Slashdot Mirror


The Story of the Original iPhone's Development

jds91md writes "Today's NY Times delivers a great story of the development of the iPhone by Apple. It focuses on the events during the leadup to Steve Jobs taking the stage with shockingly buggy prototypes and pulling off the show that is now history. 'Only about a hundred iPhones even existed, all of them of varying quality. Some had noticeable gaps between the screen and the plastic edge; others had scuff marks on the screen. And the software that ran the phone was full of bugs. The iPhone could play a section of a song or a video, but it couldn’t play an entire clip reliably without crashing. It worked fine if you sent an e-mail and then surfed the Web. If you did those things in reverse, however, it might not. Hours of trial and error had helped the iPhone team develop what engineers called “the golden path,” a specific set of tasks, performed in a specific way and order, that made the phone look as if it worked.' One of the big problems was the phone's connectivity. The man in charge of the iPhone's radios, Andy Grignon, had to deal with Jobs's anger when rehearsals didn't go well. Grignon said, 'Very rarely did I see him become completely unglued — it happened, but mostly he just looked at you and very directly said in a very loud and stern voice, "You are [expletive] up my company," or, "If we fail, it will be because of you." He was just very intense. And you would always feel an inch tall.'"

25 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. A testament to engineers by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole story is a great testament to engineers, in that (a) it's incredible they could have made the demo work that well, and (b) Apple actually shipped the thing described in that story just six months later - and it was basically pretty functional and solid.

    Even for you Apple Haters out there that have zero interest in reading something like this - well anyone who is an engineer should read it, and if you can't bring yourself to do that at least read the very last paragraph which is fun for everyone.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:A testament to engineers by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also a great testament to what an utter fucking prick Jobs was. An effective utter fucking prick, but an utter fucking prick nonetheless.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:A testament to engineers by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      such a stressful story! My blood pressure was up just reading it. Imagine being caught in SJ's whithering gaze! The scary part is that when he told people "you f'd my company" that was the nice time, and other times he became unglued! Then to have to sit there in the audience, knowing there is nothing you can do! I would have been quaking in my boots.

      the interesting thing is it didn't go into too much depth about iOS. in the early years SJ kept insisting to miniaturize OSX, but at some point they obv switched. there must be a story there!

    3. Re:A testament to engineers by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its also a testament about demonstrating something way before it was ready. A specific sequence of events that had to occur in a given order to prevent it crashing? Really? Send your most visible exec out with total crap in his hands?

      Couldn't they just wait till it actually worked? Its not like anyone was racing them to market in those days.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:A testament to engineers by retchdog · · Score: 4, Insightful
      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    5. Re:A testament to engineers by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its also a testament about demonstrating something way before it was ready.

      Which if you've been an engineer for more than, say, 10 minutes, is something you've experienced in your career.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    6. Re:A testament to engineers by stenvar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Couldn't they just wait till it actually worked? Its not like anyone was racing them to market in those days.

      Android had been in the works since 2005 and probably could have been released on a phone in 2007, but their acquisition by Google probably cost them a year. And at the time, Palm, Microsoft, and Nokia were formidable competitors. In 2007, they had become complacent and failed to update their OSes, but Apple didn't know that at the time.

      Yeah, people were "racing them to market", and the initial iPhone was a pretty iffy proposition and pretty limited device.

    7. Re:A testament to engineers by cusco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is yet another example of the differences between Gates and Jobs. Gates went on stage and demo'ed their operating system. Jobs went out with his immaculately rehearsed script of things to do in the only order that they had managed to make work. Win95 blue screened when it hit a bad driver, while IOS (arguably a much more immature product when demonstrated) gave the illusion of being ready for consumers.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    8. Re:A testament to engineers by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's also a great testament to what an utter fucking prick Jobs was. An effective utter fucking prick, but an utter fucking prick nonetheless.

      It's worse than that: As Dune tells us 'The Golden Path' was Leto Atreides II's prescient plan to guide the entirely of human evolution in the guise of a terrible half man/half sandworm God-Emperor.

      This also explains why Apple began building a massive, ring-shaped, climate controlled headquarters shortly after Jobs 'died'. Earth is too moist for sandworms; so they need a secure environment to house their God-Emperor.

    9. Re:A testament to engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gates wanted to make things useful, Jobs wanted to make them pretty. They both knew their audience, I suppose.

      Jobs wanted to make things usable. And he did.

    10. Re:A testament to engineers by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is yet another example of the differences between Gates and Jobs. Gates went on stage and demo'ed their operating system. Jobs went out with his immaculately rehearsed script of things to do in the only order that they had managed to make work. Win95 blue screened when it hit a bad driver, while IOS (arguably a much more immature product when demonstrated) gave the illusion of being ready for consumers.

      Absolutely. This is the difference between geeks/engineers, and people who know how to market things. Geeks and engineers in general don't even like the ability to market. They think it is "bells and Whistles" or "Madison Avenue". I suspect that like most good geeks, Gates went out cold, and tried to demo his products, probably the first time he'd seen them in action. I suspect that (almost certain) that Jobs rehearsed his spiel many times before going out. And if there was a stability problem, what ran before what, he knew it and worked around it.

      In the end, when everything worked well, the orchestrated marketing meant nothing othre than it did it's job.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:A testament to engineers by multi+io · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is yet another example of the differences between Gates and Jobs. Gates went on stage and demo'ed their operating system. Jobs went out with his immaculately rehearsed script of things to do in the only order that they had managed to make work. Win95 blue screened when it hit a bad driver, while IOS (arguably a much more immature product when demonstrated) gave the illusion of being ready for consumers.

      Absolutely. This is the difference between geeks/engineers, and people who know how to market things. Geeks and engineers in general don't even like the ability to market. They think it is "bells and Whistles" or "Madison Avenue". I suspect that like most good geeks, Gates went out cold, and tried to demo his products, probably the first time he'd seen them in action.

      Haha. People here seem to have forgotten that Microsoft practically invented the term "vaporware" all by themselves. They were undisputed masters in that field. The "Cairo project" arguably existed for the sole purpose of shying customers away from NeXTStep, and was buried as soon as the latter was no longer thought to be a threat. And who remembers WinFS? They probably even shipped some developer previews of that before cancelling it.

      In contrast to that, Jobs at Macworld 2007 only promised that Apple would deliver a device 6 months later which would work as could reasonably be inferred from the demo. And they did that. So technically Jobs wasn't even "lying" at that demo, the whole thing can essentially be seen as a somewhat more elaborate slide-show presentation which just happened to include a half-working prototype as well.

  2. Terminology by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except they weren't really "Apple innovations". Apple did a great job with the design and engineering of the iPhone, and they popularized these ideas and interfaces. But the innovations themselves largely came from Palm, Nokia, and a whole bunch of startups.

    The word "innovation" does not mean "invention." What you're describing, however, does fit the definition of innovation.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Terminology by multi+io · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The word "innovation" does not mean "invention."

      Neither does it mean "popularizing".

      What you're describing, however, does fit the definition of innovation.

      Palm, Nokia, RIM, and Microsoft didn't just invent these technologies, they brought them to market and had very successful products with them.

      No. They produced entirely different devices and were (more or less) successful with those. The innovation in the original iPhone wasn't in any of the underlying technologies -- those had all been there before. The innovation of the iPhone was in the overall design, the vertical integration of the touch screen with the new "physical" touch UI and the sensors, the unified co-design of hardware and software and applications and later the app store model and so on. All those things constitute innovations in themselves -- and they have since totally disrupted and recreated the entire smartphone market.

    2. Re:Terminology by multi+io · · Score: 4, Informative

      The innovation of the iPhone was in the overall design, the vertical integration of the touch screen with the new "physical" touch UI and the sensors, the unified co-design of hardware and software and applications and later the app store model and so on

      Palm did the same thing before Apple and was very successful with it. Apple did not invent or was the first to succeed with the app store either. The iPhone was simply an evolution from previous platforms.

      No. I owned a Palm Pilot. It was a very different device from an iPhone. There was nothing like the app store either. OTOH, all current smartphones, including Android and Windows Phone offerings, aren't very different devices from an iPhone. Even though those devices have developed several unique feature sets and UI paradigms, the basic way the whole package works is fundamentally similar to -- and can be traced back to -- the first iPhone.

      and they have since totally disrupted and recreated the entire smartphone market.

      Apple has always remained a small player in the smartphone market, so they neither "disrupted" nor "recreated" it.

      That's not a valid line of reasoning. You can disrupt and recreate a market without subsequently dominating it for a long time. The available Android and Windows Phone devices are very competitive offerings. Still, as stated above, they're fundamentally similar to the original iPhone in many ways. As an indication you can just look at the way mobile browsers have developed. Until 2007 they were tiny, clunky apps that nobody used. After 2007, everybody scrambled to make their browser work like the iPhone's. There is a reason why e.g. Opera basically pulled their browser from the market and started laboring internally for one or two years. There is a reason why Microsoft essentially terminated their entire mobile OS line, which had been quite successful previously, and started working on a new one. There was a smartphone market before the initial iPhone, and then there was a very different smartphone market after the initial iPhone. That's what constitutes the market "disruption" and "recreation".

  3. Golden Path by ad5mqesj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know why this surprises anyone. EVERYTHING I have ever designed had to be demoed before it was ready, sometimes a year or more before it was ready. Usually we could arrange to have the actual engineers (me or someone on my team) do the demo, and we always tred to practice to insure we could demo only things that worked. When the boss had to do the demo we always had extensive rehearsals, and emphasized that he must perform the steps exactly as we practiced or bad things would likely happen. On some projects hardware was so late we had to build simulators and hide them under the table so the software would have something to control/monitor. I believe this sort of demo is very common in any sort of R&D environment including big name companies demoing new products/technologies for the first time. Every demo of an early prototype will crash or show unexpected behavior at some point during the demo, the key to the impression it makes is how well the demonstrator handles the issue - getting mad in a public demo is never a good idea. Usually you just tell someone else to file a bug report, and move on - explaining that there is, of course, still some polishing to do; or use it as an opportunity to explain the way you work with customers to resolve such issues - leaving the impression that you engineered the failure in order to fit that topic in to the presentation. My ex boss was a master of that technique. Even in my current job where my products are for internal use I am frequently asked for demos before products are ready, the difference being I don't have to offer smooth explanations when things go wrong, usually I just have to offer an estimate of when it might be done.

    1. Re:Golden Path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why there are specific kind of demos where you don't want everything going smooth, or at the very least, you make something obviously unfinished. I've gone as far as making my UI uglier for a demo: People thought they were funding UI improvements, when in reality we just needed a whole lot more investment in the backend to support realistic loads effectively. Otherwise, the app would have looked ready to go, but fail miserably when in production.

  4. Re:give proper credit by Dzimas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except they weren't really "Apple innovations". Apple did a great job with the design and engineering of the iPhone, and they popularized these ideas and interfaces. But the innovations themselves largely came from Palm, Nokia, and a whole bunch of startups.

    Ford didn't invent the car either, but the Model T was certainly innovative and redefined the automotive industry. The same can be said for the iPhone.

  5. The thing is, it wasn't a flaming disaster by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    never flaming disasters carefully masked.

    It wasn't a flaming disaster though, just a lot of components that all worked pretty well already, but very very unstable - especially in combination.

    That is very, very far in the live demo world from a "flaming disaster". Flaming disaster would have been a browser that could only parse simple HTML, mail client that ate emails, phone that failed to dial ever, etc.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  6. Not very inflexible at all by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

    But considering how inflexible the first version of the OS was, not impossible.

    If you look at the jailbreaking stuff from launch time though, the platform itself was not really inflexible at all. Many of the classes iOS developers know and use today were there at launch. The device itself have a limited set of applications but underneath it really was running a scaled down OSX and using ObjectiveC for applications just as the desktop did...

    I totally agree with you on the need for groups to be able to work together being a reason why the announced it so far ahead of launch (comparatively). They got it as far as they could (really farther) with the left hand not being able to know what the right was doing.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  7. Intense Focus is not Pricktitude by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People who are dicks are dicks no matter what you are doing.

    People with intense focus are only dicks if you are getting something wrong.

    There is a big difference - and the reason why people were willing to work so hard for jobs where no-one would ever work that hard for a real dick.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Re:Identifying problem source by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Exactly what I was thinking. Had I been there, my reaction, after the initial shock and horror, would have been, "No, if we fail, it will be because you demanded we demo a product before it was ready." There's pushing people to deliver amazing products in an amazing timeframe, and there's pushing people to deliver a product, finished or not, in an unrealistic timeframe. There's a very fine line between the two, and had they failed, it would have been entirely because Steve crossed that line. Fortunately for everyone involved, he didn't. He knew exactly how far and how hard to push, and he pushed that hard, but no harder.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  9. Re:give proper credit by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A Palm-based phone around the time the iPhone came out already was pretty much like an iPhone: same kind of launcher, same productivity apps, same kind of syncing, music player, online market, dock, sync cable, etc. The main difference between iPhone and the rest was not innovation or combination of features, it was appearance, design, and (a moderate increase in) usability.

    No. They had low resolution displays and was pretty much an upgraded Palm Pilot with a cell phone built-in and a blackberry like keyboard that made life easier since graffiti required a stylus to input well. I had one. I also had to work with Nokia's offerings. There were absolutely no comparisons between these devices and the very first iPhone. The windows mobile version of the treo was a little nicer, but still had a low resolution display and had very little in common with the iPhone.

    There is a reason the smart phone market didn't take off until the introduction of the iPhone.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  10. Re: The Story of Windows Phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not my experience. Are you just typing in the garbage you're paid to type in?

    Yes, they are.

    Social Media Marketing companies like Burson Marsteller, Waggener Edstrom and others have teams posting FUD and moderating in all tech sites on behalf of Apple, Microsoift, Facebook etc.

    And you're right:

    "Contrary to what you’ve heard, Android is almost impenetrable to malware
    Until now, Google hasn’t talked about malware on Android because it did not have the data or analytic platform to back its security claims. But that changed dramatically today when Google’s Android Security chief Adrian Ludwig reported data showing that less than an estimated 0.001% of app installations on Android are able to evade the system’s multi-layered defenses and cause harm to users. Android, built on an open innovation model, has quietly resisted the locked down, total control model spawned by decades of Windows malware. "
    http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-impenetrable-to-malware/

    Of course, Slashdot doen't consider this news bcause it's sponsors haven't paid it to.

  11. Re:Overtime by vakuona · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome to the real world, where the tradeoffs are real.