3 ms·

Sure, you wouldn't want to continue with an older standard at that point, but I don't think that is the argument. If I've seen one consistent thing from Apple

by brk 14y ago

Sure, you wouldn't want to continue with an older standard at that point, but I don't think that is the argument. If I've seen one consistent thing from Apple product design, it's that they appear to iterate continuously on the hardware and software/UI/IX components until they feel they have reached the absolute best (and before a wrong-tangent thread starts, that doesn't mean it is THE best, just Apple's opinion of best, etc.) Most likely in the course of designing the iPhone/iPad, Apple threw away countless hardware and software designs that would have frankly been great and significant game changers. So I would imagine their view is along the lines of "We know the iPhone isn't the only conceivable marketable smartphone layout." I personally believe that Samsung, or some other smart company, could have come up with an iPhone competitor that would not be so closely compared to and confused with the iPhone. Especially when you consider that the iPhone was groundbreaking in the sense of not having a physical keyboard. That was certainly not perceived as the "perfect" solution at the time, and probably still isn't. There was room for innovative differentiation in how user input was handled (physical keyboard, Palm grafitti-style input, chording keyboard, something new). Instead Samsung (and several other companies) immediately switched to the flat all-glass iPhone design with the same basic rows of squared icons.

jsight 14y ago
> That was certainly not perceived as the "perfect" solution > at the time, and probably still isn't. There was room for > innovative differentiation in how user input was handled > (physical keyboard, Palm grafitti-style input, chording keyboard, something new). I understand why this perception exists, but I do not think that it represents a fair assessment of what happened. The first Android device after the iPhone was the HTC G1, with both a keyboard and a trackball. The first two "high-end" (IMO) Android phones were the Motorola Droid and Nexus One (one had a keyboard, the other had a trackball). There were also some Blackberry-esque designs built in the past couple of years (cf, Motorola Charm, and a couple of others). There have also been variations on hinge design and screen setups (HTC Desire Z hinge, and Kyocera Echo). Samsung themselves have built a couple of high end Android phones with slideout keyboards for both AT&T and Sprint. The fact that they've settled on a slate design has less to do with their attempts at differentiation than it does with providing what the market has been asking for. They've tried building the other phones, they just don't sell to as large of a demographic. I can't imagine anyone today picking Palm graffiti-style input over Swype, for example.
- brk 14y ago
  Grafitti was just a throw-away example, I wouldn't have actually banked on that either. I disagree that the slate is what the "market wanted", it's what Apple told them they wanted, which is a very polished skill of Apple. Apple consistently sets their marketing apart, and many/most other vendors follow up with "me too" products and marketing. I don't recall seeing any of the keyboard/trackball type phones really truly pushing and standing behing those products as a "THIS is what you want" type of marketing. It's kind of like Apple stakes out a claim and defends it vehemently with their product marketing. Many other vendors try something and kinda say "we think you might want to consider this", but they don't seem to truly own and embrace their own decisions. Apple basically ignores everything else and puts out their own concepts. I don't see this as much from other companies, though I do try to really look and keep an open mind. I personally think that an elegantly designed and marketed keyboard phone could have been a solid iPhone rival, maybe even still could. I had that first Motorola Droid, but the software truly sucked at the time. Email client was lame, didn't support signatures at all. The keyboard was OK, but not great. The OS consistently fumbled switching between soft and physical keyboard by throwing away whatever you were typing. So, I don't think the "market" rejected the early keyboard phones as much as they rejected to overall state of those devices at the time relative to iOS.

by brk 14y ago

jsight 14y ago

> That was certainly not perceived as the "perfect" solution > at the time, and probably still isn't. There was room for > innovative differentiation in how user input was handled > (physical keyboard, Palm grafitti-style input, chording keyboard, something new). I understand why this perception exists, but I do not think that it represents a fair assessment of what happened. The first Android device after the iPhone was the HTC G1, with both a keyboard and a trackball. The first two "high-end" (IMO) Android phones were the Motorola Droid and Nexus One (one had a keyboard, the other had a trackball). There were also some Blackberry-esque designs built in the past couple of years (cf, Motorola Charm, and a couple of others). There have also been variations on hinge design and screen setups (HTC Desire Z hinge, and Kyocera Echo). Samsung themselves have built a couple of high end Android phones with slideout keyboards for both AT&T and Sprint. The fact that they've settled on a slate design has less to do with their attempts at differentiation than it does with providing what the market has been asking for. They've tried building the other phones, they just don't sell to as large of a demographic. I can't imagine anyone today picking Palm graffiti-style input over Swype, for example.

brk 14y ago
Grafitti was just a throw-away example, I wouldn't have actually banked on that either. I disagree that the slate is what the "market wanted", it's what Apple told them they wanted, which is a very polished skill of Apple. Apple consistently sets their marketing apart, and many/most other vendors follow up with "me too" products and marketing. I don't recall seeing any of the keyboard/trackball type phones really truly pushing and standing behing those products as a "THIS is what you want" type of marketing. It's kind of like Apple stakes out a claim and defends it vehemently with their product marketing. Many other vendors try something and kinda say "we think you might want to consider this", but they don't seem to truly own and embrace their own decisions. Apple basically ignores everything else and puts out their own concepts. I don't see this as much from other companies, though I do try to really look and keep an open mind. I personally think that an elegantly designed and marketed keyboard phone could have been a solid iPhone rival, maybe even still could. I had that first Motorola Droid, but the software truly sucked at the time. Email client was lame, didn't support signatures at all. The keyboard was OK, but not great. The OS consistently fumbled switching between soft and physical keyboard by throwing away whatever you were typing. So, I don't think the "market" rejected the early keyboard phones as much as they rejected to overall state of those devices at the time relative to iOS.