Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone Turns 10 (economist.com)
"Every once in awhile a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything," said co-founder and former Apple CEO Steve Jobs, as he kickstarted the iPhone keynote. Ten years ago, thousands of people around the world listened to him in a mock turtleneck talk about a phone. They liked it so much that they decided to wait outside Apple stores for hours on end to buy one. Little did anyone know the phone -- called the iPhone -- would go on to revolutionize, in the truest sense of the word, the smartphone industry as we know it.
From an Economist article: No product in recent history has changed people's lives more. Without the iPhone, ride-hailing, photo-sharing, instant messaging and other essentials of modern life would be less widespread. Shorn of cumulative sales of 1.2bn devices and revenues of $1trn, Apple would not hold the crown of the world's largest listed company. Thousands of software developers would be poorer, too: the apps they have written for the smartphone make them more than $20bn annually. Here's how some journalists saw the original iPhone. David Pogue, writing for the New York Times: But even in version 1.0, the iPhone is still the most sophisticated, outlook-changing piece of electronics to come along in years. It does so many things so well, and so pleasurably, that you tend to forgive its foibles. Walt Mossberg, writing for the Wall Street Journal: Expectations for the iPhone have been so high that it can't possibly meet them all. It isn't for the average person who just wants a cheap, small phone for calling and texting. But, despite its network limitations, the iPhone is a whole new experience and a pleasure to use. John Gruber's first impressions of the iPhone: The iPhone is 95 percent amazing, 5 percent maddening. I'm just blown away by how nice it is -- very thoughtful UI design and outstanding engineering. It is very fun. Jason Snell, writing for Macworld: To put it more simply: The iPhone is the real deal. It's a product that has already changed the way people look at the devices they carry in their pockets and purses. After only a few days with mine, the prospect of carrying a cellphone with me wherever I go no longer fills me with begrudging acceptance, but actual excitement. Recode has some charts that show how the iPhone has grown over the years. Here's the primer: 1. The iPhone put the internet in everyone's pocket.
2. The iPhone transformed photography from a hobby to a part of everyday life.
3. The iPhone App Store changed the way software was created and distributed.
4. iPhone apps changed everything, even how people work.
5. The iPhone made Apple the world's most valuable company. Apple commentator Horace Dediu writing for Asymco: The iPhone is the best selling product ever, making Apple perhaps the best business ever. Because of the iPhone, Apple has managed to survive to a relatively old age. Not only did it build a device base well over 1 billion it engendered loyalty and satisfaction described only by superlatives. To summarize I can offer two numbers:
1. 1,162,796,000 iPhones sold (to end of March 2017).
2. $742,912,000,000 in revenues. $1 trillion will be reached in less than 18 months. In closing, security researcher Mikko Hypponen tweeted, "iPhone is 10 years old today. After 10 years, not a single serious malware case. It's not just luck; we need to congratulate Apple on this."
From an Economist article: No product in recent history has changed people's lives more. Without the iPhone, ride-hailing, photo-sharing, instant messaging and other essentials of modern life would be less widespread. Shorn of cumulative sales of 1.2bn devices and revenues of $1trn, Apple would not hold the crown of the world's largest listed company. Thousands of software developers would be poorer, too: the apps they have written for the smartphone make them more than $20bn annually. Here's how some journalists saw the original iPhone. David Pogue, writing for the New York Times: But even in version 1.0, the iPhone is still the most sophisticated, outlook-changing piece of electronics to come along in years. It does so many things so well, and so pleasurably, that you tend to forgive its foibles. Walt Mossberg, writing for the Wall Street Journal: Expectations for the iPhone have been so high that it can't possibly meet them all. It isn't for the average person who just wants a cheap, small phone for calling and texting. But, despite its network limitations, the iPhone is a whole new experience and a pleasure to use. John Gruber's first impressions of the iPhone: The iPhone is 95 percent amazing, 5 percent maddening. I'm just blown away by how nice it is -- very thoughtful UI design and outstanding engineering. It is very fun. Jason Snell, writing for Macworld: To put it more simply: The iPhone is the real deal. It's a product that has already changed the way people look at the devices they carry in their pockets and purses. After only a few days with mine, the prospect of carrying a cellphone with me wherever I go no longer fills me with begrudging acceptance, but actual excitement. Recode has some charts that show how the iPhone has grown over the years. Here's the primer: 1. The iPhone put the internet in everyone's pocket.
2. The iPhone transformed photography from a hobby to a part of everyday life.
3. The iPhone App Store changed the way software was created and distributed.
4. iPhone apps changed everything, even how people work.
5. The iPhone made Apple the world's most valuable company. Apple commentator Horace Dediu writing for Asymco: The iPhone is the best selling product ever, making Apple perhaps the best business ever. Because of the iPhone, Apple has managed to survive to a relatively old age. Not only did it build a device base well over 1 billion it engendered loyalty and satisfaction described only by superlatives. To summarize I can offer two numbers:
1. 1,162,796,000 iPhones sold (to end of March 2017).
2. $742,912,000,000 in revenues. $1 trillion will be reached in less than 18 months. In closing, security researcher Mikko Hypponen tweeted, "iPhone is 10 years old today. After 10 years, not a single serious malware case. It's not just luck; we need to congratulate Apple on this."
1.1 billion is an admirable number of phones to sell, no doubt about it. But how many users are represented by those 1.1 billion phones? It seems that few iPhone users buy just one and are happy about it; their model seems based in no small part on people buying a new iPhone (at least) every two-three years. The used market seems to have nearly evaporated for them due to the hysteria surrounding the new models, so it is generally fair to expect each phone to have only one owner before going to disposal.
Does anyone have a metric on how many unique iPhone users are out there?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.
"Que"??? The Spanish word for "what"? Huh?
CUE, you illiterate fool!!!
An great leap forward in marketing and in improving the efficiency of the surveillance state. It turns out spying is cheaper and easier if you let the private sector do it for you.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
There were "smart phones" before the iPhone. But none of them were anything like the iPhone.
After the iPhone, every single smart phone is now like the iPhone. The earlier designs disappeared completely.
So in that sense, Apple did in fact invent the smartphone as it exists today.
I think you're confusing Apple with Facebook. Apple's devices are just a conduit, while the actual surveillance data is all going through and being stored in Facebook. Blaming Apple for this would be like blaming BP gas for motor vehicle accidents; sure if it wasn't there at all it would be slightly more difficult but there were other more pressing factors.
And certainly, someone else would have combined all this into one device eventually regardless of whether or not Apple was the first to do it in a commercially successful way.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I took the train up to San Francisco to see the iPhone under the domed glass after Steve Jobs gave his keynote address at the MacWorld Expo 2007. I wouldn't get an iPhone for another seven years as the Great Recession came and went, picking up an iPhone 5C and later an iPhone 6s. Thinking about upgrading to the Red iPhone 7 in the near future.
Happy owner of four iPhones myself over the past decade.
*shudders at the thought of that android I tried for a short bit*
it could also have been "queue"
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Lots of companies could have invented the iPhone, but no one did. Neopoint definitely wasn't on that path, nor was black berry or Nokia. Apple deserves credit for creating the interface that changed mobile computing.
After the iPhone, every single smart phone is now like the iPhone.
Not entirely. Despite its flaws, at least the Android platform has avoided several artificial technical limitations. (Of course, avoiding malware because it cannot do much was not tremendously difficult for iOS.) But it is true that outside of these limitations, iDevices got closer to DynaBook than many previous attempts. It's just sad that Apple's policy effectively prevents them from ever becoming it.
Ezekiel 23:20
- Make a complex pocket-sized super-computer usable for normal people
- Put a proper webbrowser into a pocket sized device
- implement the concept of an online marketplace for software (henceforth called "Apps" - short and poignant so everyone can use the word)
- kill Flash and trailblaze it's replacement by an open standard web
My first all-touch device after my Blackberry was the HTC Desire.
And while it was way better than the iPhone at the time in every aspect, you still have to hand it to Apple: They started an entirely new industry.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Smartphones and their apps track and trace peoples purchases, movements, social groups, etc. Apple itself is but a small portion of it but they created a surveillance ecosystem.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I used an iPhone 4S until about a year ago. I bought it off lease at the tail end of it's production. I then upgraded to an iPhone 5 which I'm using now with the latest iOS.
Not sure what you mean by old models are "obsolete" The Asus Android tablet I bought a year ago is still stuck on 5.1 with no signs that they will offer an update to 6, much less 7.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Smart phones existed probably a decade before Apple. Did you have one? Chances are no. Did the masses have no. Again no. Part of the problem was the earliest smart phones did not yet have the technology to be practical (Wifi, powerful yet efficient CPUs, etc). The other problem was that most of the UIs were thinly veiled desktop computer designs. The last problem was stability. I had a WinMo phone from work. It lasted barely a day on standby. It crashed all the time. To 3-way conference a call took clicking like 3 sub-menus, two of which were not obvious. I hated using it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
what might have been created if the iPhone never came out. Their usage model was very good, and became dominant. What might have been instead if it never came to be? Maybe someone would have come up with a holographic display like star wars had? Or some other compeltely different concept? Might have been better, might have been worse. Think silicon/GaAs. Because silicon was so dominant and so much money was thrown at it, GaAs never got a chance.
And as when watching a ST movie, it's popcorn time. Reading the Apple lovers and haters. Even though the story is relevant (news for nerds), all we'll find in the comments is irrelevant bashing or praising.
No. That's fanboy reality distortion field BS.
The LG Prada smart phone was winning design awards almost a year before the Iphone was actually released, and the Iphone looked almost exactly like the Prada and used the same typical smart phone interface. The only arguments that the fanboys have come up with are qualitative claims, such as the Prada's web browser or touch screen was not as "good" as that of the Iphone, and such subjective claims are not only dubious, but they have nothing to do with the innovation of the smart phone.
Nope. The LG Prada beat the later Iphone, but neither LG nor Prada had the legion of blind followers that Apple had.
Apple has actually originated very little.
No, LG released something more or less identical to the first iPhone a few months before the latter was announced. The market was definitely going in that direction.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Apple does not like to be reminded but the original iPhone was made by Motorola and it was called the ROKR.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
There were "smart phones" before the iPhone.
I had one before I got an iPhone. It was always butt calling my boss whenever I got underneath a desk to disconnect/reconnect PCs on a PC refresh project. Never had that problem with the iPhone.
No, that doesn't make "que" an English word.
Let's check that... Que... chiefly Californian for barbeque... Que... abbreviation for Quebec... Looks like an English word to me.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/que
It means no such thing since like your sex life, it doesn't exist.
Not sure how my sexuality (or lack thereof) is relevant to this discussion.
"continue to dominate"?
Have you seen their market share? they don't in any way dominate, they have a small fraction of the smartphone market, and I don't think there has been a single time in the entire 10 year run where the iPhone has been "ahead" of the competition in terms of any functionality.
Apple has had only one solitary success, they are geniuses at marketing. They can make people think their products are better than they are, make people pay a premium for an inferior product, and inspire a cult-like brand loyalty that any other company would envy.
That marketing success though does not in any way indicate a better product. Nor has it had the desired effect of convincing a majority of smartphone users to choose that inferior product.
Queue is an interesting word: it is the letter q, followed by four silent vowels.
Circumcision is child abuse.
" Thousands of software developers would be poorer"
And millions would be richer if they hadn't wasted their time on apps and instead took a minimum wage job.
Also, it never "put the internet into everyone's pocket." Android has a far better claim to that. And this sort of overhyped starry-eyed bs is why so many people love to hate on Apple fanbois.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm genuinely curious if Apple has ever been "first" with any technology or feature? I've never seen it personally. They tend to always lag several years behind the competition (though I'll admit that the original iPhone was only a few months (rather than their normal few years) behind other devices in the new form factor that has now come to dominate smartphones)
"queue" most certainly is an english word. And it does mean to place in an ordered sequence, or line. Why do you think that a FIFO buffer is also called a queue?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Smartphones and their apps track and trace peoples purchases, movements, social groups, etc. Apple itself is but a small portion of it but they created a surveillance ecosystem.
Google (Hint: the maker of Android) reads your mail, tracks your browser history, your shopping habits and your movements among other things. I'm pretty sure Apple is an amateur convention compared to Google when it comes to monitoring every single thing their customers do.
It was probably a smartphone because you had to be smart to do anything useful with it ... unlike today where dummies do all sorts of useless things with it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
This is slashdot. Nobody reads the articles, so slashvertisements now cover the whole page.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Smart phones existed probably a decade before Apple. Did you have one? Chances are no.
I don't remember the first smart phone I got. It was in the early 2000's. In 2004 or 2005 I got an HP iPaq. It was more or less a version of Windows, but I don't recall the issues you are talking about. If I wanted to make a phone call, I pressed the green phone button under the screen and the number pad appeared on the screen. I do remember getting a larger battery for it. It lasted close to 3 days on standby. The iPaq had copy/cut and paste. How long did it take for Apple to add that to the iPhone?
I do remember when the iPhone was released and my needs were mainly for business. Unfortunately the first iteration of the iPhone was not designed with that in mind. It was more of a phone/iPod/web browser device from what I could tell. I ended up going with another Win phone with a touch screen and slider keyboard.
It wasn't that you had to be smart. It was the phone design was dumb. With WinMobile, MS never really thought about adapting the UI to be a phone. They just shoe-horned the desktop UI in and called it done. For example, to unlock it, you had to do a multi-button press (just like Windows) so it took 2 hands. That's idiotic. Everything was based on Windows not just in function but in size. You needed to close windows by clicking on a tiny "X" in a corner. Good luck if your fingers weren't tiny. Functions were buried under sub-menus with little thought about a user needing to access a function without multiple clicks. Like on a phone 3-way calling at best shouldn't be multiple sub-menus down from the interface during a call. Functions also weren't obvious. Everything required searching on Google (on a desktop) to figure out how to do something.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, that doesn't make "que" an English word.
Let's check that... Que... chiefly Californian for barbeque... Que... abbreviation for Quebec... Looks like an English word to me. http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
The OP was not talking about BBQs in French Canada though, was he?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The OP was not talking about BBQs in French Canada though, was he?
I quoted the person who wrote that "que" wasn't an English word. A quick Google search proved that premise false.
If I wanted to make a phone call, I pressed the green phone button under the screen and the number pad appeared on the screen.
Making a call wasn't the problem. If you were on a call and wanted to conference someone in (which happened a lot at work), how did you do that? Or forward a call. It wasn't obvious. It wasn't easy. I remember having to go to my desktop while on a call and using the web to find the answer. If I remember right, you had to tab out of the Call interface and then go to Settings and then down a few sub-menus.
I do remember when the iPhone was released and my needs were mainly for business. Unfortunately the first iteration of the iPhone was not designed with that in mind. It was more of a phone/iPod/web browser device from what I could tell. I ended up going with another Win phone with a touch screen and slider keyboard.
The first iPhones (and I would argue the iPhone in general) was never designed for businesses. Over time, they added more and more features that businesses could use. They were primarily for consumers.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There was a guy who used to work at RIM (BlackBerry) R&D who posted on a game forum I frequent. He had some good insight on the mobile market.
He said the real issue is not that the phone industry couldn't have come up with something like the iPhone before Apple did (though apparently RIM had a "explain why it can't be done" culture instead of a "figure out how it can be done" culture). The real problem was the carriers. If the carriers didn't carry your phone you were toast.
If you think back on it, prior to the iPhone and Apple selling phones in their stores, probably 99% of cell phone purchases were made by people at the carrier stores (as in, you went to the local AT&T store). And so if the carrier wouldn't carry or sell your phone, you were toast (and I think there's actually been some law changes since then, could be that in 2007 you couldn't just carry any network-compatible phone into a store and have them put it on their network, they may have forced you to buy a phone from them).
The carriers wanted cheap feature phones, preferably ones that lasted about a year before needing to be replaced. They liked deals where people could come in and they'd sell them a cheap phone or four and so they weren't interested in expensive phones with useful features.
Apple went to Verizon first with the iPhone. When they told Verizon that Apple would control the phone, the updates, the eventual App Store, and they wouldn't be able to put their logos on it, Verizon told them to go fuck themselves.
AT&T though, they were desperate. They were losing land line subscribers left and right and their two different cell phone companies were flailing. So they let Apple do its thing.
If AT&T hadn't been desperate we may have never seen the iPhone. And cell phones today would likely not resemble what they do today. Your Prada phone there gives no mention as to what network it was on. It may not have been carried by a carrier for that reason (too expensive). There's a reason almost no one has ever heard of it.
Apple really did change everything, or at the very least move things forward much quicker than they would have ordinarily.
Schnapple
PDAs, including all the "firsts" attributed to the iPhone in this article, predate Apple's smartphone, sometime by a whole decade.
Even *Apple's own Newton* predates the iPhone.
My first tough when I saw the iPhone back then was : Oh, yeah. Now Apple wants to jump on the "PDA" bandwagon, as if Microsoft wasn't enough already.
The form factor (screen and touch interface) was already standard since the first Palm rose to success.
(Apple's minor improvement was to be among the first with multi-touch, thank to their "capacitive touch interface" port-folio, licensed from Synaptics and used on iPod touch-wheels)
The Palm Tungsten I had in my pocket that day already had this form factor and was already old by that time.
Network access ? Has always been the staple of PDAs. Starting from the venerable Psion (using compact-flash modules), through Palm both for wifi
(Wifi SDIO modules, then later built-in) and for cell (IrDA tethering, Bluetooth Tethering, cell modules on Visor, and finally built-in cell capability with Palm Centro and such).
By the time the iPhone was announced, every single PDA (either running PalmOS or WinCE) could go online, either wifi or cell.
The only thing that Apple brought is marketing the same old concept but to masses. Before, PDA tended to be market more toward business, academics and doctors. Random people tended to have durable dump phones (Nokia) or feature phone (exemple like RAZR).
Apple's iPhone is the first that was marketed toward Joe Six-pack. (Tough before, other companies like Tapwave tried unsuccessfully to enter other market like the PDA/hanheld console hybrid Zodiac geared toward college students).
That, and managing to completely ruin the idea of battery endurance (iPhone 1 couldn't even get through the day on a single charge. Dumb phone could go between a week and a month depending on which (user-replaceable) battery was used. Most PDA could hold about a couple of days).
Apps ? PalmOS almost single-handedly invented the concept of apps.
Apple's only "invention" (actually drawback) was to leverage their iTunes platform to impose 1 single walled garden with no way to get apps from anywhere else.
And actually, You might not be remembering, but 3rd-party apps only arrived much later on. Initially Apple opinion was : either only our own apps, or 3rd mobile websites, no other choice.
Photography is the only actual field where Apple really helped things move forward.
Before, it was either crappy webcam on feature phone with minimalist possibilities (save them on the bult-in memory, send them by MMS/eMail/Bluetooth/IrDA),
or *very few* PDAs (as most PDAs where marketed toward business use, very few had built-in camera. Sony Clie was among the exceptions. A few add-ons did exist but with very limited real-world use).
As Apples' smartphone was more geared toward the general public, it made sense to equip it with some photo capabilities.
Of course that being Apple, they couldn't introduce it without yet another major step back : No. Fucking. External. Storage.
Whereas most of the industry was standardizing on SD cards for PDAs (some even featuring dual slots) - (With Sony's memory stick being the only usual exception), iPhone didn't have any slot or extension ports.
Oh and another step back : Bluetooth only used for wireless audio. No way to use bluetooth to send the photos. Basically, Apple tried to put a cam that didn't suck too much on the iPhone, but then locked in all the pictures.
So over all, Apple just re-heated an already existing concept PDA, managed to market it to wider masses (so iPhone is basically to PDAs and smartphone, what Wii is to home consoles), while still fucking up quite a few point (but never mind, the masses weren't using PDAs before and won't notice the missing stuff) and make people thing they actually started the whole concept.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Putting wifi on phones or handheld devices is obvious, and, saying "many smart phones didn't have wifi built-in at the time" means that some smart phones did have wifi at the time. So, Apple didn't "invent" wifi on the smart phone.
If it was so obvious why didn't the Prada have Wifi? if you are the one that praised the LG Prada, that seems like a huge technology feature that was missing.The problem which many people ignore and seem to forget that Wifi to put a smart phone was technically possible but also impractical without some engineering. The size of the wifi chip had to be shrunk down. The chips themselves were not as efficient as they are today. That's why many didn't have Wifi at the time.
The second part to overcome was the software. These days a phone OS can handle the transition from Cell to Wifi and back easy. Back then working out the kinks of doing that simple transfer wasn't easy. Add to that setting up Wifi on a computer desktop much less phone wasn't necessarily easy. Multiple step and multiple menus and there might still be something that went wrong. Where Apple has always had an edge was that they controlled both hardware and software to make this part easier.
Most Apple fan boys don't understand what actual innovation is and they don't realize that a lot of electronics products evolve within and without an entire industry. Apple did not originate nor invent the smart phone -- not by a long shot.
What haters like you don't understand is that innovation isn't always more technical features. A better UI is innovative. A better workflow is innovation. Making hard things easier is innovative. What Apple did is bring the smart phone to the masses by designing a consumer smart phone. Before Apple, smart phones were relegated to businesses and the tech savvy. UI, ease of use, target market were after-thoughts. After Apple, anyone can use a smart phone.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Cue them into the queue.
On a more topical note:
While I rather hate the iPhone and iOS walled garden way of doing things I do have to acknowledge that Jobs and Ive really did revolutionize the entire computing market.
iPhone didn't just change the handheld computing landscape, or just the cellular phone landscape, it also changed the datacenter landscape. I would go so far as to argue Facebook would not be what it is today (if it even existed) if the changes sparked by the iPhone didn't happen.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Or "queue", as in they're going to line up to bash. But the article deserves to be bashed.
" Thousands of software developers would be poorer"
And millions would be richer if they hadn't wasted their time on apps and instead took a minimum wage job.
Also, it never "put the internet into everyone's pocket." Android has a far better claim to that. And this sort of overhyped starry-eyed bs is why so many people love to hate on Apple fanbois.
Android doesn't have a far better claim to anything except as a malware distribution platform par excellence!
PDAs were already doing this for quite some time.
Make a complex pocket-sized super-computer usable for normal people
done by PDAs for decade by this point. They weren't designed for highly technical people neither.
The only details is that PDAs were usually marketed toward business, students, doctors, etc.
Apple marketed their to Joe Random.
Put a proper webbrowser into a pocket sized device
...ever heard of Opera Mini ?
Though yes theirs was a bit better than what was available elsewhere.
implement the concept of an online marketplace for software (henceforth called "Apps" - short and poignant so everyone can use the word)
Wut ?
The well developped PalmOS apps ecosystem that existed before begs to differ.
Apple's actual only success is managing to lock the users into a *single* walled garden. (Whereas there were various website where you could fetch PDA applications, none of which usually operated by the constructor).
Also, most people seem to forget, but when the iPhone was released, there wasn't much possibilities for 3rd party apps.
3rd parties were supposed to make mobile websites.
3rd party apps were only allowed at a later point in the device life cycle.
kill Flash and trailblaze it's replacement by an open standard web
My first all-touch device after my Blackberry was the HTC Desire.
And while it was way better than the iPhone at the time in every aspect, you still have to hand it to Apple: They started an entirely new industry.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Most namely the Pocket PC and Windows CE, before the iPhone Windows Mobile and Pocket PC "apps" were sold by the millions through PocketGear and Handango, which were third party app stores that existed for many years.
And before that PalmOS had a tremedous success.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
California Barbeque all the Applephiles & Apple Bashers
That might even make Slashdot relevant again.
Giving Apple credit for "inventing the smartphone as it exists today" is dishonest. The iPhone was very similar to "earlier designs", and Android was also being developed independently and in parallel (its release delayed by its acquisition by Google).
What set the iPhone apart from other high volume offerings was its use of a capacitive screen and lack of keyboard, reasonable choices for the consumer market, but not so good for the business market. Other vendors dropped the keyboard only once capacitive screens caught up, which was the sensible thing to do. The iPhone was what a lot of Apple products are: products that realize a vision that a lot of people already have, just rushed out the door at a premium price.
Note that iOS always has been a minority player in the smartphone market; it used to be dominated by Symbian and RIM, and Android mostly just took over from those two systems.
> However that was done by marketing, not by innovation.
That's not entirely true. The Apple's 381th Patent for inertial scrolling was a game changer. Adding physics to UI was absolutely brilliant.
Inertial scrolling was invented by Bas Ording. He has worked at Apple since 1998 as an User Interface Designer.
Reference:
* The Apple patent Steve Jobs fought hard to protect
* Who invented inertial scrolling on iOS
Did Apple accelerate it?
Yes.
But don't try to sell me the Apple invented the smartphone bs.
They sure invented the Smartphone EVERYONE ELSE slavishly copied, and continue to slavishly copy, even to today.
If that were actually true then RIM wouldn't have thought what Apple demonstrated that day was impossible and a lie.
After the iPhone, every single smart phone is now like the iPhone.
Not entirely. Despite its flaws, at least the Android platform has avoided several artificial technical limitations. (Of course, avoiding malware because it cannot do much was not tremendously difficult for iOS.) But it is true that outside of these limitations, iDevices got closer to DynaBook than many previous attempts. It's just sad that Apple's policy effectively prevents them from ever becoming it.
Your dismissive reasoning behind the stark contrast between the malware picture on Android vs. iOS is both incorrect and oversimplified.
The entire Android security, OS updating, and software distribution model is broken, remains broken, and is unlikely to be improved before MILLIONS more users fall victim to its clearly inferior design and execution.
I'm with you. Windows method is way too lax and broad, Linux is still clunky and complicated, just give me a desktop OS that has a phone-like permissions out-of-the-box. As long as I can override it as a superuser when necessary, I'd prefer all of my apps to be restricted to doing only what they ask me for permission to do first.
That's kind of what macOS has now.
Gatekeeper's defaults and macOS' warnings make it nearly impossible for a novice (or simply unwary) user to accidentally fall victim to malware. But despite that, if you have a SuperUser login/password, you are only a Right-Click away from overriding the Holodeck Safety Protocols, and installing/launching anything your little heart desires. And, if you want a more permanent change, you need only adjust Gatekeeper's settings for a more "relaxed" set of safety-protocols.
The first LG Prada was not a smartphone at all. Then again, the first iPhone was also so limited that some say it was not one either.
Circumcision is child abuse.
No. That's fanboy reality distortion field BS.
The LG Prada smart phone was winning design awards almost a year before the Iphone was actually released, and the Iphone looked almost exactly like the Prada and used the same typical smart phone interface. The only arguments that the fanboys have come up with are qualitative claims, such as the Prada's web browser or touch screen was not as "good" as that of the Iphone, and such subjective claims are not only dubious, but they have nothing to do with the innovation of the smart phone.
Nope. The LG Prada beat the later Iphone, but neither LG nor Prada had the legion of blind followers that Apple had.
Apple has actually originated very little.
Sorry. The iPhone didn't look like the Prada (other than the fact that they are both rectangular); but the Samsung phone looked EXACTLY like the iPhone.
https://www.wired.com/2007/02/...
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/1...
So now what?
No, LG released something more or less identical to the first iPhone a few months before the latter was announced. The market was definitely going in that direction.
More or less????
A LOT less, you mean.
Next time you post Anonymous Coward, don't quote your actual user name in the copy and paste.
It's a bogus output with IP addresses that I've never used.
Or, you're trolling. Either way, it's stupid.
Yes to both.
It's worth noting that this only really applies to the US market and US smartphone makers had a tiny share of the market prior to the iPhone. Nokia alone had 76% of the market and did well selling feature phones and a few smartphones via carriers, but most of their smartphones direct to customers.
The big difference between Apple and Nokia's offerings was in the userland programming environment. Nokia started with the best mobile development platform from mobile devices back when 256KB of RAM was a lot, and slowly evolved it to adapt to the world where 4MB was a lot. By the time 64MB was a lot they really had to throw it away and start again, but their internal corporate structure meant that they ended up with half a dozen replacements competing and couldn't get much traction with third-party apps.
In contrast, Apple started with the best workstation programming environment from the early '90s[1] when 8MB of RAM was enough and ripped out some of the optimisations that traded programmer effort for memory efficiency. This put them in a good position to encourage third-party developers and they also set up a better distribution channel.
Nokia smartphones could run third-party apps (they wouldn't be smartphones if they couldn't), but they rarely did. The smartphone app market prior to the iPhone 2 was similar to the mainframe software market prior to System/360: almost every new model from each vendor required you to port, if not completely rewrite, your code. This is the big change that iOS and Android caused, and the LG Prada contributed nothing to this shift.
[1] Seriously. If you haven't read the OpenStep specification, you should. It's a beautiful piece of API design. It's a little bit dated now, but I've not seen anything since that manages to be as concise and clear and uniform. Cocoa has accumulated some cruft since then, but the core ideas are there. Unfortunately, since Steve Naroff retired there's no one in Apple's toolchain group left that actually understands what made Objective-C a good language.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Queueing is also an interesting word as it's the only English word you might actually use (there are some really obscure ones depending on your dictionary) with 5 consecutive vowels. Of course, your dictionary (and Chrome) may also list queuing as an alternate spelling.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I am not an Apple fan. Not even close. I do agree that it was the iPhone that changed the market. However that was done by marketing, not by innovation.
Say that to the face of any of the engineers on the iPhone Project. I dare you.
Some of them practically lived at 1 Infinite Loop for the two-years that "Project Purple" was Priority #1.
That's not marketing, bub.
Smart phones existed probably a decade before Apple. Did you have one?
Yup, actually I had my second smartphone when the iPhone came out.
Part of the problem was the earliest smart phones did not yet have the technology to be practical (Wifi, powerful yet efficient CPUs, etc).
The WiFi was fine and, unlike the first iPhone, it supported SIP calling out of the box. At the time, I was paying 30p/minute for mobile calls, 1p/minute for SIP calls, so the £50 smartphone paid for itself pretty quickly. The screen, on the other hand, was tiny and crap.
The other problem was that most of the UIs were thinly veiled desktop computer designs
No they weren't. The mostly ran Series 60, which was a direct descendant of Psion's EPOC UI, from early '90s palmtop computers. Windows Mobile's market share was a rounding error. They were a massive pain to program for and the complete lack of uniformity in screen shapes, let alone sizes, made portable UIs basically impossible.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
An great leap forward in marketing and in improving the efficiency of the surveillance state. It turns out spying is cheaper and easier if you let the private sector do it for you.
Mods? Dear GOD! How is the Parent "Insightful"???
More like "INsightful", as in TROLLISH!
THERE ALREADY WERE SMARTPHONES when the iPhone was introduced. You think Apple would have even GLANCED at the fucking smartphone market if it wasn't a proven market already?
Just like iPod -- there were already successful MP3 players for YEARS before the iPod.
Apple is like the Party in the book 1984. First they claim the smartphone. Next the helicopter. Someday they'll claim the fucking wheel.
I'm not sure what you mean by surveillance state.
Apples security record has been very impressive. The latest iPhones are probably the most secure mass produced device ever. They are made so even apple can't get the data, and neither can governments.
This. This. A BEELION times, This...
Smartphones and their apps track and trace peoples purchases, movements, social groups, etc. Apple itself is but a small portion of it but they created a surveillance ecosystem.
Oh, and what would that be?
If you are referring to iAds, that ENDED. And nothing else fits your meme.
And if the smartphone hadn't already existed and had a million dollar market, Jobs wouldn't have given a microsecond of thought to considering entering the smartphone market.
If Microsoft is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, then Apple is Chase, Capture, Cripple.
Smartphones and their apps track and trace peoples purchases, movements, social groups, etc. Apple itself is but a small portion of it but they created a surveillance ecosystem.
Google (Hint: the maker of Android) reads your mail, tracks your browser history, your shopping habits and your movements among other things. I'm pretty sure Apple is an amateur convention compared to Google when it comes to monitoring every single thing their customers do.
Actually, Apple has, and continues to, take great steps to NOT track you.
Even when they want anonymized statistical data, they have instituted cutting-edge techniques to separate the data from the user's, or device's, IDs. Here's some examples:
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/...
https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...
Apple went to Verizon first with the iPhone. When they told Verizon that Apple would control the phone, the updates, the eventual App Store, and they wouldn't be able to put their logos on it, Verizon told them to go fuck themselves.
AT&T though, they were desperate. They were losing land line subscribers left and right and their two different cell phone companies were flailing. So they let Apple do its thing.
Just a little correction here. AT&T wasn't desperate. Cingular Wireless was desperate. They made the deal with Apple, but didn't happen fast enough to save them, and they were acquired by AT&T between the time that the iPhone was announced and the time it was released. I believe that Apple went to AT&T after being rebuffed by Verizon, only to get the same response.
So while the iPhone launched on AT&Ts network, it was only because AT&T bought Cingular and was forced to honor its contract, not because of negotiations between Apple ant AT&T.
Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
It's also a totally pointless letter - in English, anyway. Q is almost useless without a following "u", and yet it's sound is the same as "Kw". It's not as if it's a shortcut saving you from writing or typing out more letters.
On that note, "C", is pretty pointless too.. it does "S" and it does "K", but we already have those. "C" should just be used for the "Ch" sound, and drop the "h". But I digress.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
> earth shattering" change?
Well, they had the courage to remove the headphone jack, this is earth shattering!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
The iPhone was a truly disruptive product. It really had set other phone manufacturers back to the drawing-board and took a couple of years before they could come up with a decent competing devices.
When the iPhone came out Blackberry was the gold standard in smart phones, And other competing phones were a copy of that or a laptop with tiny keys. Android was still in development. But its design was focused on a system with a keyboard and non-multitouch.
When the iPhone came out. It forced all the companies to Change or Die.
It really change the face of Phones to the glass square. Is what we lost from the old phone worth what we gained with the iPhone designs, and should Apple still deserve to keeps its dominance well that is up for debate. But you can't just poo-poo the fact that the iPhone changed how we use mobile devices and phones.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In Canada, the situation was so bad, that for the first 6 months of the iPhone, you needed to go to T-Mobile in the U.S. and bring back a phone and roam on it. When the iPhone was taken up by one carrier, they charged nosebleed prices for the data plan, it was still cheaper to roam.
Breaking through the carrier situation was an enormous change in the industry. Before that happened, the customer was the telco and the product was a tool to lock customers into contracts. You had to pay to upload a ringtone. You had to pay to download a photo. You had to pay to use USB. It was criminal.
This reads like a circlejerk for Apple more than it says anything like an anniversary.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
But we'd had inertial scrolling on laptop touch-pads before this, not really a game changer to keep that function when you combine it with a screen.
horror vacui
Have you seen their market share? they don't in any way dominate, they have a small fraction of the smartphone market, and I don't think there has been a single time in the entire 10 year run where the iPhone has been "ahead" of the competition in terms of any functionality.
They dominate in profit margin, which is a lot more important than market share.
Apple has had only one solitary success, they are geniuses at marketing. They can make people think their products are better than they are, make people pay a premium for an inferior product, and inspire a cult-like brand loyalty that any other company would envy.
Better is a matter of perspective. My wife has had several cheap Android phones, and they were all difficult to use. I finally bought her an iPhone 5s and she uses it much more than the Android phone, and I spend much less time doing "tech support" as I used to. In my opinion, that's better.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Again, you have already suggested that other manufacturers had wifi in their phones prior to the Iphone, so such a commercial release of prior art makes inclusion of wifi obvious to all other manufacturers. That is basic "product innovation 101" that, for some reason, Apple fan boys cannot understand.
And what you don't seem to understand is that being absolutely first does not exclusively lock down being innovative. Innovative can mean improving upon a design. Google wasn't the first search engine by years but it was far better than the predecessors.
wifi wasn't miniaturized enough for the earlier Prada phone, even though it would be obvious to include it, however wifi was smaller with the timing of the later Iphone. I doubt that this is actually the (only) reason wifi was not included as product development of advanced electronics is extremely complex.
Except that the Prada came out mid May 2007 while the iPhone came out late June 2007. It wasn't years earlier. It was 1 month earlier. Please tell me how Apple was able to miniaturize something to fit in a phone while LG didn't do it within a month. Or Apple just was better at engineering it than LG. Or that Apple placed a priority on this feature but LG did not.
I doubt that wifi software had anything to do with the lack/inclusion of wifi in the Prada or Iphone. It really isn't much of a stretch to port wifi code between platforms.
After your huge diatribe about how many factors might come into play about why a feature isn't added, you now assert software isn't one of them? What OS did the Prada use? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Android. Did the software used by the Prada even allow it to do the things the iPhone did? Apple had to write their own OS based on OS X. In doing so they had to decide what belonged in iOS and what did not. I do not believe that LG had such expertise. What also helped smart phones take off is also the Android OS which Google championed.
Furthermore, you previously suggested that wifi on smart phones already existed prior to the Prada/Iphone, so the "problem" had already been solved.
Which destroys your argument about how great a Prada is if it didn't include a feature other smart phones had.
Also, LG/Prada controlled both their hardware and software, so the notion that Apple had some advantage with the Iphone is moot. Fan boys who use this argument usually don't admit how generic the components are inside Apple products.
Really? The UI of the Prada was based on Adobe Flash Lite. Does LG control Adobe Flash enough to where they could add in features? What was the OS of the LG Prada again? Also remember at the time, while the manufacturers installed the OS, the carriers had lots of control over what was allowed on the phone. So when you say LG "controlled" the software, that is laughable at best.
On the contrary, UIs (and in the case of smart phones, you probably really meant "GUIs") are important and there can be some innovation in UIs.
No I meant UI as in User Interface. I mean how the iPhone had a multi-touch UI before any other smart phone (by the way, did the LG Prada have multi-touch?). I mean also the decision to use a minimal amount of physical buttons and focus primarily on touch as an interface.
Additionally, Apple has not really invented much in the way of GUIs (nor UIs) -- please list any GUI items that Apple originated, other than the trash can (which a lot of people don't use) or Expose.
Bahahahaha. So you want to ignore all that Apple has done in GUIs. How much time do you have.
Also, it would be enlightening to hear exactly what you think Apple invented UI/GUI-wise with the Iphone. Please list all of these smart phone GUI innovations that were originated by Apple.
Multi-touch. Anyone also you seem to ignore my whole poin
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yeah I should have clarified - AT&T was the only one desperate at the time. I mean, the wireless market was and is competitive but AT&T was the main one hurting.
It's true they would have gone on to the next desperate national carrier except I don't think there was one. But if all four major national carriers (in the USA anyway) were comfortable to the point of saying no like Verizon did then the iPhone as we know it wouldn't have happened - it would have ether never seen the light of day or it would have been watered down with logos on it or it would be a niche product only Apple sold. Kinda like how for a few years the iPod was just the MP3 player you used if you had a Mac (there were ways to run it on Windows but few people bothered)
Schnapple
Fucking guy doesn't know what private networks are?
Actually, I do. That's why I was able to call bullshit on the output. None of those IPs corresponds with the IP ranges that I use. Not at home, not at work, not at my hosting provider. Trying to trick me into thinking that I've been hacked doesn't work.
And if the smartphone hadn't already existed and had a million dollar market, Jobs wouldn't have given a microsecond of thought to considering entering the smartphone market.
If Microsoft is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, then Apple is Chase, Capture, Cripple.
You're just saying he identified a need. So? He identified it before anyone else.
That's like saying you've given someone "free reign" - a superficially plausible substitution that is, nonetheless, not the actual phrase.
Technically you're both incorrect and correct.
The short version is that when AT&T was declared a monopoly back in the day they were broken up into a bunch of smaller companies (the "Baby Bells", with the former AT&T being the "Ma Bell"). Cingular was formed by two of the Baby Bells (SBC and BellSouth) and through a series of mergers and acquisitions, AT&T acquired most of the Baby Bells back and effectively re-formed. In particular the Cingular merger/acquisition occurred before the iPhone launch.
So it's true that I've thought of AT&T as this one blob of a company when really for a while there they were separate companies and the whole web of who acquired who is enough to make your head spin.
My wife actually worked at Cingular corporate during some of this and the amount of work that went into rebranding AT&T Wireless locations into Cingular locations and then back to just AT&T locations was tremendous. It would be good to be in the businesses that benefited from rebranding at that time (sign creation, business card printing, etc.) because they had to go back to them twice within about six months.
Schnapple
"...After 10 years, not a single serious malware case. It's not just luck; we need to congratulate Apple on this." --- And remind Apple this includes people who have legally jailbroken their iPhones. Something Apple said 'would' lead to serious malware problems.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Seriously, do you even network, bro?
I got 800+ connections on LinkedIn. A recruiter approached me yesterday for a $100K position at Apple that was looking for my leadership experience than I had.
I have never owned an iPhone. I still use a flip phone. I don't need to be connected to the net 24/7 and I'm not on that shit site Facebook either anyway.
I still use an old 4S that I got for free from my king ant who didn't want it anymore. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Like the original iPhone? Some people and I are still using a 4S. Anyone using older than that?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
You can't read, can you?
The smartphone already existed.
The market existed.
Jobs saw that the need existed and was already being served by others.
He jumped in as well.
"Before anyone else" is Apple fanboy mythology.
Nowhere did I touch the issue of malware on Android. What could be incorrect in a statement I never made? I fully agree that the security, updating and distribution aspects of Android are flawed. However, fixing them hardly seems to require removing Android's technical advantages.
Ezekiel 23:20
The Register as usual has nothing positive to say about Apple, Steve Jobs or Steve Wozniak. Reason being is that a long time ago The Register was barred from an Apple event because of some particularly snarky comments and Andrew Orlowski has never forgotten about it. I guess a brit reporter bounced from a free piss-up is someone not to be trifled with. This being example of what reporter Chris Mellor took from a recent press conference:
.. unquote
..
.. the communication between sales and marketing is sometimes a problem too within a company. But when I joined FusionIO and I had one year where I was in my office everyday. I went on every sales call I could. I wanted to hear what the customers wanted ..
..
..
...'
Chris Mellor 28 Jun 2017 at 03:03: "The Apple wizard that was, Steve Wozniak, Stephen Gary Wozniak, age 66, is sitting right next to Lance as Primary's chief scientist. Primary's execs can hardly contain themselves. Look who we have on board, they quietly beamed. Beat that, you other startups.
Then it's the Apple II designer's turn to talk. We hold our breath. And he engages Woz waffle mode. It's a pleasure to talk to us. We're thanked for taking the time to come visit. He joined Primary Data, and he'd liked FusionIO, because the company visions matched his ideas. The thing is to keep stuff simple. Kick out the middle stuff. Keep it simple and as direct as you can, by design. That was it, basically."
Now lets see a part of what Steve Wozniak actually said: The Hive - Steve Wozniak, Dave Hitz & Lance Smith
11:41: Wozniak: 'Well you know what, when we started Apple, we didn't exactly have the culture of a big company. But we felt, the few of us that were there, it was important to hire professional people who knew what they were doing, not to remain just a couple of kids. And we also had this feeling that we were on top of a revolution, we had a great product. It was going to be the seeds of making something important in the world. So for the next two years almost nobody ever left. I mean we felt we were something important in the world. And I don't know if that's the culture that remains today but I'm sure it's a big seed of it
17:39 Wozniak:
19:12 Wozniak: But Apple made a lot of mistakes too putting out products like, ten years too early, five years too early. If you miss the timing because of the price and the value, that can hurt you too
19:37 Wozniak: Even as an engineer, all my life was getting good at reducing the complexity, reducing the size, reducing the cost. Because I had no money. Having no money and not having done it before were the two greatest thing I ever did
20:17 Wozniak: First of all you gotta have some engineering and talent that knows how to built it. And you should not conceive your product thinking then I'll go and get the engineering once I have the idea. The idea and some knowledge of building parts and what can't be made. People who have spent their life as makers, completing, really developing working prototypes and models of things, should be included in the starting team and you gotta have customer support. Somebody on your starting team is a customer. That absolutely lived there and knows what they want, what's good and what's bad and they also gotta have some good thinking. They can't have been just there, they gotta be like a person who really wants things to be right and not wrong. And not anything works anything is good, no. And I think you need those three people, they could all be in one person, or they could be two people or three, but you really need that in a founding team
No. The Prada had a fancy interface (based on Adobe Flash Lite) and could run J2ME programs, but even back then that was too limited to call a smartphone.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Geez reporters are full of shit. I think bread and prostitution have outsold iPhones by many orders of magnitude. It's just a device, people. Get over it.
You can't read, can you?
The smartphone already existed.
The market existed.
Jobs saw that the need existed and was already being served by others.
He jumped in as well.
"Before anyone else" is Apple fanboy mythology.
I'll be more specific:
He saw that cellphones universally sucked donkey balls, and decided that Apple could do better than those.
So he went about tasking several "competing" teams at Apple with improving the cellphone UI "experience".
Eventually, he picked a "winner", and the R&D team converged on making that Project happen.
Nowhere did I touch the issue of malware on Android. What could be incorrect in a statement I never made? I fully agree that the security, updating and distribution aspects of Android are flawed. However, fixing them hardly seems to require removing Android's technical advantages.
What "technical advantages" would those be?
And yet there are more people accessing the net via Android phones than iPhones. Way more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Funny - mine hasn't been updated in a couple of years (at least) and no malware. It's the same as any other computer - don't download shit, don't go to shit web sites, and you'll probably be okay for years more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's "gros cul" in french, not "grosse queue". "gros"= big, "cul" meaning bottom. As "cul-de-sac" literally means "bottom of the bag", but is actually translated as "dead end". You've reached the "bottom" of the street.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Ah yes, the "retina" display, the first display to use so much marketing hype as to be an outright lie. The first phone display with a resolution so high you couldn't see the individual pixels, at the viewing distance Jobs claimed, wouldn't exist for another year or two after the iPhone4, and it wouldn't come from Apple. In fact, the iPhone would lag in display technology basically forever more.
They also weren't first on the fingerprint reader, as you point out. And the Motorola one (2 years before Apple) wasn't first either. Toshiba had one on a phone in 2007, 5 years before Apple. HTC, Acer, and LG all beat Apple to market on that one too.
really, so my phone tracks the identities of the people I encounter on the street?
It might. The facebook app knows where you are, and other people's apps do too. So it's possible that databases somewhere do know exactly that.
They can make people think their products are better than they are
Option (a) Everyone is brainwashed by Apple's brilliant marketing (I've never seen an Apple ad that I didn't hate, but I hate all advertising without exception, so whatever), and is spending all their money on total rubbish. And none of them have figured this out.
Option (b) Apple products sell because people like them.
Now, the second option seems far more likely to me. Added to which, Samsung spend alot more on marketing than Apple ever has. They're the ones with the (very apple-like, these days) stands in the malls, and advertisements everywhere. So, is the fact that Samsung sell more phones than Apple also due to marketing? Or is that because people are only brainwashed by the subliminal messages in Apple's ads, but somehow Apple spend less on them, and sell less than Samsung...I just don't get it.
Samsung don't have the cult following that Apple do, not even close.
And dollars spent don't really equate to results obtained.
Based on Wikipedia (I never even heard of the Prada before this article hit /.), the Prada also didn't support 3rd-party developers in any way. I will grant that the interface seems superficially similar, but the screenshots don't really reveal all that much.
AC lack a sense of humor
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The "before anyone else" straw man is something I've only ever seen erected by anti-Apple whiners.
Straw man?? It was in his goddamn comment! I'm not putting words in his mouth.
In the context of your comment, marketing actually means; Making something usable, as opposed to being terrible.
No, I really meant "Try to bring it to market XYZ".
Every prior incarnation of touch-screen phones were uniformly unusably bad.
Microsoft's shitty god awful OS != "Every prior incarnation of touch-screen phones"
They where other contenders with better OSes.
PalmOS was a very neat OS that successfully launched the whole concept of PDAs (from the ashes of Apple's own failed Netwon attempt, no less).
BlackBerry largeley predates iPhone too.
"Pocket Internet Explorer"? A 'start' menu on a phone? Slow, clunky, ugly interfaces? Hard to configure? This is why they weren't popula
This is why I never went to a Microsoft's-Shit-Powered PDA.
Started using PalmOS with a Palm IIIc and never looked back.
it's not because people weren't being told to use them. It's not because these things weren't marketed, they were. It's because they sucked.
The tremendous success of Palm and later BlackBerry in their own markets (business type, academics, doctors, etc.) begs to differ.
That was the whole core success of Palm : Making a sleak interface that even a non-nerd could use, and was very responsive and easy to get around.
Just push a button and/or just start scribbling with the stylus and the PDA gets exactly what you need.
You can google around and read articles about their story : after the flop of previous competitors (including - ironically - Apple's own Newton), a group of designers (that would eventually become Palm - though they initially sold hardware as 3com) spent lots of effort to make a PDA that would not suck, and that could be as handy and useful as possible.
No fuss with a stupid windows-95 styled "start" menu. That peculiar shit was Microsoft invention. :
They attempted to replay the same event as back with the Pen Computer craze
see a new potential market emerging (here: PDAs), and rush in some half-baked shit of their own with the intent to occupy the market.
Almost more wanting that somebody else doesn't get successful rather than trying to actually conquer the market.
(To the point that their shit tanks the emerging market and analysts take Microsoft suckiness as "there's no consumer interest in XYZ").
I was under the impression that this time Microsoft wasn't as successful at wiping the competition (thanks to Palm managing to establish themselves with a successful line of products).
But the fact that some like you think that "PDA" == "Microsoft Pocket PC", makes me doubt it.
The iPhone came along, and sure, at the start it didn't even have apps. But it managed to achieve the not inconsiderable feat of not sucking.
As had Palm's PalmOS-powered PDA done in the past.
And unlike Palm and BlackBerry, they managed to persuade Joe Six Pack that having a networked computer in their pocked was worth it.
(Whereas Palm and the like tried - successfully - to persuade business type that having their personal agenda in their pocket was worth it.
to persuade college student that a small computer they can store schedule, take notes, organize and play a few games was worth it.
to persuade doctors that rather than struggling which of the 20 different "pocket-size reference" they should take, a single pocketable and easy to use computer device is better.
etc.)
While you might not think that constitutes innovation, you would be quite wrong.
I'm not saying that "not sucking" is not a significant caracteristic of the iPhone.
I'm saying that pocket-sized computer that didn't suck were already available for around a decade back then and iPhone wasn't revolutionnary back then, no matter what shit Microsoft manader to make with their shitty OS.
Apple leveraged two thing :
- Their quasi-cu
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Your point on battery endurance is a bit ridiculous, use your iPhone like you would a dumb phone and its battery will last a lot longer.
I came from the other point of view.
There was no way I could use an iPhone the way I've been (ab)using my Palm PDAs before.
I bought a Palm IIIc around 2000 and used it a my daily driver during a good part of my studies.
I took all my notes during lectures on it. Typing on the foldable keyboard, or scribling with the stylus when on the move.
Even under strong use, if I forgot to charge it during the night, it could still be holding the next day to the end.
The thing is, it was an *PDA*. It didn't have it's own connection, it relied on IrDA tethering if I wanted to check e-mail (with later PDAs like my Palm Tungsten T3 I could use bluetooth tethering or a Wifi SDIO card, though that last one similarily reduced battery life).
So the pocket computer wasn't constantly connected.
(Meanwhile, the phone I was using the most was a sturdy dumb phone, Ericsson T39 - good battery life, specially when using a fat replacement battery)
Each device with its own adapted battery.
On the other hand, the smartphone trend started to pack all the above functionality in a single device, sharing a single meager battery.
And with the race to make the device as thin as possible, the space constrain aren't getting any better.
So of course the first iPhone was going to have a not so great battery performance (doing all the work of a PDA and a feature phone, on a single battery).
The non-replaceable battery didn't help.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Utter bullshit.
The iPhone and Apple products in general have immense retention. People don't buy one, they buy many. And you don't get that with marketing. With marketing, you get one buy. Any subsequent buys come from the experience the buyer had with that first device.
And people are overwhelmingly happy with iPhones. That is 100% engineering and design.
Funny - mine hasn't been updated in a couple of years (at least) and no malware. It's the same as any other computer - don't download shit, don't go to shit web sites, and you'll probably be okay for years more.
While I agree, that's certainly no rules to design a platform under... (yes, I know. I ended my sentence with a proposition...) ;-)
If you think the original "retina" display lived up to it's claims, you either have sub-standard vision, hold your phone farther than a foot away from your face, or simply have a very poor memory. In any of those cases you would likely have been equally impressed with most of the screens of the day.
As for "usable" fingerprint reader. I never had any problems at all with the motorola one, worked great. You did have to train it first though, but that's no different to the iPhone one.
You can't claim it was "first" after someone points out prior art that reaches back 5 years before it.
Take a look at the news - WannaCry barely affected XP boxes. Malware that takes advantage of holes in the latest and greatest just doesn't work that well on older stuff, because both expoitable mistakes and needed features to exploit if it's to work just aren't there. The people who were crying about how XP was the most vulnerable found out the hard way that Windows 7 was way more vulnerable. And if they had bothered to do ANY research, they would have found you didn't need to do an update, just turn off ONE SINGLE FEATURE - one that nobody uses anyway.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
LuaJIT works on Android, doesn't work on iOS. That's not an advantage?
Ezekiel 23:20
Take a look at the news - WannaCry barely affected XP boxes. Malware that takes advantage of holes in the latest and greatest just doesn't work that well on older stuff, because both expoitable mistakes and needed features to exploit if it's to work just aren't there. The people who were crying about how XP was the most vulnerable found out the hard way that Windows 7 was way more vulnerable. And if they had bothered to do ANY research, they would have found you didn't need to do an update, just turn off ONE SINGLE FEATURE - one that nobody uses anyway.
Yeah, I HAD to go the "Disable SMB-1" route with my work Windows 7 machine. I couldn't get the recommended "update" to install correctly; so I just disabled SMB-1 and called it "good"...
Even back then the judgement was clear: the LG Prada mobile is not a smartphone.
Circumcision is child abuse.
iOS leads in a handful of wealthy countries, but globally its market share by Q1 2017 was 14.5%, against Android's 85%.
Still a damn good result, considering that all other systems put together got 0.5%.
Circumcision is child abuse.
So you'll use a smartphone without Wifi today?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yes, it does -- it does for any particular invention that becomes known to all other players.
You seem to be confusing invention != innovation. So what did the Prada invent again? By your standards nothing.
Whether Google was better than its predecessors is a qualitative argument that is largely subjective.
So you still use Excite or Altavista then?
Improving upon a design in a unique, non-obvious way would make that designer the first one with the design improvement -- which constitutes invention and first innovation.
Then you agree that the Prada did nothing innovative then.
No. The Prada won an international design award in September, 2006 (it won four other notable design awards, as well). So, it was "out" long before the Iphone, it just didn't go into production until May of 2007.
So the Prada had a full working model in Sept 2006? Was it a demo phone? Or was it merely screenshots of what it was supposed to be? Also the Prada "didn't go into production" in May 2007. It was available in May 2007 which means it went into production months before.
So what was the Apple timeline? It was being developed for about 3 years before it was released. Unlike LG, Apple chooses not to release any details of most upcoming products. Again it was available only a month after the Prada.
No doubt, LG had already committed to most of the internals just before they entered all the design competitions (months before they won their awards),
And Apple didn't commit to internals months prior to launch? The week before the launch, Apple decided to add wifi. You don't think that it takes months for Apple (or any manufacturer) to finalize hardware internals?
and since the Prada was significantly smaller than the Iphone,
Please describe "significantly smaller"
The Prada: 98.8 X 54 X 12 mm
The iPhone 138.3 x 67 x 7.1 mm
The Prada was thicker than the iPhone and shorter and slightly thinner. But it also had a much smaller screen.
there probably wasn't much room to add newly developed technology.
Oh there was plenty of room being much thicker than the iPhone. LG choose not to do so.
Also, LG didn't have the huge resources that Apple had to throw at things like wifi, plus, Apple has a history of rushing things to market before they are ready without proper engineering nor field testing, hence, we now have the common "first adopters" syndrome, largely created by Apple.
No your argument was iPhone didn't have anything the Prada didn't. Wifi alone destroys your argument. Now you want to wrangle out of that fact by saying LG didn't "have the resources" to put in Wifi. Unless you worked at LG and Apple at the time to know what resources they both put in, you're just lying. Because if you know anything about Apple (which you don't). The iPhone design team was small. It was small on purpose to keep it a secret for as long as possible. Will you lie about anything to justify your hate of Apple?
Huh? I never argued that the Prada phone was "great" nor would I argue that the Iphone was "great." My arguments only regard innovation -- who came up with it first.
Wasn't your arugment this: The LG Prada smart phone was winning design awards almost a year . . .The LG Prada beat the later Iphone, but neither LG nor Prada had the legion of blind followers that Apple had. . .Apple has actually originated very little."
So in essence you're lying about what you said.
In the first place, a touchscreen and multi-touch are part of the GUI. Most designers are keenly aware of this -- not so much naive laypeople/fan boys.
And most designers can make the distinction that a GUI is one type of UI. If you are a designer you shoul
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.