3 ms·

The answer, as always, is yes and no. Something no one seems to understand, is that the smartphone revolution didn't happen because we suddenly had touchscreen

The answer, as always, is yes and no. Something no one seems to understand, is that the smartphone revolution didn't happen because we suddenly had touchscreens and processors powerful enough to have a relatively decent OS. We'd had that for years beforehand; someone would've gotten it sooner. It was the fucking user interface. That's all iOS did. It got the UI right. It didn't take 10 awkward actions to check your mail. You didn't have to go through complex menus to add contacts to your address book. You could browse the internet, have it be the real internet, have it feel like the real internet- and it felt manageable with the ability to zoom in and out, and properly move through web forms. Smart watches, similar to Google Glass, are starting from zero again. They're brilliant ideas, as brilliant as the smartphone was before them. They're obvious, which is why they're brilliant. What isn't obvious, is how you make the entire experience simple. So, are smartwatches going to take off? Probably not right now. Neither is Google Glass. There's a lot of talented UI guys involved with both, but you can't get it just half-right. It needs to feel right, and every way it feels wrong needs to feel like it's wrong in its own way, and not because it doesn't do it the way something else does. And right now, no one has either figured out that much.

jiggy2011 12y ago
I think rollout of 3G and affordable mobile data tariffs were very important to smartphones. If you'd had an iphone in 2004 it wouldn't have been much use because it would be too slow and you wouldn't be able to afford to use it.
- quaunaut 12y ago
  The first iPhone did pretty dang well without 3G. 3G helped, but it by no means was a requirement, especially with wifi prevalent even in 2007.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    But there was still a fairly short window between common availability of wifi and Edge and the iphone. Especially when you consider that the iphone was probably in development for several years.
- rmrfrmrf 12y ago
  IMO we all have Apple and Cingular to thank for that. Palm and Microsoft were more than happy to allow telcos to force customers to pay extra fees to unlock Wi-Fi and to pay for insane, complicated data plans; so much so that Apple's demands basically had Verizon telling Steve Jobs to go fuck himself. It wasn't until the success of the iPhone that the ridiculous policies and prices of phone service started to drop.
  - xorcist 12y ago
    That opinion is terribly short sighted. Cingular/AT&T/Verizon was very late to the mobile data revolution, globally speaking. The market would have developed the same way without the North American carries on board. Which they hardly were. I seem to remember quaint rules against tethering at the time of the iPhone.
    - bruceboughton 12y ago
      >> I seem to remember quaint rules against tethering at the time of the iPhone. In the UK at least, it's still very hard to get a sane data plan with tethering at a reasonable price.
      - xorcist 12y ago
        Agreed, the broadband situation in the UK leaves a lot to be desired. Building mobile networks is still very much a national regulatory affair, with a lot of upfront capital costs, so even the big multinational service providers do not offer the same service in two different countries (often charging you for roaming when you go abroad, even within the same provider's network!). I've been waiting for some big provider to offer true multinational mobile service at least within the EU, where the regulatory framework is similar and necessary agreements in place. But it looks like I will be waiting forever...
gone35 12y ago
The smartphone revolution didn't happen because we suddenly had touchscreens and processors powerful enough to have a relatively decent OS, We'd had that for years beforehand; someone would've gotten it sooner. Not really. It is hard to imagine now, but back in 2007 the ability to pack a desktop-grade machine into the size of a chocolate bar was such an overwhelming technical leap that it literally panicked industry leaders, who didn't think it was even possible at the time [1,2]: "Mike Lazaridis was at home on his treadmill and watching television when he first saw the Apple iPhone in early 2007. There were a few things he didn't understand about the product. So, that summer, he pried one open to look inside and was shocked. It was like Apple had stuffed a Mac computer into a cellphone, he thought. To Mr. Lazaridis, (...) the iPhone was a device that broke all the rules. The operating system alone took up 700 megabytes of memory, and the device used two processors. The entire BlackBerry ran on one processor and used 32 MB. Unlike the BlackBerry, the iPhone had a fully Internet-capable browser. (...) RIM by contrast used a rudimentary browser that limited data usage. (...) If that thing catches on, we're competing with a Mac, not a Nokia, he recalled telling his staff." [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside-story-of-why-blackberry-is-failing/article14563602/?page=all http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside... [2] http://www.tuaw.com/2013/12/19/when-google-engineers-first-learned-about-the-iphone-what-we-h/ http://www.tuaw.com/2013/12/19/when-google-engineers-first-l...
- bruceboughton 12y ago
  The whole anecdote tells your more about Blackberry than about the state of technology. That he was watching it at home on his TV on his treadmill when it was widely anticipated that Apple would be releasing a phone that was something special speaks to his complacency.

jiggy2011 12y ago

I think rollout of 3G and affordable mobile data tariffs were very important to smartphones. If you'd had an iphone in 2004 it wouldn't have been much use because it would be too slow and you wouldn't be able to afford to use it.

quaunaut 12y ago
The first iPhone did pretty dang well without 3G. 3G helped, but it by no means was a requirement, especially with wifi prevalent even in 2007.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  But there was still a fairly short window between common availability of wifi and Edge and the iphone. Especially when you consider that the iphone was probably in development for several years.
rmrfrmrf 12y ago
IMO we all have Apple and Cingular to thank for that. Palm and Microsoft were more than happy to allow telcos to force customers to pay extra fees to unlock Wi-Fi and to pay for insane, complicated data plans; so much so that Apple's demands basically had Verizon telling Steve Jobs to go fuck himself. It wasn't until the success of the iPhone that the ridiculous policies and prices of phone service started to drop.
- xorcist 12y ago
  That opinion is terribly short sighted. Cingular/AT&T/Verizon was very late to the mobile data revolution, globally speaking. The market would have developed the same way without the North American carries on board. Which they hardly were. I seem to remember quaint rules against tethering at the time of the iPhone.
  - bruceboughton 12y ago
    >> I seem to remember quaint rules against tethering at the time of the iPhone. In the UK at least, it's still very hard to get a sane data plan with tethering at a reasonable price.
    - xorcist 12y ago
      Agreed, the broadband situation in the UK leaves a lot to be desired. Building mobile networks is still very much a national regulatory affair, with a lot of upfront capital costs, so even the big multinational service providers do not offer the same service in two different countries (often charging you for roaming when you go abroad, even within the same provider's network!). I've been waiting for some big provider to offer true multinational mobile service at least within the EU, where the regulatory framework is similar and necessary agreements in place. But it looks like I will be waiting forever...

gone35 12y ago

The smartphone revolution didn't happen because we suddenly had touchscreens and processors powerful enough to have a relatively decent OS, We'd had that for years beforehand; someone would've gotten it sooner. Not really. It is hard to imagine now, but back in 2007 the ability to pack a desktop-grade machine into the size of a chocolate bar was such an overwhelming technical leap that it literally panicked industry leaders, who didn't think it was even possible at the time [1,2]: "Mike Lazaridis was at home on his treadmill and watching television when he first saw the Apple iPhone in early 2007. There were a few things he didn't understand about the product. So, that summer, he pried one open to look inside and was shocked. It was like Apple had stuffed a Mac computer into a cellphone, he thought. To Mr. Lazaridis, (...) the iPhone was a device that broke all the rules. The operating system alone took up 700 megabytes of memory, and the device used two processors. The entire BlackBerry ran on one processor and used 32 MB. Unlike the BlackBerry, the iPhone had a fully Internet-capable browser. (...) RIM by contrast used a rudimentary browser that limited data usage. (...) If that thing catches on, we're competing with a Mac, not a Nokia, he recalled telling his staff." [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside-story-of-why-blackberry-is-failing/article14563602/?page=all http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside... [2] http://www.tuaw.com/2013/12/19/when-google-engineers-first-learned-about-the-iphone-what-we-h/ http://www.tuaw.com/2013/12/19/when-google-engineers-first-l...

bruceboughton 12y ago
The whole anecdote tells your more about Blackberry than about the state of technology. That he was watching it at home on his TV on his treadmill when it was widely anticipated that Apple would be releasing a phone that was something special speaks to his complacency.