1) The ecosystem did not spring into life with the iPhone; a lot of vendors were unsure initially but there was obviously tremendous benefit to Apple due to the iPod industry.
2) Danger would not have been able to launch the iPhone for a multitude of reasons. Even as a part of Microsoft, they couldn't have done it. I could go really in-depth here, but Microsoft is really bad at Art and Politics, which I would argue were the keys to the iPhones success.
3) The iPhone is a triumph for a number of reasons, but I tend to think the social conventions the iPhone destroyed were the most interesting part. I mean, I was working at AT&T when the iPhone dropped.
Before the iPhone:
* Everything was free phone at the low end and $199 at the top end
* Apps were pre-loaded onto phones
* Carriers drove handset manufacturers choice of OS
* No one ever waited for a phone
* Manufacturers did not care about UI/UX
* Phones sold on spec sheets
After the iPhone:
* Most people forget that the iPhone launched at a price point of $499 with no subsidy. They failed but this was Apple's attempt to kill free phones, and they (sort of) did.
* App store (year 2)
* Manufacturers drove handset sales to Operators (and outside of operators)
* People line up for phones all the time
* Everyone cares about UI/UX
* Phones sell by Operating System (And UI/UX)
I could go on and on. There are so many things that changed because of design decisions by Cupertino.
No, Danger could not have done the iPhone. Not because of technical limitations, but because of politics. Wresting that much power out of such a reinforced fiefdom was a herculean effort with commensurate results.
How much was the palm? $199 on contract? It certainly wasn't $499...
Those companies had their own OS but their content, schema and layouts were dictated by carriers. Only phones that were sold outside of carrier shops enjoyed true independence and those were few and far between.
People praised the Nokia UI, but where could you buy a high end Nokia phone when they were locked out of US carriers?
Spec sheets sold. Things like battery life were more important than OS. I think we're in agreement here.
I just think we had a different viewpoint on the industry. I sold thousands - tens of thousands of phones in the mid 2000's so I'm really familiar with the market at that time, but the view from my position is not a consumer viewpoint.
1) The ecosystem did not spring into life with the iPhone; a lot of vendors were unsure initially but there was obviously tremendous benefit to Apple due to the iPod industry.
2) Danger would not have been able to launch the iPhone for a multitude of reasons. Even as a part of Microsoft, they couldn't have done it. I could go really in-depth here, but Microsoft is really bad at Art and Politics, which I would argue were the keys to the iPhones success.
3) The iPhone is a triumph for a number of reasons, but I tend to think the social conventions the iPhone destroyed were the most interesting part. I mean, I was working at AT&T when the iPhone dropped.
Before the iPhone:
* Everything was free phone at the low end and $199 at the top end
* Apps were pre-loaded onto phones
* Carriers drove handset manufacturers choice of OS
* No one ever waited for a phone
* Manufacturers did not care about UI/UX
* Phones sold on spec sheets
After the iPhone:
* Most people forget that the iPhone launched at a price point of $499 with no subsidy. They failed but this was Apple's attempt to kill free phones, and they (sort of) did.
* App store (year 2)
* Manufacturers drove handset sales to Operators (and outside of operators)
* People line up for phones all the time
* Everyone cares about UI/UX
* Phones sell by Operating System (And UI/UX)
I could go on and on. There are so many things that changed because of design decisions by Cupertino.
No, Danger could not have done the iPhone. Not because of technical limitations, but because of politics. Wresting that much power out of such a reinforced fiefdom was a herculean effort with commensurate results.
Appreciate the insight though friend :).