I find the many angles and spins commenters here gave this thesis a remarkable consolidation of the reasons behind the idea of mobile first.
I might add, that there were tables and WAP before and finally the iPhone on the demand side gave rise to the mobile revolution. Or put another way: before iPhone there wasn't really a reason to design for mobile, only desktop.
Also in the beginning dev and designers focussed on landing pages and websites, not complex SaaS applications, to be mobile first.
I always rejected responsive web design, because it was in my point of view - lacking browser support of flex/grid! - an overly theoretical approach without any practical merits. Data on projects I worked showed, that a hybrid approach with some responsive sugar for edge cases did the deal way better (hybrid approach).
I remember, when Smashing Magazine went on the hype train and redesigned their website to be responsive, the goal was that it would react to every pixel change in the browser with a consistent layout - a task so tough and so irrelevant, even the designer afterwards conceded. (diminishing returns)
Even today, I prefer to think in views instead of "mobile first". It is not about adding or substracting features depending on the screen size, it is more about fulfilling tasks given a certain screen resolution. Some SaaS apps do not make sense on a phone. That's why I rejected the term "mobile first" in the first place.
Nevertheless, I recognize all the hard work by all devs and designers they pure in developing apps for different screen (re)solutions. No matter what you call the paradigm, it is tough and challenging. Keeping an eye on the user and the data, helped me stay sane.
I might add, that there were tables and WAP before and finally the iPhone on the demand side gave rise to the mobile revolution. Or put another way: before iPhone there wasn't really a reason to design for mobile, only desktop.
Also in the beginning dev and designers focussed on landing pages and websites, not complex SaaS applications, to be mobile first.
For example, in the beginning it was coined "responsive web design": https://alistapart.com/article/responsive-web-design/
I always rejected responsive web design, because it was in my point of view - lacking browser support of flex/grid! - an overly theoretical approach without any practical merits. Data on projects I worked showed, that a hybrid approach with some responsive sugar for edge cases did the deal way better (hybrid approach).
I remember, when Smashing Magazine went on the hype train and redesigned their website to be responsive, the goal was that it would react to every pixel change in the browser with a consistent layout - a task so tough and so irrelevant, even the designer afterwards conceded. (diminishing returns)
Even today, I prefer to think in views instead of "mobile first". It is not about adding or substracting features depending on the screen size, it is more about fulfilling tasks given a certain screen resolution. Some SaaS apps do not make sense on a phone. That's why I rejected the term "mobile first" in the first place.
Nevertheless, I recognize all the hard work by all devs and designers they pure in developing apps for different screen (re)solutions. No matter what you call the paradigm, it is tough and challenging. Keeping an eye on the user and the data, helped me stay sane.