4 ms·

Let's see: Microsoft Windows: wasn't close to the first OS Microsoft Office: wasn't close to the first office editing suite Google: Wasn't close to the first

Let's see: Microsoft Windows: wasn't close to the first OS Microsoft Office: wasn't close to the first office editing suite Google: Wasn't close to the first search engine Facebook: Wasn't close to the first social media website Apple: ~~First "smart phone"~~ but not the first personal computer. Comments reminded me that it wasn't the first smartphone Netflix: Wasn't close to the first video rental service. Amazon: Wasn't close to the first web store None of the big five were first in their dominate categories. They were first to offer some gimmick (i.e., google was fast, netflix was by mail, no late fees), but not first categorically. Though they certainly did benefit from learnings of those that came before them.

AlexandrB 2y ago
> Apple: First "smart phone" but not the first personal computer Was it the first smartphone? I would call phones like the Palm Treo and later BlackBerries smartphones. There were even apps, but everything was lot more locked down and a lot more expensive.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  First modern smartphone (capacitive touch screen/multi-touch/form factor), but not first smartphone.
- dvt 2y ago
  > There were even apps, but everything was lot more locked down and a lot more expensive. And just plain... bad. The entire experience didn't have that "feel" that Apple turned into reality. It's comparable to today's AI landscape—the technology is pretty neat, but using it is a complete slog.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    I actually have pretty fond memories of PalmOS PDAs. The hardware was very nice, but they were held back by the resistive touchscreen and dependence on a stylus for input. I never used a Treo but it felt like this was Palm trying to copy BlackBerry by adding a physical keyboard. Edit: There were also the limitations of that era that held devices back in general. WAP internet[1] was awful, but most mobile services were too slow for much else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol
  - nextos 2y ago
    Nokias were very open. You had a terminal with apt-get. The entire device was a regular Linux machine.
    - endless1234 2y ago
      In general, they were not. You're probably thinking of the very niche and unsuccessful Maemo/MeeGo project - eg Nokia N900 - that were indeed Linux-based. But everything else smartphone-ish from Nokia before Lumia (Windows Phone) were Symbian, which predates Linux and has nothing to do with it.
      - nextos 2y ago
        I am of course referring to Maemo, as per my previous post.
- irq 2y ago
  > I would call phones like the Palm Treo and later BlackBerries smartphones. It's not just you; at the time these products were available, _everyone_ called them smartphones. Emphatically, Apple did not bring the first smartphone to market, not even close. They were, however, the first to popularize it beyond the field of nerds into the general public.
  - tim333 2y ago
    I had an Nokia N95 which was basically a smartphone and came out a year before the iPhone. And Wikipedia says >it became a huge sales success for Nokia ... It managed to outsell rivals such as LG Viewty and iPhone. However the iPhone got better.
- nextos 2y ago
  There were Nokias running Maemo ahead of the iPhone. Note these were not Symbian. The 770 was released in Q4 '05. They definitely fell within the smartphone category, but oddly the first few iterations lacked GSM radio.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    I would classify them as tablets. At least what I thought my N810 as.
- malfist 2y ago
  I'm a complete idiot. I almost bought an HTC fuse too
robbiemitchell 2y ago
> some gimmick "key differentiator" and not necessarily easy to pull off or pay for
olalonde 2y ago
I have a pet peeve with this common piece of wisdom. You can always find a "predecessor" for about anything. The corollary being that there is never a "first". And therefore, stating that "none of the big companies were the first in their categories" is just stating a tautology.
edanm 2y ago
> i.e., google was fast, Just to quibble with this - that was not even close to the reason Google got popular. It was because Google was much, much better at finding what you actually wanted. It was just a far better product. You can debate why this is exactly, Joel Spolsky pointed out many years ago that it was because Google got that what matters to users most isn't "finding all pages related to X" but rather "ranking" those pages, a take I agree with.

AlexandrB 2y ago

> Apple: First "smart phone" but not the first personal computer Was it the first smartphone? I would call phones like the Palm Treo and later BlackBerries smartphones. There were even apps, but everything was lot more locked down and a lot more expensive.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
First modern smartphone (capacitive touch screen/multi-touch/form factor), but not first smartphone.
dvt 2y ago
> There were even apps, but everything was lot more locked down and a lot more expensive. And just plain... bad. The entire experience didn't have that "feel" that Apple turned into reality. It's comparable to today's AI landscape—the technology is pretty neat, but using it is a complete slog.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  I actually have pretty fond memories of PalmOS PDAs. The hardware was very nice, but they were held back by the resistive touchscreen and dependence on a stylus for input. I never used a Treo but it felt like this was Palm trying to copy BlackBerry by adding a physical keyboard. Edit: There were also the limitations of that era that held devices back in general. WAP internet[1] was awful, but most mobile services were too slow for much else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol
- nextos 2y ago
  Nokias were very open. You had a terminal with apt-get. The entire device was a regular Linux machine.
  - endless1234 2y ago
    In general, they were not. You're probably thinking of the very niche and unsuccessful Maemo/MeeGo project - eg Nokia N900 - that were indeed Linux-based. But everything else smartphone-ish from Nokia before Lumia (Windows Phone) were Symbian, which predates Linux and has nothing to do with it.
    - nextos 2y ago
      I am of course referring to Maemo, as per my previous post.
irq 2y ago
> I would call phones like the Palm Treo and later BlackBerries smartphones. It's not just you; at the time these products were available, _everyone_ called them smartphones. Emphatically, Apple did not bring the first smartphone to market, not even close. They were, however, the first to popularize it beyond the field of nerds into the general public.
- tim333 2y ago
  I had an Nokia N95 which was basically a smartphone and came out a year before the iPhone. And Wikipedia says >it became a huge sales success for Nokia ... It managed to outsell rivals such as LG Viewty and iPhone. However the iPhone got better.
nextos 2y ago
There were Nokias running Maemo ahead of the iPhone. Note these were not Symbian. The 770 was released in Q4 '05. They definitely fell within the smartphone category, but oddly the first few iterations lacked GSM radio.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  I would classify them as tablets. At least what I thought my N810 as.
malfist 2y ago
I'm a complete idiot. I almost bought an HTC fuse too

robbiemitchell 2y ago

> some gimmick "key differentiator" and not necessarily easy to pull off or pay for

olalonde 2y ago

I have a pet peeve with this common piece of wisdom. You can always find a "predecessor" for about anything. The corollary being that there is never a "first". And therefore, stating that "none of the big companies were the first in their categories" is just stating a tautology.

edanm 2y ago

> i.e., google was fast, Just to quibble with this - that was not even close to the reason Google got popular. It was because Google was much, much better at finding what you actually wanted. It was just a far better product. You can debate why this is exactly, Joel Spolsky pointed out many years ago that it was because Google got that what matters to users most isn't "finding all pages related to X" but rather "ranking" those pages, a take I agree with.