3 ms·

>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 l

>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.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    I can't comment on the TyTN2, but I'm thinking back to Blackberry employees (CEO?) saying > "The iPhone "couldn’t do what [Apple was] demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life," Shacknews poster Kentor heard from his former colleagues of the time. "Imagine their surprise [at RIM] when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it." https://www.redmondpie.com/blackberry-maker-rim-thought-apple-was-lying-about-iphone-in-2007/amp/ https://www.redmondpie.com/blackberry-maker-rim-thought-appl...
    - leptons 3y ago
      That's your rebuttal?? The engineers at blackberry were pretty inept and stuck in the past, which is why they're no longer in business. That article contributes nothing towards your claim that the first iPhone was a "technical marvel". I cited an example of a phone released in 2007 that had the same battery tech that Apple had. Was that also a "technical marvel"? And the model before it and the one before that? Apple didn't do anything groundbreaking in the first iPhone except maybe a capacitive touchscreen, which wasn't anything they invented, they were around long before the iphone.

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.
- fragmede 3y ago
  I can't comment on the TyTN2, but I'm thinking back to Blackberry employees (CEO?) saying > "The iPhone "couldn’t do what [Apple was] demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life," Shacknews poster Kentor heard from his former colleagues of the time. "Imagine their surprise [at RIM] when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it." https://www.redmondpie.com/blackberry-maker-rim-thought-apple-was-lying-about-iphone-in-2007/amp/ https://www.redmondpie.com/blackberry-maker-rim-thought-appl...
  - leptons 3y ago
    That's your rebuttal?? The engineers at blackberry were pretty inept and stuck in the past, which is why they're no longer in business. That article contributes nothing towards your claim that the first iPhone was a "technical marvel". I cited an example of a phone released in 2007 that had the same battery tech that Apple had. Was that also a "technical marvel"? And the model before it and the one before that? Apple didn't do anything groundbreaking in the first iPhone except maybe a capacitive touchscreen, which wasn't anything they invented, they were around long before the iphone.