3 ms·

It felt like it took a long time for the old guard to swing around to a touch-first interface after spending a decade or so building interfaces meant to be navi

It felt like it took a long time for the old guard to swing around to a touch-first interface after spending a decade or so building interfaces meant to be navigated with arrow keys below the screen.

bzzzt 2y ago
The first iPhone was Apple's first attempt at a modern touch screen device too. I think the difference is mainly in the extreme amount of care for details Apple seems to have for everything user related.
- danaris 2y ago
  Sure—but Apple had the advantage of being able to develop the whole thing fully to their satisfaction before revealing it (jury-rigged initial demo notwithstanding). Once the iPhone was revealed, everyone else had to scramble to catch up in real time, and many of them tried to just half-ass it—or, as the GP says, just weren't used to the paradigm and took a while to figure out how to do it well.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  For most other companies, the shift to / focus on touch interfaces was reactive. Apple’s first (mass market) mover advantage allowed them much more time for extensive internal iteration. Remember, they started off with the iPad, err, Newton…at least.
kodt 2y ago
I had the first Android phone, the HTC Dream, and it still had a flip out keyboard and a mini trackball for navigation. I know the attitude among many Android early adopters was that going full touch-screen was bad thing and should be avoided. Apple was right in the end though.
- venatiodecorus 2y ago
  Early touch screens (capacitive?) were also not great. I remember iPhone's being pretty decent, although I don't think I had one until the 3, but my memory is a bit fuzzy from that far back! They could be frustrating to use, and often the usable area for interactivity was smaller than the actual screen, with issues detecting touch at the edges.

3 ms·

It felt like it took a long time for the old guard to swing around to a touch-first interface after spending a decade or so building interfaces meant to be navi

by seanalltogether 2y ago

It felt like it took a long time for the old guard to swing around to a touch-first interface after spending a decade or so building interfaces meant to be navigated with arrow keys below the screen.

bzzzt 2y ago
The first iPhone was Apple's first attempt at a modern touch screen device too. I think the difference is mainly in the extreme amount of care for details Apple seems to have for everything user related.
- danaris 2y ago
  Sure—but Apple had the advantage of being able to develop the whole thing fully to their satisfaction before revealing it (jury-rigged initial demo notwithstanding). Once the iPhone was revealed, everyone else had to scramble to catch up in real time, and many of them tried to just half-ass it—or, as the GP says, just weren't used to the paradigm and took a while to figure out how to do it well.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  For most other companies, the shift to / focus on touch interfaces was reactive. Apple’s first (mass market) mover advantage allowed them much more time for extensive internal iteration. Remember, they started off with the iPad, err, Newton…at least.
kodt 2y ago
I had the first Android phone, the HTC Dream, and it still had a flip out keyboard and a mini trackball for navigation. I know the attitude among many Android early adopters was that going full touch-screen was bad thing and should be avoided. Apple was right in the end though.
- venatiodecorus 2y ago
  Early touch screens (capacitive?) were also not great. I remember iPhone's being pretty decent, although I don't think I had one until the 3, but my memory is a bit fuzzy from that far back! They could be frustrating to use, and often the usable area for interactivity was smaller than the actual screen, with issues detecting touch at the edges.