> What the iPhone brought was a different interface and user experience
Lol. Yea, that's 99% of the entire thing! It's why Android was building a Nokia clone the day before the keynote, and the day after the keynote they changed direction HARD in panic.
> They only lacked touch interfaces.
Well that's not true. They did in fact have touch interfaces too. Just that it wasn't capacitive. And the entire interaction model sucked, the APIs sucked, the graphics sucked, the screen sucked, etc.
> The behavior of people walking around with media in their phones and using their phones to consume media, capture media and access the internet on-the-go was built by those brands, not by the iPhone.
I think you're also forgetting what "the internet" on these devices was. It wasn't the real internet. You couldn't go to normal full websites and have it worked. It was enormously far from it in fact.
> but the demand and consumer behavior weren't built by Apple, not even close. They just surfed the wave with a better product.
There was no wave before BECAUSE the products before were so inferior.
It's maddening that people don't get this. The difference between utter crap and a great product isn't checkboxes on a feature list. It's a thousand tiny details that seem insignificant, and CARING about those things.
If it was just a few UX fixes, Nokia could have turned around and cloned iPhone fast. But they couldn't. Because:
1. They didn't care or understand tiny details.
2. Many many details is something you build up over a long time. You can slap a clone UX over your existing product, but that's not why the iPhone was great.
> They were less the start of the smartphone revolution than PalmPilot or the IBM PC.
With this in context, you claim that hardware built for productivity was more of a smartphone revolution than the devices that created a market by offering the same benefits, features, and user behaviors we have nowadays (mainly media and entertainment) - let's continue.
> Lol. Yea, that's 99% of the entire thing!
I don't get how that's 99% of a thing.
> Well that's not true. They did in fact have touch interfaces too. Just that it wasn't capacitive. And the entire interaction model sucked, the APIs sucked, the graphics sucked, the screen sucked, etc.
This is the confusing part, here you agree with me that the "dumb phones" had all the main set of features and software in place, but the experience just wasn't as good as the iPhone. All the user behaviors were there.
> There was no wave before BECAUSE the products before were so inferior.
Here I'm not sure if you're claiming that there was no demand for Nokia, Motorola, SE, etc devices? Because if that's it, that's just silly.
> It's maddening that people don't get this. The difference between utter crap and a great product isn't checkboxes on a feature list. It's a thousand tiny details that seem insignificant, and CARING about those things.
Again, this makes no sense. Apple did things differently, but how does that show that the other brands didn't care about their products and user experiences? Have you seen the number of Nokia devices that were released catering to different users?
Every time someone launches something better or different than Apple, means that Apple doesn't care?
I find it hard to follow your logic. Like, the mobile phone market was created by a few brands, which built habits and connected people, ultimately bringing entertainment to their customers (the wave) - yet you believe the Palm Pilot started the Smartphone revolution, not the guys who built the market over decades.
The odd thing is that you're implying that what Apple did with the iPhone could have been done at any point in time prior to 2007. Why didn't Apple do it with the iPod, while others were already using interactive menus with graphics? They didn't care..?
I understand you're passionate about the subject, but I don't understand your point of view. To be clear I'm not saying "Apple didn't do anything special" - they shifted the experience of mobile phones for the better.
But to say that Nokia, Motorola, SE, and other brands contributed less to smartphones than the Palm Pilot is just silly imo.
Disagree, but continue...
> What the iPhone brought was a different interface and user experience
Lol. Yea, that's 99% of the entire thing! It's why Android was building a Nokia clone the day before the keynote, and the day after the keynote they changed direction HARD in panic.
> They only lacked touch interfaces.
Well that's not true. They did in fact have touch interfaces too. Just that it wasn't capacitive. And the entire interaction model sucked, the APIs sucked, the graphics sucked, the screen sucked, etc.
> The behavior of people walking around with media in their phones and using their phones to consume media, capture media and access the internet on-the-go was built by those brands, not by the iPhone.
I think you're also forgetting what "the internet" on these devices was. It wasn't the real internet. You couldn't go to normal full websites and have it worked. It was enormously far from it in fact.
> but the demand and consumer behavior weren't built by Apple, not even close. They just surfed the wave with a better product.
There was no wave before BECAUSE the products before were so inferior.
It's maddening that people don't get this. The difference between utter crap and a great product isn't checkboxes on a feature list. It's a thousand tiny details that seem insignificant, and CARING about those things.
If it was just a few UX fixes, Nokia could have turned around and cloned iPhone fast. But they couldn't. Because:
1. They didn't care or understand tiny details.
2. Many many details is something you build up over a long time. You can slap a clone UX over your existing product, but that's not why the iPhone was great.