4 ms·

Underspeced? What? Compared to what? This is not even remotely defensible. In its spec it offered a full color multi-touch gesture display —instead of a 132x65

Underspeced? What? Compared to what? This is not even remotely defensible. In its spec it offered a full color multi-touch gesture display —instead of a 132x65 pixel black and white screen. Like Steve Jobs said, products are a series of choices.

snowwrestler 3y ago
The original iPhone had 2G cellular connection which was slow for the time, and especially silly since, as you point out, it was well powered otherwise. The iPhone 3GS caught it up to other smart phones in the market. It also launched without cut and paste available in the UI, which again, was silly given how it was otherwise an impressive mobile computer.
- ghaff 3y ago
  While there were obviously people who bought the iPhone as soon as it became available, it was probably the 3GS when it really took off. That's when I replaced my Treo. (I also think I was starting a new and more secure job by then.)
jandrese 3y ago
It was EDGE and didn't have enough memory to run the browser well, which caused significant slowdowns. Granted, it was still better than literally every other phone browser at the time, but that didn't mean it was a good as it could have been. The iPhone 3G was a significant upgrade.
- simondotau 3y ago
  > but that didn't mean it was a good as it could have been Nothing is, and nothing can be. Not even if you eliminate cost from the equation. Not even if you eliminate manufacturability, or supply chain availability. You're holding the original iPhone to an impossible standard. The iPhone was arguably the best product Apple could have made for that price, to be released on that date. Sure it could have been better and more expensive. It could have been better and further delayed. It could have been better and also worse in some other way.
mvdtnz 3y ago
Lots of Windows devices pre-dating the iPhone had comparable full colour touch screens. Its competition certainly wasn't the "132x65 pixel black and white screen".
- simondotau 3y ago
  Lots of Windows devices pre-dating the iPhone had similar sized full colour screens. None had comparable screens, and Windows certainly didn't have an interface worth touching with a finger.
FireBeyond 3y ago
The N95 outspecced it in essentially every way: First available March 2007, three months before the iPhone was introduced. * Memory - 160MB, versus iPhone: 128MB. * CPU - Dual CPU, 332 MHz Texas Instruments OMAP 2420 (ARM11-based), versus Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 412 MHz * Display - iPhone: 320x480 18-bit 3.5", versus N95: 240x320 24-bit, 2.6" * Network ability: HSDPA 3.5G, versus iPhone: GSM/EDGE * Camera: 5MP, versus iPhone 2MP
- relativ575 3y ago
  Doesn't mean iPhone was underspeced. N95 was priced at $750 vs. $500 for iPhone. N95 could have up to 4hrs talk time, 8hrs with WiFi turned off! iPhone could do 8hrs. iPhone could also browse the web for 6 hours, play videos for 7hrs, play audio for 24 hours. N95 was more expensive, with worse software, worse screen, worse battery life.

snowwrestler 3y ago

The original iPhone had 2G cellular connection which was slow for the time, and especially silly since, as you point out, it was well powered otherwise. The iPhone 3GS caught it up to other smart phones in the market. It also launched without cut and paste available in the UI, which again, was silly given how it was otherwise an impressive mobile computer.

ghaff 3y ago
While there were obviously people who bought the iPhone as soon as it became available, it was probably the 3GS when it really took off. That's when I replaced my Treo. (I also think I was starting a new and more secure job by then.)

jandrese 3y ago

It was EDGE and didn't have enough memory to run the browser well, which caused significant slowdowns. Granted, it was still better than literally every other phone browser at the time, but that didn't mean it was a good as it could have been. The iPhone 3G was a significant upgrade.

simondotau 3y ago
> but that didn't mean it was a good as it could have been Nothing is, and nothing can be. Not even if you eliminate cost from the equation. Not even if you eliminate manufacturability, or supply chain availability. You're holding the original iPhone to an impossible standard. The iPhone was arguably the best product Apple could have made for that price, to be released on that date. Sure it could have been better and more expensive. It could have been better and further delayed. It could have been better and also worse in some other way.

mvdtnz 3y ago

Lots of Windows devices pre-dating the iPhone had comparable full colour touch screens. Its competition certainly wasn't the "132x65 pixel black and white screen".

simondotau 3y ago
Lots of Windows devices pre-dating the iPhone had similar sized full colour screens. None had comparable screens, and Windows certainly didn't have an interface worth touching with a finger.

FireBeyond 3y ago

The N95 outspecced it in essentially every way: First available March 2007, three months before the iPhone was introduced. * Memory - 160MB, versus iPhone: 128MB. * CPU - Dual CPU, 332 MHz Texas Instruments OMAP 2420 (ARM11-based), versus Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 412 MHz * Display - iPhone: 320x480 18-bit 3.5", versus N95: 240x320 24-bit, 2.6" * Network ability: HSDPA 3.5G, versus iPhone: GSM/EDGE * Camera: 5MP, versus iPhone 2MP

relativ575 3y ago
Doesn't mean iPhone was underspeced. N95 was priced at $750 vs. $500 for iPhone. N95 could have up to 4hrs talk time, 8hrs with WiFi turned off! iPhone could do 8hrs. iPhone could also browse the web for 6 hours, play videos for 7hrs, play audio for 24 hours. N95 was more expensive, with worse software, worse screen, worse battery life.