3 ms·
Apple was the first one to put all of those things together in a single package that really worked well - thats what I mean by first modern :-P
by Aloha 12y ago
Apple was the first one to put all of those things together in a single package that really worked well - thats what I mean by first modern :-P
- laumars 12y agoWell that's now more a question of personal bias / preference than something that can be defined as cold, hard fact. What worked for you might not have been someone else's preferred method of using a smart phone. As well polished as the iPhone was, I found many of its design implimentations worked against the way I liked to use a smart phone. And I think the fact that Symbian (amongst others) outsold iOS for the first few years of the iPhone's life would suggest that I wasn't alone. So I think even by that measure, it's still unfair to exclude other handsets of the same generation which were just as popular. But then I guess history is written by the victors, not the other pioneers who've since fallen by the wayside.
- Aloha 12y agoApple took the smart phone from something used by technologists and other tech oriented people, and turned it into a mass market appliance accessible to everyone - every smart phone that has come since is related to it in form and function.
- laumars 12y agoIf Apple held a majority market share, then I might agree, but as I said before, Symbian et al had a larger market share so they must have had some degree of mass market appeal as well. edit: just to clarify. I do agree that the iPhone deserve a place in the history books because it did change the landscape significantly. But my point was that the iPhone wasn't the first phone of it's ilk (probably the best all rounder and definitely best at specific criteria, but those are point I'm enjoying discussing here). In light of that, if the iPhone deserves a place then equally the handsets that pioneered much of the technology and paradigms which Apple beautifully combined, those other handsets deserves a mention too (like how scientific papers based on original research still need to draw from the pool of existing research and thus even new theories owe credit other publications)
- coob 12y agoLook at browser stats. Symbian was irrelevant compared to the iPhone is terms of popular usage as an actual internet device.
- laumars 12y agoI accept that, but to a lot of people a smart phone is more than just a web browser.
- nicholassmith 12y agoSymbian had a larger market as Nokia were throwing it on as many devices as they could, irregardless of whether it worked well so they saturated the market. Plus they were commonly called featurephones and not smartphones.
- laumars 12y agoGood point.
- nicholassmith 12y agoAs someone who had been using smartphones long before the iPhone (Windows Mobile, Treos etc), I think the iPhone was the first iteration of what is commonly viewed by a large market as a smartphone. Rich user interaction via a large capacitive touchscreen. That's not knocking the pre-iPhone smartphones, but conceptually they were very, very different devices with very different aims, the iPhone moved the definition of a smartphone.
- WorldWideWayne 12y agoThe mob is fickle and they're usually wrong about the facts. The first iPhone didn't even have apps like the smartphones that came before it. That's not modern. They didn't have the first touchscreen on a phone. Apple has very good marketing and that goes a long, long way when it comes to dealing with the mob.