Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Admits Microsoft Whiffed Big-Time On Smartphones
Nerval's Lobster writes "During an executive Q&A at Microsoft's Financial Analyst Meeting on Sept. 19 (video), outgoing CEO Steve Ballmer admitted that Windows Phone had a minuscule share of the smartphone market, and expressed regret over his company's inability to capitalize on burgeoning interest in mobile devices. 'I regret that there was a period in the early 2000s when we were so focused on what we had to do around Windows that we weren't able to redeploy talent to the new device called the phone,' Ballmer told the audience of Wall Street analysts and investors. 'That is the thing I regret the most.' Back in 2007, Ballmer famously denigrated the first-generation iPhone as an expensive toy that would fail to gain significant market share. He was forced to eat his words after the iPhone became a bestseller and ignited a huge market for touch-screen smartphones. Google subsequently plunged into that smartphone arena with Android, which was soon adopted by a variety of hardware manufacturers. While the iPhone (running iOS) and Android carved up the new market between them, Microsoft tried to come up with its own mobile strategy. The result was Windows Phone, which (despite considerable investment on Microsoft's part) continues to lag well behind Android and iOS in the smartphone wars. Even as he focused on discussing Microsoft's financials, Ballmer also couldn't resist taking some swipes at Google, suggesting that the search-engine giant's practices are 'worthy of discussion with competition authority.' Given Microsoft's own rocky history with federal regulators, that's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black; but Ballmer's statement also hints at how, in this new tech environment, Microsoft is very much the underdog when it comes to some of the most popular and lucrative product segments."
MS whiffed when they put balless in charge of anything. He can stop blaming others...
Gates chose a big, fat, retarded individual to run the company after he retired. And Gates got a lost decade in return.
Let the trash talk begins... Microsoft is evil and Ballmer flying chairs jokes incoming!
> Microsoft tried to come up with its own mobile strategy.
Microsoft dropped there existing mobile strategy (of providing fantastic PDAs with mobile phone apps) and pissed off all existing clients by releasing a crappy Android clone.
PDA/Phones then died until Samsung recreated the market with the Note.
Microsoft misread several markets really badly in the early 2000s and present. They had an attitude that they had "won" the entire PC and computing market for now and forever.
This caused them to grow really complacent and unimaginative and slow to react to market changes.
But possibly the worst factor was the narrow Microsoft-centric nerdism amongst a good share of the Microsoft faithful that kept eyes closed to very obvious shortcomings in Microsoft's various bungled attempts in the last decade.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
On one hand, I was surprised Ballmer admitted fault. On the other, that is a suspicious plural. If the CEO isn't directly responsible for strategic missteps taken by the entire corporation, then who is?
Is why it makes business sense for Microsoft to be in a market where they have single digit market share and zero prospects of ever being more than a blip compared to Android and iOS.
Microsoft should focus on the things where it is successful including XBOX and Windows and Office.
Irrelevant and on his way out.
to admit you have a problem.
'I regret that there was a period in the early 2000s when we were so focused on what we had to do around Windows that we weren't able to redeploy talent to the new device called the phone."
He referring to the early 2000s when there wasn't a new version of Windows for 6 years?
...that's what is keeping me from buying into their [eco]system. The cash Microsoft have collected from me over the years should be enough, I believe. The name Microsoft just makes me yawn.
Anyone feel the same?
Microsoft simply failed to recognize that people use phones differently than they use desktop computers. MS started by trying to make a desktop Windows run on a smartphone. That cratered because a UI that works on a desktop is awkward and hard to use on the small screen of a phone. Lack of touchscreen support didn't help one bit. And even after they got that concept, they've continued to try to force people into the Windows ecosystem rather than attempting to fit their phones into the existing ecosystems. People don't care much about Office on their phones beyond e-mail and for personal use Exchange integration is almost irrelevant because most people's e-mail accounts aren't Exchange, they're generic POP3/IMAP4 accounts or GMail. Now Microsoft is left with a minority position and an unwillingness to play in anyone else's sandbox, not to mention having actively torqued off the owner of one of the two biggest sandboxes out there (Google). Is it any wonder they're having a hard time gaining traction?
Smells like corruption.
There's a long history of businesses saying "nah, not going that way" then finding out they made the wrong choice and missed the boat. Good that Ballmer admits what everyone has known for a long time regarding being late to the smartphone party, how can he not?
Funny he should take a poke at Google since Bing is... uh, Bing... but to MSFT's credit they took up the mantle to challenge Google at search engine technology. They could have very well said "nah, it's been done, look Yahoo and Alta Vista, ad infinitum, there's no meat on the bone" and left it alone. Which, in many opinions, wouldn't have been that bad a thing to pass on since, well, Bing -- but it's still a revenue stream despite quality. MSFT can't always buy a winner when they can't make a winner.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Instead of the pot calling the kettle black, maybe it is "takes one to know one"?
But then again, too numerous to mention.
Stay the **** off my phone, it's Windows 8 that should be his biggest regret. As for Windows on my phone, didn't want it, don't need it.
Memories fade, but the comments Steve made about the iPhone, where about his misunderstanding that the iPhone as a "consumer product" at stupidly high prices. The iPhone only flourished through the high subsidy model in America (to maintain lock-in to carriers) and some parts of Europe. Leaving them with a model that gives them 40% in America, a third of Europe and no sales anywhere else (A kind description).
He also overestimated the importance of a keyboard...because of email (in business) on a phone, without understanding the trade-off. The trade-off against apps was something that did not exist, and was not planned by Apple, in fact looked down upon by Jobs.
The real irony of the interview is his inability to reflect on his mistakes, decided to chase Apple in the American market with a keyboard-less tasteless clone. Rather have a every price range; optional keyboard; world phone. It was a strategy which cost Microsoft 10% market share and Nokia 40%. The sad fact is the limited success with the windows phone is on its bottom end phones, out of America.
This is a cop out statement if I ever heard of one.
Just Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile#Windows_Mobile_2003
And you will see that at one point Microsoft had 41% of the "smartphone" market at the time. Their only major competitor was RIM.
I mean Microsoft defined "smartphone", their phones allowed you to run apps, games and multimedia and was the natural evolution of Windows Pocket PC which was also a major player in the early 2000's.
To say that Microsoft did not invest talent into mobile devices and phones in the early 2000 is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Yes, iPhone was a disruptor in the market, but Ballmer simply turned over and gave up on Windows Mobile products. It was 100% his own incompetence as a CEO to maintain a product that had, at one time, a major segment of the market.
Its like Ballmer is trying to make it sound like he just didn't see the potential for Microsoft to capitalize on phones and was too focused on desktops, and not the bigger reality that Ballmer is just incompetent as a CEO for letting a product that once defined the market at the time slip into irrelevance.
Ballmer the Blamer, this is going to define him as he wraps up his days at Microsoft.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
"and expressed regret over his company's inability to capitalize on burgeoning interest in mobile devices"
should read
"and expressed regret over his inability to capitalize on burgeoning interest in mobile devices"
or perhaps even
"and expressed regret over his inability to capitalize on burgeoning interest in anything"
I have always found it astonishing about Microsofts Hard on for search, maybe that incident involving "Destroy Google"; chair throwing is understated, Maybe Ballmer never recovered. Google clearly are aware that search is just one portal on the internet, and real threats are Facebook and Amazon, and has strategies against them, and (limited?) success against them has been hard won. Yet Microsoft have *nothing* in these spaces,
Everyone keeps coming up with suggestions to put them back on top. Everyone just shut up. I like them exactly where they are at. They still provide some competition in the marketplace, which is good. They did, however, get knocked down a few pegs...which is really where we want them at, right? I for one, don't want MS to have a killer phone/tablet. Keep them around, but in the exact spot they are in now: NOT ON TOP.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
It's unlikely that they'd all be above average, except maybe in a local value of average. If they have any talent, they avoid that company like the plague. Those that are attracted don't come with much of any technical skill to speak of. They come with enough to get their foot in the door, and then use their time to politic, backstab and otherwise climb the ladder. Then all that is made worse by the stack ranking system which gets rid of those that aren't best at politicking, backstabbing and ladder climbing.
The phone market is another segment where Microsoft dropped the ball. Rather than truly innovating---which they were in a position to do---they rested on their butts and watched the market take off.
Ever since their peak in the 90s Microsoft has just been reacting to new technologies and markets---never have they been a leader or innovator even though they have the resources to be one.
XBox, Windows Phone, Bing, Zune---all situations where Microsoft was behind the curve and ended up flushing billions away trying to catch up or simply compete...
Something tells me there will be other projects that will meet the same fate as Zune...
I think a huge part of their problem is with branding. Apple and Android are seen as cool and sexy whereas Microsoft is perceived as uncool and business-oriented. XBox is the only exception I can think of. The exact same hardware, delivered by a cool, edgy start-up, could have done much better.
To be fair, I haven't even touched a Windows phone, but my perception is that it's going to try to lock you into MS offerings (Apple does this too) and it will try and keep you from doing cool things if that doesn't somehow make money for MS.
Is this really true, is this just my perception, or is this the general perception? Bear in mind that first-hand experience (reality) has nothing to do with the perception of those that haven't touched it.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Windows Mobile failed for other reasons too, reasons that are typical of Microsoft. Windows Mobile had good technology, but the user interface was iffy and software quality was spotty. APIs and strategies kept changing as different groups inside Microsoft jostled for dominance. Windows Mobile tried to tie people to the Microsoft "ecosystem" and integrate with their desktop, but that integration was poor. And third party developers could fix none of this for them because they kept large parts proprietary and closed. I think you even had to get special permission from Microsoft to sync with their devices. Even if you sacrificed your kids to Ballmer, gave up any sense of self-respect, and bought an all Microsoft solution (desktop, phone, Outlook), you still ended up with a slow and crappy solution. That's why Windows Mobile failed.
Mp3 players,
Smartphones,
tablets.
Three strikes and you are out Balmer...
The world basically hates Microsoft. There are tons of reasons for it, but when it comes to new computing devices (that is to say, non-PCs) they do NOT want Microsoft running it because of their horrible experience with Microsoft stuff. It's a discussion which would last until the end of time as to what and who is to blame if the people's experiences were caused by others people and that it's not Microsoft's fault or even if it's just perception which is no longer valid. It doesn't matter. It's like the stock market -- it is what people believe it is and that's the end of the story.
So when given a choice, people choose "not Microsoft." Not so much that they choose Android or Apple of whatever. It's that they voted "not Microsoft." And I think that says more than enough in a completely clear and understandable way. However, has Microsoft paid any mind to this problem? Have they worked to reverse those problems at all? Once again, opinions will vary, but I'm saying NO. No visible effort at attempting to win the hearts and minds of the users. They already have dominance and all their effort was, in my opinion, coasting and doing just enough to maintain and take advantage of their dominance.
To this day, one example of Microsoft hubris sticks in my mind the strongest and I just can't get beyond it. Microsoft one day changed their volume licenses of Windows to "upgrade only." This enabled them to sell two copies of Windows for each computer sold. A business who wanted to save money on licensing used to buy enough seats for their users and that was it. But Microsoft just changed the license terms and said "you have to have Windows in order to qualify to use your volume licensed images." When I learned about that, I was just furious. No longer can we save money by telling Dell, "no OS... we'll take care of it." Sell it twice and use it once. Come on!!!
Not only did they lose the good will of the end users who hate Microsoft for speed, usability and stability reasons, they started taking advantage of the businesses who are their primary source of money.
So when people have a choice, choosing "not Microsoft" seems like a rational choice.
Most companies are scared of themselves. What?
Microsoft has and will always try to get the most out of their investments. That type of thinking stops innovation. "We must keep the look and feel of Windows for phones. Its what people know." You can't think that way, you have to be willing to gamble that the "new hotness" will kill your current business. If the phone department kills off your Windows department who cares. Its not going to kill it over night, but over many many years.
J
'I regret that there was a period in the early 2000s when we were so focused on what we had to do around Windows that we weren't able to redeploy talent to the new device called the phone,' Ballmer told the audience of Wall Street analysts and investors
Seriously, he thinks that a new device came out in the early 2000s called "the phone"?
Really?
Wait until he hears about the other new inventions such as automobiles, radios and powered flight machines!
Ballmer also couldn't resist taking some swipes at Google, suggesting that the search-engine giant's practices are 'worthy of discussion with competition authority.'
Hahahahahaha
Anyone else parse that like I did? I read "Wah, Google is better at antitrust violations than we were! Wah!"
I wonder if any chairs were harmed in the making of this Q&A.
I used to work for Microsoft from the mid-90's to the mid-2000's and once again Ballmer engages in the worst kind of revisionist history. The problem wasn't that he didn't "redeploy talent". The problem is that the vision for phone and tablets was WRONG. He can't admit that because that would be admitting that the fault lies at the top, specifically with Gates and himself. A lot of CEO are guilty of that. In earning calls they'll blame their problems on "execution", implying that their strategy is flawless but the peons just can't do anything right.
Things used to turn out OK at Microsoft because there was a culture that encouraged debate. You could fight for your ideas regardless of rank. It was OK to disagree with your boss, your VP, or even your CEO. Eventually, the ideas that prevailed were mostly right.
But all that went away during the Ballmer years. The key to success at MS nowadays is to be a yes-man. Starting in 2001-2002 I started noticing that when somebody would disagree with a superior in a meeting the atmosphere would get very awkward. People would stare at their shoes. The whole place felt like soviet Russia. Reports would be embellished at every hierarchical levels (and they multiplied; I was 6 steps away from Gates when I started, 12 steps from Ballmer when i left).
It's like a soviet factory that has a quota to produce 5000 tractors a year. The line workers would tell their manager that with the parts shortages, they didn't think they could build more than 3000. The manager would tell the plant director that they wouldn't quite hit the quota; maybe they'd build 4500. The director would tell comrade Komissar that he's think they would exceed the quota by 500. The Komissar would report to the party chairman that they'd handily beat the quota and build 6000 tractors. At the end of the year 2000 tractors were built and nobody knew how their predictions could be so off.
Microsoft's problems are bigger than continually "missing the boat" on long-term technology trends.
Their problems are managerial, and this particular fish is rotting from the head.
I wish them luck finding a better replacement for monkey-dance boy. They're going to need it.
Regrettably, you're correct. There really isn't a left-wing in this country when it comes to economics and an exceptionally few principled libertarians are the only real right-wing. Sure, the tea-party has made right-wing rhetoric more popular, but with the exception of those few libertarians most in the GOP are all for the corrupt corporatist 'partnership' between government and business that was the great economic project of neo-conservative "compassionate conservatism". Sure, the rule of the democratic party since 2008 which managed to pass a health-care reform might make one think the left had risen again. But when one actually looks at the bill he realizes, contrary to establishment Republican rhetoric, the ACA is another business/government partnership which was itself created by Republican think-tanks. There hasn't been a real economic left in this country since before Clinton (incidentally, the notion that Clinton was himself on the left, popular during the Bush years among Republicans, is laughable but indicative; they regard a president as leftist who supported welfare reform and further deregulated the credit market).
What we have in the politics of this country is a broad consensus. Republicans get elected campaigning for smaller government, but their campaign is financed by a corporation which expects to receive a return on its investment. Democrats get electing campaigning for tighter regulation on business, but their campaign is financed by businesses which hope for regulations that will benefit them and harm competition. Both campaign on social issues which people care deeply about--and rightly so--but neither means to do anything significant about them unless forced. Both exploit divisions in Congress they create to ensure angry voters will come to the polls.
The center is the problem. I'm pretty far on the right, having great sympathy with the agrarians and distributists and reckoning modern industrial capitalism as destructive toward traditional values, but I'd sooner have more real socialists elected by the Democratic party with this lot. Compromise is possible between two people who are principled. The socialist may wish to raise the minimum wage and reduce working hours to increase employment and justice toward the workers. I might agree, if he can show his proposal doesn't lead to excess inflation, since such a proposal would be good for strengthening family life. I would ask in return that we increase tax credits for homeowners (single-homeowners only, of course, and for homes valued under a certain threshold) since this would at once decrease taxes and increase the independence and stability of the family. The socialist might agree, for in spite of shrinking the tax base slightly, such a proposal would help move us toward a more progressive tax policy--something which was once an ideal for the left in this country but has eroded for many reasons. Yet the socialist and I will never agree on the importance of private property. That is alright. We won't agree on everything, but we can find common ground precisely because we are both principled. Thus I wish there were a real left and a real right in this country, that we might find compromise. But the centrist D's and R's can never compromise and never agree, precisely because they stand for nothing other than victory for their tribe and the corporate sponsorship that comes with it.
How M$ screwed up the smart phone market, let me count the ways... ...They were late to the game.
First, they discounted the iPhone.
They tried to make the smart phone a miniature computer just like windows on the desktop. No one wanted it.
They tried to tie the phone to the computer and charge the hell out of people for the software when the others give it away for free. Imagine how that went over.
They couldn't re-formulate their desktop operating system to work on phones, so they can't transfer apps, and they aren't making many, so the phone has few.
The new operating system for the phone has too much cruft related to their desktop, so its slow and klunky.
To sum up: late to the game, too expensive, no apps, and the user experience is shit, coupled to a licensing model worse than any other in the game. When they bought Nokia, that's the final price to take the Nokia corporation out of the wireless telephone manufacturing business, pay off all pensions, and pay for retraining of electrical engineers to either move and get a job somewhere else, or re-train to do something else. Nokia won't ever sell another phone.
MS stole DOS
MS lifted Windows from Apple
MS missed the Internet thing
MS missed Cloud Computing thing
MS missed the smart phone thing
MS cannot innovate its way out of a wet paper bag so why are they so big and "valued"?
My bet: there is going to be a "moment of clarity" on MS and that house(stock) will fall to show what MS- a two bit software company that peddles office productivity applications
I believe the phone was first patented in 1876.
Anyone can miss a market the first time. That Ballmer failed to recognize the market when it emerged isn't the issue. That can happen to anyone. Microsoft had a chance for redemption, and the added advantage that they could see what people wanted and adjust their offering accordingly. Listen -> Design -> Build -> $$ Profit!
They also had an advantage (if you want to call it that) in that they already had a phone product out there (WinCE based) and (I imagine) a lot of feedback in the many various ways that product sucked. So they could see what worked, and they had direct experience in what didn't work. And they had a lot of cash on hand from their mainstream products. The market was theirs to lose.
And then they blew it again with Windows Phone 7. And then, instead of going back to the drawing board and trying to figure out what people would actually buy, they doubled down with Windows Phone 8, which is rapidly going, well, nowhere in particular. And then doubled down again by trying to force PC users to use the same touch-based interface as the phone. (Somewhere along the line, Nokia's cell division switched from a world leader to an also-ran. Congratulations.)
Point is, it wasn't the original miss that was significant, it was all the arrogance and missteps that happened afterwards. And Ballmer still doesn't understand this.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Some of us older folks would remember when MS released MS Access. It was lagging behind other products like dBase etc. So what did MS do? Give it away for free, just like Google has done with Android. Once MS got a stronghold on the market MS Access was no longer free!! Apple are you listening?
...that more people are running CyanogenMod on their Android phones than are using Windows phones. And CyanogenMod isn't a picnic to set up if you're a layperson, either.
Android took a while to catch up to Apple's market share because of a smaller apps store, but they managed to do so because they already achieved a critical mass of apps. Blackberry failed because they never had enough apps to attract customers. Barnes and Noble tried to sell Nook tablets with their own tiny app store, and had to give up because customers were rooting the devices to access Google Play. Microsoft will never catch up to Apple or Android without a massive infusion of cash and labor. Developers have a hard enough time building apps for two platforms, let alone three.
Stay skeptical, my friends.
I agree that Samsung is "cooler" than Android. There are a lot of total crap Android devices. I can remember when Google was cool. Sometime before they want public....
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
As a programmer I think Microsoft missed the boat in a totally different way. A long time ago before Windows 2000 there was an announcement that Microsoft was going to release an OS with a replaceable UI so that the server could have a lite weight UI and the desktop a more substantial one. They never delivered. I think this would have made all the difference in the world. There there could have been the same OS on all platforms and a replaceable UI to meet the needs of each platform. With different OSes for each platform it was the most frustrating thing to develop an app for the desktop and then when porting it to Windows CE finding out that half the library/systems calls didn't even exist in that OS. I was excited again when I read that they were finally going to put the same OS on every platform with Windows 8 but then when they forced the same UI on everyone I was again greatly disappointed. I am a Windows developer, have been for 25 years. I have an Android phone and tablet and love them.
It annoys me to no end when I hear MS called 'the underdog'. There are some great products out there like Ubuntu Touch, or Firefox OS when it launches. There are many others too. MS are valued at 220 Billion so stop calling them underdogs, it suggests a charm or forgivability they don't really have.
http://allthingsd.com/20130824/beyond-monkey-boy-its-a-steve-ballmer-quote-tacular/
On iPods (2006): "No, I do not [have an iPod]. Nor do my children. My children - in many dimensions theyâ(TM)re as poorly behaved as many other children, but at least on this dimension I've got my kids brainwashed - you don't use Google and you don't use an iPod"
On Android (2011): "You don't need to be a computer scientist to use a Windows Phone. I think you do to use an Android phone ... It is hard for me to be excited about the Android phones"
On the iPhone (2007): "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item"
On Linux (2001): "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches"
On the iPhone once again (2007): "$500, fully subsidized, with a plan! That is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn't appeal to business customers, because it doesn't have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good email machine"
And, a vid, for all to enjoy ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Personally, I think we'd be far, FAR better off if had a much more pluralistic, parliamentary structure instead of the false right-left dichomoty that has dominated American politics since the country was founded. We need flexibility in our governmental system, not some ossified, static monolith.
Back in the late 1990's I stopped by my ISP and the frontdesk person was using his windows computer as a phone. This was a trivial solution using a voice capable modem, and off the shelf software. Capabilities included sending and receiving faxes, a voice mail system, and the early possibilities of setting up voice response system at the desktop.
There was nothing at all at the time, or even in the early 90s when I was working with similar hardware and software, that would have prevented microsoft from adding voice capabilities to windows server systems, as well as building connectivity between those servers and standard telco systems to build a platform that would extend to the business network (what there was of one at the time) and could be integrated into systems they were developing like Exchange and user software like Outlook (though other solutions may have been workable.)
If they had developed something like that, then it is far mroe likely that we would have seen workable solutions, for corporate users initially, to turn various PDA platforms into corporate managed mobile phones. I don't know if they would have gone with a VoIP solution for moving the voice over the network, though I don't recall there being a NetBUI opton for moving something like voice, so it may have ended up being VoIP.
At some level they can get onto this path now with Skype, and I think they have tried, but they have the problem now that they completely missed the integration with the POTS variety phone system that is now almost completely monopolized by Astrisk and Cisco.
You never know...
Lol, I remember how these dorks tweeted "Windows phone is looking great" and how I laughed at their pitiful sight.
Seems like MS was stack ranked by the mobile computing market and was put at the bottom of the pile. Ballmer is a classic American management type - a salesman in charge of things he didn't understand. And now he exits with a heartfelt confession of failure that will supposedly make him more human - more likeable. No.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I am a windows guy, but I can't stand the direction Microsoft has taken on all fronts. I love windows 7, but hate 8. The system is unstable, ugly, and difficult to find things. It's not user friendly. Look at the phones and windows 8. It's ugly! Tiles are boring and completely uninspiring and indistinguishable. It's not pleasing to look at or nice to use. Why not a picture of some sort to give the user a visual cue of what they are about to click on. And lastly, I DO NOT want 1 platform to share on devices. My computer should be far more powerful and capable than my phone. I want the capacity to communicate and share information, but not a platform. Go back to windows 7 and start over.
There were PDAs, There were PDA enabled phones, then there were Smartphones. I don't see where IPhone "Created the market". Didn't everyone see it coming? What about the IPaq? the Palm Pilot? We've had Linux on smartphones sine 2003- the A780.
it was just about smaller, more powerful, better battery life, better touch screens, such that we could have the smartphones we have today, but to jump in and say the IPhone started a smart phone revolution is ridiculous.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Device Tracker for iPhone & iPad ( Track and Locate your device on the Web ). Keep a track of your device's location history and check it on the web anytime! If the phone is lost you can track it. If it is out of battery or turned off, you will still have its last known location before the phone lost power. https://itunes.apple.com/pk/app/device-tracker-for-iphone/id499696486?mt=8