4 ms·

Are you serious? It was absolutely a revolutionary product, in a number of different ways. It redefined the way one interacts with mobile interfaces (swipes, fl

Are you serious? It was absolutely a revolutionary product, in a number of different ways. It redefined the way one interacts with mobile interfaces (swipes, flicks, pinches and other 'touch' gestured premiered in a commercial product with the iPhone) - stylus based control was completely replaced. Apple also wrest control of the end-user experience from the carriers, preventing them from forcing their crap-ware onto their customers. It created a (much more) open ecosystem for mobile apps, that wasn't strictly controlled by the carriers. In US, Apple pushed for and got AT&T to agree to an 'unlimited' data plan. The original iPhone browser was like no other mobile browser at the time. It was actually usable. With the iPhone, the smart phone went from a niche business product to mass market adoption almost completely replacing traditional cellphones, and destroyed pretty much all existing competition (Nokia Symbian, Blackberry, Palm, PocketPC). It wasn't just marketing. It really was a transformative product.

wpietri 14y ago
I think the iPhone was a nice set of improvements on the existing smartphones of the day, but I just don't see it as revolutionary in the sense that Blank means. Apple definitely forced the pace of evolution in that market substantially, but they didn't create an entirely new market. That's not a knock on Apple, by any means. I think they're brilliant at taking an existing consumer product and dominating it by making something that's radically better designed and made. They are very willing to let other people pioneer a category and prove the market before coming in to crush their competitors, drive their executives before them, and hear the lamentation of their women. One could argue that given their particular skills, that's a much better use of their time and money than pioneering anything major.
- greghinch 14y ago
  I'm sorry, do you remember the state of touch screen consumer devices pre-iPhone? It was a much different world. If your jaw didn't drop a little the first time you saw the pinch/pull zoom on a map during the keynote, I don't know what it would take to actually amaze you.
  - macspoofing 14y ago
    The other day, I was setting wifi on my Dad's old Dell Axim (PocketPC PDA). I was trying to hit the keyboard with my finger and wondering why the keyboard was so small, before I realize that, of course, I was supposed to be using a stylus. It's amazing how much the landscape changed.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    I do. It was a very impressive set of user interface improvements. That something amazes me does not make a revolutionary product in the sense that Blank means. For him it's a technical term.
    - greghinch 14y ago
      Really. The 100-odd patents filed by Apple just to achieve that level of touch capability don't constitute a technical revolution? Compared to the state at which touch screens had been advancing prior, it was a night and day change.
- theorique 14y ago
  they didn't create an entirely new market The App Store provided an entirely new sales and delivery platform for inexpensive smartphone software programs. This is a $2B market for software that didn't exist before. I'd call that an entirely new market. Perhaps not big by Apple scale, but lots of companies would kill to have a $2B market.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Not entirely new. See the Danger Hiptop / Sidekick (and its download catalog) from 2002, among other examples. Did Apple do much better with a more powerful device and a large user population used to buying music and other media from them? Absolutely. But that's still doing it better, not doing something entirely new.
    - theorique 14y ago
      That's fair. I have heard of that device but did not realize that it had an app store. I think Apple's (correctly) viewed as the company who "makes it work" with the right combination of technology that is cutting edge enough, but integrated superbly. When they are really out on the leading edge, the results are mixed (e.g. Newton), although that may have changed with greater vertical integration and supply logistics in recent years. On that level, though, how "entirely new" does something have to be before it gets that stamp. If a given company invents something but doesn't bring it out of beta, and another company becomes known for commercializing it and bringing it to millions, who gets / deserves the most credit?
      - fpgeek 14y ago
        I don't think there's an objective way to divide the credit - different people are going to assign different weights to different parts of the process because they have different values. That being said, it is clear many Apple fans (and Apple themselves, frankly) have gone way past a reasonable division of credit. Considering the last decade-plus of smartphone history, the idea that Apple should be suing HTC (among others) over products they developed with Andy Rubin's ex-Danger team is laughable. If either (or both) had spent a bit more time and money on patent lawyers in the early 2000s, they could have sued the iPhone out of existence. At least at HTC (at Google is a more complicated question), I'm sure there are a few people who regret that they didn't.
- macspoofing 14y ago
  Honestly, I don't think you're giving them enough justice. It was more than just a "nice set of improvements", as the corpses of PocketPC, Symbian, Palm (and soon maybe) Blackberry can attest. >Apple definitely forced the pace of evolution in that market substantially, but they didn't create an entirely new market. Here's one example: mobile and mobile apps. Look at the number of start-ups (and established companies) in mobile, compared to just a few years ago. The app store model made buying, downloading and installing mobile apps, brain-dead simple for users which exploded the market. You have to give them more credit.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    You do understand that it wasn't the iPhone that killed Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian and (maybe) Blackberry, right? It certainly didn't help, but to this day (and probably for the foreseeable future), there is still a larger non-iPhone slice of the market to divide up. Existing smartphone players could have stuck with incremental improvements and held onto more than enough to survive. As evidence, I'll note that iPhone didn't pass Symbian until somewhere between Q2 and Q4 2011 (depending on which analyst you believe) - after Nokia announced the switch to Windows Phone. Existing players could have survived the iPhone, but something else happened...
  - wpietri 14y ago
    You can drive somebody else out of business without a revolutionary product. Look at how the US car companies got hammered by the Japanese for decades. Japanese cars did not fly or even hover. They were just better cars, but they still kicked Detroit's ass around the block again and again. I'm happy to agree that Apple's App Store was a revolutionary approach to software sales, though. That really did transform a market entirely. But the iPhone itself was not revolutionary in the same sense.

wpietri 14y ago

I think the iPhone was a nice set of improvements on the existing smartphones of the day, but I just don't see it as revolutionary in the sense that Blank means. Apple definitely forced the pace of evolution in that market substantially, but they didn't create an entirely new market. That's not a knock on Apple, by any means. I think they're brilliant at taking an existing consumer product and dominating it by making something that's radically better designed and made. They are very willing to let other people pioneer a category and prove the market before coming in to crush their competitors, drive their executives before them, and hear the lamentation of their women. One could argue that given their particular skills, that's a much better use of their time and money than pioneering anything major.

greghinch 14y ago
I'm sorry, do you remember the state of touch screen consumer devices pre-iPhone? It was a much different world. If your jaw didn't drop a little the first time you saw the pinch/pull zoom on a map during the keynote, I don't know what it would take to actually amaze you.
- macspoofing 14y ago
  The other day, I was setting wifi on my Dad's old Dell Axim (PocketPC PDA). I was trying to hit the keyboard with my finger and wondering why the keyboard was so small, before I realize that, of course, I was supposed to be using a stylus. It's amazing how much the landscape changed.
- wpietri 14y ago
  I do. It was a very impressive set of user interface improvements. That something amazes me does not make a revolutionary product in the sense that Blank means. For him it's a technical term.
  - greghinch 14y ago
    Really. The 100-odd patents filed by Apple just to achieve that level of touch capability don't constitute a technical revolution? Compared to the state at which touch screens had been advancing prior, it was a night and day change.
theorique 14y ago
they didn't create an entirely new market The App Store provided an entirely new sales and delivery platform for inexpensive smartphone software programs. This is a $2B market for software that didn't exist before. I'd call that an entirely new market. Perhaps not big by Apple scale, but lots of companies would kill to have a $2B market.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Not entirely new. See the Danger Hiptop / Sidekick (and its download catalog) from 2002, among other examples. Did Apple do much better with a more powerful device and a large user population used to buying music and other media from them? Absolutely. But that's still doing it better, not doing something entirely new.
  - theorique 14y ago
    That's fair. I have heard of that device but did not realize that it had an app store. I think Apple's (correctly) viewed as the company who "makes it work" with the right combination of technology that is cutting edge enough, but integrated superbly. When they are really out on the leading edge, the results are mixed (e.g. Newton), although that may have changed with greater vertical integration and supply logistics in recent years. On that level, though, how "entirely new" does something have to be before it gets that stamp. If a given company invents something but doesn't bring it out of beta, and another company becomes known for commercializing it and bringing it to millions, who gets / deserves the most credit?
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      I don't think there's an objective way to divide the credit - different people are going to assign different weights to different parts of the process because they have different values. That being said, it is clear many Apple fans (and Apple themselves, frankly) have gone way past a reasonable division of credit. Considering the last decade-plus of smartphone history, the idea that Apple should be suing HTC (among others) over products they developed with Andy Rubin's ex-Danger team is laughable. If either (or both) had spent a bit more time and money on patent lawyers in the early 2000s, they could have sued the iPhone out of existence. At least at HTC (at Google is a more complicated question), I'm sure there are a few people who regret that they didn't.
macspoofing 14y ago
Honestly, I don't think you're giving them enough justice. It was more than just a "nice set of improvements", as the corpses of PocketPC, Symbian, Palm (and soon maybe) Blackberry can attest. >Apple definitely forced the pace of evolution in that market substantially, but they didn't create an entirely new market. Here's one example: mobile and mobile apps. Look at the number of start-ups (and established companies) in mobile, compared to just a few years ago. The app store model made buying, downloading and installing mobile apps, brain-dead simple for users which exploded the market. You have to give them more credit.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  You do understand that it wasn't the iPhone that killed Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian and (maybe) Blackberry, right? It certainly didn't help, but to this day (and probably for the foreseeable future), there is still a larger non-iPhone slice of the market to divide up. Existing smartphone players could have stuck with incremental improvements and held onto more than enough to survive. As evidence, I'll note that iPhone didn't pass Symbian until somewhere between Q2 and Q4 2011 (depending on which analyst you believe) - after Nokia announced the switch to Windows Phone. Existing players could have survived the iPhone, but something else happened...
- wpietri 14y ago
  You can drive somebody else out of business without a revolutionary product. Look at how the US car companies got hammered by the Japanese for decades. Japanese cars did not fly or even hover. They were just better cars, but they still kicked Detroit's ass around the block again and again. I'm happy to agree that Apple's App Store was a revolutionary approach to software sales, though. That really did transform a market entirely. But the iPhone itself was not revolutionary in the same sense.