All touch screen smartphones existed well before the iPhone. Phone apps and app stores existed well before the iPhone (and the first iPhone didn’t even have apps). Being overpriced as a pointless status symbol existed well before the iPhone. I don’t see how it “made history”.
I think we should deal with the fact that modern times were shaped by iPhones, not by Windows phones or any other pre-iPhone things. Technology evolves and being able to make a product that works for the majority and that its adoption changes the world we live in (for the better or the worse) must be recognised. Saying that Microsoft or whatever did something similar before is nonsense: everything is an evolution from the past. So we can be anti-Apple or anti-anything, but we should accept and stop minimising the fact that Apple changed things and made history.
The only real things Apple did well was marketing. There were phones that had all the same features, were less expensive, had better apps, and was more versatile than the iPhone, before the iPhone existed. Only difference was that they were aimed at businesses and professionals, and the UX and app ecosystem was designed around power users. Apple merely dumbed down the UX to make it suitable for both grandma and sweet sixteen Bethany to use, wouldn’t really call that making history.
It’s possible, but I don’t see marketing a bad thing, on the contrary. However, to be honest I can’t think about anything similar to iPhone that was cheaper, better and with better apps, can you give me some examples?
Eh…they kinda combined palm pilot with a cellphone. Used watered down macOs (aka…mostlty from permissive free licenced already there software)…but, they did work on a very pretty UI (that they actually made).
Apple’s revolution, in my mind, is their marketing department. They sure wrapped Unix in shiny and shinier boxes and learned how to rip off trendy people whilsed getting praised for “innovation”.
Just my useless 2 cents! Take it for what it’s worth.
Nah their révolution is taking the éléments you presented in your first paragraph and made it work plus marketing.
yes, that “kinds combined palm with a phone” it’s not so easy, as it’s not so easy to provide a UI that works fine and it’s easy to use. If this is not innovation, what is it? Now it looks easy, but it wasn’t the case. Marketing per se is not a bad thing, it’s a capitalistic society where companies need to sell and prevail over others and marketing helps inform/promote products.
Nothing important actually ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Removed by mod
Having better ux than windows mobile doesn’t mean that it makes history. It is just a bit better version of a cell phone. The main goal of this device was to ease content (mostly paid garbage or hidden ads) consumption.
If you exclude everything that is not needed to you specifically, you will find that there is just gps + maps, cell-phone, mp3 player and camera. And all of these features working worse than the same via dedicated devices.
Is it a revolution we deserve to combine good features and make them work worse?
Removed by mod
The thing is that combining those dedicated devices makes for a device that you can carry in your pocket all the time. It’s simply not feasible to carry a dedicated camera, web browser, GPS/Maps unit, cell phone, music player, and so on. But when they’re all packed into one unit, they can be easily carried. The different pieces of functionality can also compliment each other so much more easily as apps.
- Mobile banking by photographing checks
- Check out a bike with a companion app and a QR code
- Video conferencing using the built in camera and microphones
- Morning alarm that also reads the headlines.
All this would require a purpose built device otherwise. By making it an app, it’s just a few bytes on the internal storage.
- Mobile banking by photographing checks
- Check out a bike with a companion app and a QR code
- Video conferencing using the built in camera and microphones
- Morning alarm that also reads the headlines.
Sounds like a petty bourgeoisie pleasures, ie nothing really important for life
and as for combining things in one device, I agree, it happened, but all this works worse than dedicated devices. If you really need gps for real stuff you would better use professional device, if you need camera not just for fun, you would prefer to use normal camera etc…
But that’s the thing, smartphones make them less of a “petty bourgeoisie pleasure”. It’s not uncommon for a person of quite modest means to have a smartphone. That opens up all sorts of possibilities: payments, formal banking, messaging, job connections.
Also, smartphones can provide a benefit that dedicated devices don’t: they are there all the time. We never would have seen justice for George Floyd if bystanders hadn’t provided multiple videos, and the same with Ahmed Avery. The often shocking police tactics in putting down protests would have gone undocumented. This extends into professional journalism as well, with the non-photographer reporters getting some training on how to use their smartphones to get quick photos of moments that would have been lost before because there wasn’t a photographer available. And despite what you say, the camera can often produce a perfectly acceptable result.
If you really need gps for real stuff…
Wait… real stuff like… getting somewhere??? Turns out phones are plenty good at that.
Nobody else made it cool. Apple did.
