was a huge flop and the Palm Pilot was a huge success... probably timing.
- minalecs 15y ago
  there were a lot of touch devices pre iphone. I owned the nokia 770 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet around 06 and sony p900 around 04 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900. The biggest difference was the capicitive screen vs resistive screen and the requirement of a stylus for most things.
  - ekianjo 15y ago
    Let's not forget a number of PocketPC touch (stylus) devices were also phone-capable. That was YEARS before the iPhone. It had "apps" too, but we simply used to called that "programs" at that time. And there was no central market/appstore or anything. Most of these devices were very open.
    - geon 15y ago
      The interface on those was more of a barely usable desktop experience, that happened to use a stylus. You could not call it a "touch interface". My brother had a HP Jornada, and while he used through college, it was kind of sucky. It ran Doom, though. http://www.pocketpcfaq.com/wce/21/jornada680.JPG http://www.pocketpcfaq.com/wce/21/jornada680.JPG
      - ekianjo 15y ago
        I disagree. Those devices were very usable but, of course, you needed 2 hands to do anything with them. You could do a lot of stuff with it, and a number of apps were way more advanced than what you see on android and ios nowadays. The finger interface has got much better, but a stylus was way more precise for many purposes. The surface covered by a finger induces great limitations to the interfaces you can create. There's no miracle.
    - Terretta 15y ago
      Had one of first Compaq iPaq GPRS sleeves, ordered directly from Hong Kong before US availability. (Late 2001, early 2002.) And Handango was my "app store" of choice. The 5 years from 2002 to 2007 were interesting, but in hindsight seem to share so little with post iPhone industry.
- hej 15y ago
  That's the technology. Apple actually made people want those touch devices. They were the first ones to package it correctly. I'm sure there were many people who thought and wrote about rrepublics and democracies before the French revolution. But the revolution was what did it. Maybe the technology of those other phones was revolutionary. But revolutionary technology no one wants hardly matters. Apple found the revolutionary package.
  - jack-r-abbit 15y ago
    I think a lot of people wanted to use the Palm touch devices. There was a time when "Palm Pilot" was the "Kleenex" or "Band-aid" of the PDA world. Everything was a "Palm Pilot" even if it wasn't. Even future Palm products were "Palm Pilots" to the outsider. Now, Palm did not do a super job when it moved to the PDA+Phone mashup. It was clunky... not sexy.
    - hej 15y ago
      But how many people used PDAs? Those were always niche devices. Smartphones is where it's at.
tybris 15y ago
I think the simultaneous rise of successful social networks like Facebook played an incredibly large role in making people want to have the Internet with them all the time.

jack-r-abbit 15y ago

> let's not forget that it brought about a "touch-revolution." And let's not forget that when the iPhone was released it was not the first app enabled touch screen phone. I would say that Palm did just as much (if not more) for the touch revolution. It just did it in a bit more clunky way. The iPhone brought the sexy into the mix.

rbarooah 15y ago
I wasn't aware that the palm brought any touch features that weren't in the Newton.
- jack-r-abbit 15y ago
  I'm not either. But I am aware that the Newton was a huge flop and the Palm Pilot was a huge success... probably timing.
minalecs 15y ago
there were a lot of touch devices pre iphone. I owned the nokia 770 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet around 06 and sony p900 around 04 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900. The biggest difference was the capicitive screen vs resistive screen and the requirement of a stylus for most things.
- ekianjo 15y ago
  Let's not forget a number of PocketPC touch (stylus) devices were also phone-capable. That was YEARS before the iPhone. It had "apps" too, but we simply used to called that "programs" at that time. And there was no central market/appstore or anything. Most of these devices were very open.
  - geon 15y ago
    The interface on those was more of a barely usable desktop experience, that happened to use a stylus. You could not call it a "touch interface". My brother had a HP Jornada, and while he used through college, it was kind of sucky. It ran Doom, though. http://www.pocketpcfaq.com/wce/21/jornada680.JPG http://www.pocketpcfaq.com/wce/21/jornada680.JPG
    - ekianjo 15y ago
      I disagree. Those devices were very usable but, of course, you needed 2 hands to do anything with them. You could do a lot of stuff with it, and a number of apps were way more advanced than what you see on android and ios nowadays. The finger interface has got much better, but a stylus was way more precise for many purposes. The surface covered by a finger induces great limitations to the interfaces you can create. There's no miracle.
  - Terretta 15y ago
    Had one of first Compaq iPaq GPRS sleeves, ordered directly from Hong Kong before US availability. (Late 2001, early 2002.) And Handango was my "app store" of choice. The 5 years from 2002 to 2007 were interesting, but in hindsight seem to share so little with post iPhone industry.
hej 15y ago
That's the technology. Apple actually made people want those touch devices. They were the first ones to package it correctly. I'm sure there were many people who thought and wrote about rrepublics and democracies before the French revolution. But the revolution was what did it. Maybe the technology of those other phones was revolutionary. But revolutionary technology no one wants hardly matters. Apple found the revolutionary package.
- jack-r-abbit 15y ago
  I think a lot of people wanted to use the Palm touch devices. There was a time when "Palm Pilot" was the "Kleenex" or "Band-aid" of the PDA world. Everything was a "Palm Pilot" even if it wasn't. Even future Palm products were "Palm Pilots" to the outsider. Now, Palm did not do a super job when it moved to the PDA+Phone mashup. It was clunky... not sexy.
  - hej 15y ago
    But how many people used PDAs? Those were always niche devices. Smartphones is where it's at.

tybris 15y ago

I think the simultaneous rise of successful social networks like Facebook played an incredibly large role in making people want to have the Internet with them all the time.