4 ms·

> Microsoft simply lacked the network effects MS beat Apple to market by a considerable margin. Windows Mobile substantially predates the iPhone, and it was a

by amluto 3y ago

> Microsoft simply lacked the network effects MS beat Apple to market by a considerable margin. Windows Mobile substantially predates the iPhone, and it was actually usable. (I had one of their flagship devices.) But MS’s OS concept was incoherent, their UI was laggy, their web browser was unbearably slow despite arguably superior hardware, their form factor was not snazzy. And, unlike Apple, they utterly failed at marketing to consumers. Also, Apple out their foot down against carrier nonsense, so Apple users didn’t have to deal with $14.99/mo for Verizon Location or whatever they called it. (Although, to be fair, the original iPhone didn’t have GPS. Blackberry had far superior hardware at the time and really ought to have been able to compete, but they didn’t.) By the time the App Store showed up, it was pretty clear that Apple was beating MS.

smegger001 3y ago
blackberry didn't seem to care about regular consumers until it was to late, instead relying on corporate customers and relying on integration with enterprise messaging software. windows was well windows 8 and everyone hated it and everything about it. (and pre-windows phone 8 it was to fragmented with to many incompatible versions and little 3rd party support) Palm/HP WebOS was the real mobile OS with the best chance to win but failed because well HP... need i say more.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  > blackberry didn't seem to care about regular consumers until it was to late, instead relying on corporate customers and relying on integration with enterprise messaging software. Has trapped so many businesses. Enterprise customers can afford to pay enough to support good profit margins... ... but there are many more regular consumers, and regular consumer demands tend to produce better solutions than baroque enterprise demands (usually company- or VP-specific).
- numpad0 3y ago
  I think a lot of lessons learned around iPhone 2007-2012 have to do with looking at the elephant in the room. Blackberry was doing great with keyboards and refused to sell more of. Windows Mobile had tons of muscles as market share they just trimmed off. Windows Phone had Marketplace trust issue that couldn't be solved. Nokia burned itself down before Google. Palm did most of it right, but couldn't be bothered with exclusivity reneg. I can't say solving any one of them could have saved each of the brands, but they all had one giant elephant each that were enough to drag them down.
  - plank 3y ago
    A PalmOs user myself, I remember thinking the iPhone should have had no chances against the Palms. Although, might be the reason I went the Android way when that arrived;-)
- berniedurfee 3y ago
  There was no way big enterprises were going to allow those ‘toy’ iPhones on their network. That was the attitude for a minute until the CEO got a cool iPhone. Same with Macs. And jeans.
fragmede 3y ago
> Also, Apple out their foot down against carrier nonsense This is the main point, not the "also". Apple's revolution was actually getting it in the hands of real life consumers who paid for cell phone plans. The tech was already there with blackberry, but you had to have business to afford it. Yes, the original iPhone itself was a technical marvel, but it would have been a dead fish if it wasn't for the at& t deal that came out as part of it.
- leptons 3y ago
  >the original iPhone itself was a technical marvel Apple didn't invent anything in the original iPhone, except the software. And the first version was really lacking and very buggy. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/steve-jobs-rigged-first-iphone-152527272.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/steve-jobs-rigged-first-iphon... Other phones that predated the iPhone release had more capabilities and more software. There was nothing really "marvelous" about the original iPhone, it was many years behind Microsoft. The HTC Wizard was a "technical marvel" in 2005. Apple was playing catch-up in 2007.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    You're right. The "technical marvel" of the iPhone was the size of its battery. Treo's and Blackberry's were already there with the hardware. But the software. Apple's pretty good with software, so their implementation also made a difference.
    - leptons 3y ago
      The iPhone had a non-removable battery, which was a step backwards for consumers. And there was nothing special about it. At the time I had an HTC TyTN 2 phone that did everything the iPhone could do and more, and had a removable battery, about the same size as the battery inside the iPhone 1. If you look at photos of the TyTN 2 battery, and the iPhone 1 battery, they are very close to the same size. There was very little difference between those batteries. The TyTN 2 had a 1350mA hour lithium battery. The iPhone 1 had a 1400mA hour lithium battery. Practically no difference there in size or capacity. So, no, the iPhone's battery was not a "technical marvel" any more than other phones of that era. And in fact Apple's was a step back by being non-removable. I absolutely loved having a removable battery, because I could bring 2 or 3 with me on a long trip and never have to charge the phone. Apple was less functional in that way.
mr_toad 3y ago
Microsoft repeatedly tried to put Windows on a phone and it didn’t stick. Apple didn’t bother, they used an entirely different UI from the start, and it was a UI aimed at everyone from kids to grandparents, not just tech people.
- chii 3y ago
  > put Windows on a phone and it didn’t stick. that's because they half assed it. There's always the risk that mobile phones supersedes the desktop, and thus cannibalize the desktop windows sales. Microsoft also likely not able to force OEM licensing in the same way that they could with windows on PC sellers. If you could literally run windows apps on a phone back then, i reckon the MS phones would've at least grabbed some marketshare. Of course, the mobile hardware back then isn't as powerful, so there's the excuse that win32 cannot run there.

by amluto 3y ago

smegger001 3y ago

blackberry didn't seem to care about regular consumers until it was to late, instead relying on corporate customers and relying on integration with enterprise messaging software. windows was well windows 8 and everyone hated it and everything about it. (and pre-windows phone 8 it was to fragmented with to many incompatible versions and little 3rd party support) Palm/HP WebOS was the real mobile OS with the best chance to win but failed because well HP... need i say more.

ethbr1 3y ago
> blackberry didn't seem to care about regular consumers until it was to late, instead relying on corporate customers and relying on integration with enterprise messaging software. Has trapped so many businesses. Enterprise customers can afford to pay enough to support good profit margins... ... but there are many more regular consumers, and regular consumer demands tend to produce better solutions than baroque enterprise demands (usually company- or VP-specific).
numpad0 3y ago
I think a lot of lessons learned around iPhone 2007-2012 have to do with looking at the elephant in the room. Blackberry was doing great with keyboards and refused to sell more of. Windows Mobile had tons of muscles as market share they just trimmed off. Windows Phone had Marketplace trust issue that couldn't be solved. Nokia burned itself down before Google. Palm did most of it right, but couldn't be bothered with exclusivity reneg. I can't say solving any one of them could have saved each of the brands, but they all had one giant elephant each that were enough to drag them down.
- plank 3y ago
  A PalmOs user myself, I remember thinking the iPhone should have had no chances against the Palms. Although, might be the reason I went the Android way when that arrived;-)
berniedurfee 3y ago
There was no way big enterprises were going to allow those ‘toy’ iPhones on their network. That was the attitude for a minute until the CEO got a cool iPhone. Same with Macs. And jeans.

fragmede 3y ago

> Also, Apple out their foot down against carrier nonsense This is the main point, not the "also". Apple's revolution was actually getting it in the hands of real life consumers who paid for cell phone plans. The tech was already there with blackberry, but you had to have business to afford it. Yes, the original iPhone itself was a technical marvel, but it would have been a dead fish if it wasn't for the at& t deal that came out as part of it.

leptons 3y ago
>the original iPhone itself was a technical marvel Apple didn't invent anything in the original iPhone, except the software. And the first version was really lacking and very buggy. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/steve-jobs-rigged-first-iphone-152527272.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/steve-jobs-rigged-first-iphon... Other phones that predated the iPhone release had more capabilities and more software. There was nothing really "marvelous" about the original iPhone, it was many years behind Microsoft. The HTC Wizard was a "technical marvel" in 2005. Apple was playing catch-up in 2007.
- fragmede 3y ago
  You're right. The "technical marvel" of the iPhone was the size of its battery. Treo's and Blackberry's were already there with the hardware. But the software. Apple's pretty good with software, so their implementation also made a difference.
  - leptons 3y ago
    The iPhone had a non-removable battery, which was a step backwards for consumers. And there was nothing special about it. At the time I had an HTC TyTN 2 phone that did everything the iPhone could do and more, and had a removable battery, about the same size as the battery inside the iPhone 1. If you look at photos of the TyTN 2 battery, and the iPhone 1 battery, they are very close to the same size. There was very little difference between those batteries. The TyTN 2 had a 1350mA hour lithium battery. The iPhone 1 had a 1400mA hour lithium battery. Practically no difference there in size or capacity. So, no, the iPhone's battery was not a "technical marvel" any more than other phones of that era. And in fact Apple's was a step back by being non-removable. I absolutely loved having a removable battery, because I could bring 2 or 3 with me on a long trip and never have to charge the phone. Apple was less functional in that way.

mr_toad 3y ago

Microsoft repeatedly tried to put Windows on a phone and it didn’t stick. Apple didn’t bother, they used an entirely different UI from the start, and it was a UI aimed at everyone from kids to grandparents, not just tech people.

chii 3y ago
> put Windows on a phone and it didn’t stick. that's because they half assed it. There's always the risk that mobile phones supersedes the desktop, and thus cannibalize the desktop windows sales. Microsoft also likely not able to force OEM licensing in the same way that they could with windows on PC sellers. If you could literally run windows apps on a phone back then, i reckon the MS phones would've at least grabbed some marketshare. Of course, the mobile hardware back then isn't as powerful, so there's the excuse that win32 cannot run there.