Their stuff was significantly worse in user experience. Buttery smooth scrolling and highly reactive multi touch on a touch screen only device was revolutionary. Touch screens back then were known to be shitty to use. The competition to the iPhone were phones with tons of buttons, styluses and cumbersome user interfaces.
All previous players in the smartphone market Blackberry, Nokia, Palm, Windows mobile were slow to adapt and failed.
Palm’s webOS was competitive to iOS and in many ways superior. It failed because of mediocre hardware, bad carrier deals, and running out of money too quickly.
Google‘s Android succeeded despite sucking until about version 4 by willpower and deep pockets from Google.
The original introduction keynote for the iPhone was mindblowing back then.
with tons of buttons, styluses and cumbersome user interfaces.
My dad had one. I liked that more. What you call cumbersome I call clean and sharp.
While those rows of vaguely symbolic mildly nauseating icons we have now irritate, overload and suppress me.
And back then I didn’t know that, but making Tcl/Tk programs for Windows Mobile of that time, for example, was as easy as for desktops.
All previous players in the smartphone market Blackberry, Nokia, Palm, Windows mobile were slow to adapt and failed.
Yes, that’s why Stephen Elop went from Microsoft to Nokia, buried Nokia’s relevant smartphone business, then went right back to Microsoft. Blackberry was too business-oriented, they should have marketed more universally.
And they even dropped Maemo. Maemo didn’t have any of Symbian’s supposed “burning” traits. Nobody can persuade me a Linux+Qt based system is worse than iOS, especially of that time.
Dunno about Palm then.
Windows Mobile was Microsoft’s accidental good product, of course they decided to bury that as soon as they found an excuse.
Let’s clarify this - I don’t consider iPhone anything good. Its success is a result of a cultist phenomenon which didn’t lead to anything good either. I agree about Android.
But I can also see how that phenomenon happened, I myself looked in awe at anything Apple, just where I live it was and is considered luxury stuff. I also had this indoctrination from stupid books and articles about Stephen Jobs being some genius and Apple being a good company and the underdog. Had a children’s book about computers with the semi-transparent colored plastic iMac and classic MacOS screenshots, and had seen an ad about the lamp-shaped iMac G5, liked that aesthetic, wanted that. Used QuickTime browser plugin under Windows 2000, and my dad had an iPod. By the time I’ve seen a Mac IRL Apple’s aesthetic mutated into some ugly crap I didn’t like. I still feel that awe in what others do with software like Hotline and KDX and other things that originated on Macs. Apple had a huge emotional capital. Unfortunately, it went the way it went.
Using TCL/Tk and Qt based apps on smartphones with a stylus was a pain in the butt in my experience.
You probably mean Windows Phone, not mobile. Yes, Windows Phone 7 and 8 on Nokia phone were really compelling.
Being able to scroll and zoom real websites smoothly on a phone, instead of having to use crappy WAP was huge.
This meant lots of people were getting an iPhone as their first smartphone.
The iPhone succeeded initially because of ease of use. Of course Apple‘s brand image played a role as well. When it came out it was 1000 US$, making it more expensive than other phones. So it instantly became a status symbol.
Ease of use and status meant the executives of corporations started to demand their IT departments make the iPhone work with their Microsoft based networks and such.
Later on Apple started supporting corporate features and mobile device management for corporations really well. Corporate IT loves iPhones because of the great management options, the limited range of models, and long support with software updates. Once Apple had a foot in corporate, their success became cemented.
Their stuff was better, but disadvantaged by public perception. A perfect storm one can say.
Their stuff was significantly worse in user experience. Buttery smooth scrolling and highly reactive multi touch on a touch screen only device was revolutionary. Touch screens back then were known to be shitty to use. The competition to the iPhone were phones with tons of buttons, styluses and cumbersome user interfaces.
All previous players in the smartphone market Blackberry, Nokia, Palm, Windows mobile were slow to adapt and failed.
Palm’s webOS was competitive to iOS and in many ways superior. It failed because of mediocre hardware, bad carrier deals, and running out of money too quickly.
Google‘s Android succeeded despite sucking until about version 4 by willpower and deep pockets from Google.
The original introduction keynote for the iPhone was mindblowing back then.
My dad had one. I liked that more. What you call cumbersome I call clean and sharp.
While those rows of vaguely symbolic mildly nauseating icons we have now irritate, overload and suppress me.
And back then I didn’t know that, but making Tcl/Tk programs for Windows Mobile of that time, for example, was as easy as for desktops.
Yes, that’s why Stephen Elop went from Microsoft to Nokia, buried Nokia’s relevant smartphone business, then went right back to Microsoft. Blackberry was too business-oriented, they should have marketed more universally.
And they even dropped Maemo. Maemo didn’t have any of Symbian’s supposed “burning” traits. Nobody can persuade me a Linux+Qt based system is worse than iOS, especially of that time.
Dunno about Palm then.
Windows Mobile was Microsoft’s accidental good product, of course they decided to bury that as soon as they found an excuse.
Let’s clarify this - I don’t consider iPhone anything good. Its success is a result of a cultist phenomenon which didn’t lead to anything good either. I agree about Android.
But I can also see how that phenomenon happened, I myself looked in awe at anything Apple, just where I live it was and is considered luxury stuff. I also had this indoctrination from stupid books and articles about Stephen Jobs being some genius and Apple being a good company and the underdog. Had a children’s book about computers with the semi-transparent colored plastic iMac and classic MacOS screenshots, and had seen an ad about the lamp-shaped iMac G5, liked that aesthetic, wanted that. Used QuickTime browser plugin under Windows 2000, and my dad had an iPod. By the time I’ve seen a Mac IRL Apple’s aesthetic mutated into some ugly crap I didn’t like. I still feel that awe in what others do with software like Hotline and KDX and other things that originated on Macs. Apple had a huge emotional capital. Unfortunately, it went the way it went.
Using TCL/Tk and Qt based apps on smartphones with a stylus was a pain in the butt in my experience.
You probably mean Windows Phone, not mobile. Yes, Windows Phone 7 and 8 on Nokia phone were really compelling.
Being able to scroll and zoom real websites smoothly on a phone, instead of having to use crappy WAP was huge.
This meant lots of people were getting an iPhone as their first smartphone.
The iPhone succeeded initially because of ease of use. Of course Apple‘s brand image played a role as well. When it came out it was 1000 US$, making it more expensive than other phones. So it instantly became a status symbol.
Ease of use and status meant the executives of corporations started to demand their IT departments make the iPhone work with their Microsoft based networks and such.
Later on Apple started supporting corporate features and mobile device management for corporations really well. Corporate IT loves iPhones because of the great management options, the limited range of models, and long support with software updates. Once Apple had a foot in corporate, their success became cemented.
No, I mean Windows Mobile. Windows Phone with those tiles - no.
Dunno, it felt like the cult part fired much earlier and for much longer.