7 ms·

Actually, Microsoft came with "modern" smart phone much sooner. Actually too soon, technology wasn't there (price, computing power, size, weight, battery life).

by shuwix 22d ago

Actually, Microsoft came with "modern" smart phone much sooner. Actually too soon, technology wasn't there (price, computing power, size, weight, battery life). Apple never came first ... but often just at the right moment and had marketing skills to make it a new trend.

__alexs 22d ago
Windows CE (1996) was garbage compared to Palm OS (also 1996.)
NoMoreNicksLeft 22d ago
>Apple never came first ... but often just at the right moment and had marketing skills to make it a new trend. Newton.
- simondotau 21d ago
  Fun fact: the Newton was the first mobile device to use an ARM CPU.
skrebbel 22d ago
I'm the opposite of an Apple fanboy (typing this on a Windows box), but this is some grade A nonsense. Sure, MS launched PDAs and phone-ish devices long ago, running Windows CE and whatnot but they were awful. It's absolute bollocks that the iPhone was a splashing success because of Apple marketing. It was a splashing success because it worked spectacularly well. Random non-tech people would randomly pull out their newest purchase to show their friends. "And now it's a notepad!" "Look and now suddenly it's a calculator!" Sure, your awful HP Tablet had all that, and a call function, well before. But it sucked. It felt like using a computer while squinting, and not like a magic calculator that can turn into a notepad and then into a phone and then into an iPod. The iPhone was a success because it worked so well. And it worked so well because the technology was there - in part because they invented it and in part because they had the taste to not bring out a shit product but wait a bit instead.
- nitin7 22d ago
  Imagine having to go to Start - Programs - Phone, in order to make a call.
  - qlte 22d ago
    Sure, I can imagine it. But I had a Windows Mobile phone and definitely didn't need to do this, there was a Phone button on the start screen.
- shuwix 22d ago
  Reading with understanding is absent in your skillset. I exactly wrote that Microsoft devices were quite bad as they came too soon. And Apple came at the right moment, when low power chips were powerful enough, touchscreens were precise enough without a pen. And device had acceptable consumption, batteries had decent capacity, lifespan.
  - mattkevan 22d ago
    It’s easy to forget what a difference multitouch capacitive touchscreens made to mobile devices. As far as I’m aware, the iPhone was the first device to use it at scale. Apple also spent years designing a new interaction paradigm for it, taking multitouch from cool tech demo (Fingerworks) to the mainstream. Microsoft had Windows Mobile and WinCE for years before iOS, but typically they got the UI wrong and tried to jam a desktop interface on a mobile OS (a few years later they overcompensated and jammed a tablet interface on a desktop OS). By the time the iPhone was out it was too late to rework Mobile into a multitouch OS. Famously, the BlackBerry guys thought it was impossible to put a full desktop os on a phone, and that Apple must have faked the initial demo. Again, by the time they could respond by ditching their existing software and buying QNX it was too late for them too. Android only survived because it was a new OS and the team immediately ditched their Blackberry clone UI and built an iOS clone instead. Even then it took until at least v5 before it was as smooth as iOS, and the tablet story is still poor.
    - Danox 22d ago
0x457 22d ago
Years after the first iPhone release, Microsoft had a dogshit mobile OS, and every single device using it was dogshit. Before Android, the industry's answer to iOS and iPhone was a resistive touch screen and stylus because, other than the launcher, absolutely nothing was adapted to fingers. That was if you were lucky; some didn't include a stylus, reducing usefulness for making calls. It was like running regular Windows applications scaled down to a smartphone screen.
nodamage 22d ago
> technology wasn’t there Until Apple developed it. Those early iPhones employed a lot of tricks to squeeze usability, battery life, and performance out of underpowered devices. Prior smartphone attempts mostly applied PC-centric concepts to the device, it’s no surprise they ended up failing.
- throwaway894345 22d ago
  Also, capacitative/multitouch touchscreens were ridiculously expensive until Apple made orders at a scale large enough to bring the technology costs down.
- Danox 22d ago
  Microsoft never had a chance because Apple is the last vertical computer company (OS plus hardware) a survivor from the 1980s when there were many vertical American computer companies. Even Apple would have been dead if Steve Jobs had not come back with the Next operating system. You can see the failure of Microsoft in their performance in mobile when the playing field was level Microsoft and Intel have trouble competing, you can also see it in the Surface computer efforts Microsoft has no clue. It’s too bad SGI, Sun, Digital, Amiga, Acorn didn’t make it because you can see many elements within Apple OS from that bygone era in the hardware and software.
  - shuwix 22d ago
    If you're mentioning SGI, Sun, Amiga ... would be good to mention Xerox ... company which brought us lots of remarkable technology, and never seen it's potential and let others to capitalize on it.
- bee_rider 22d ago
  BlackBerry didn’t seem to port too many PC-centric concepts. Felt like a step too far in the opposite direction actually, too PDA-ish.
- shuwix 22d ago
  Apple developed capable multitouch technology. Germans made it happen and manufacure at scale through Chinese venture. It was again the right time, when technology was there and Apple's skill was the ability to spot the moment when otherwise overly expensive touch screens can be cheapened by scale of production to acceptable level, had the marketing machine to sell an expensive device in millions at times, when most people were used to cheap cell phones for calls & sms.

by shuwix 22d ago

__alexs 22d ago

Windows CE (1996) was garbage compared to Palm OS (also 1996.)

NoMoreNicksLeft 22d ago

>Apple never came first ... but often just at the right moment and had marketing skills to make it a new trend. Newton.

simondotau 21d ago
Fun fact: the Newton was the first mobile device to use an ARM CPU.

skrebbel 22d ago

I'm the opposite of an Apple fanboy (typing this on a Windows box), but this is some grade A nonsense. Sure, MS launched PDAs and phone-ish devices long ago, running Windows CE and whatnot but they were awful. It's absolute bollocks that the iPhone was a splashing success because of Apple marketing. It was a splashing success because it worked spectacularly well. Random non-tech people would randomly pull out their newest purchase to show their friends. "And now it's a notepad!" "Look and now suddenly it's a calculator!" Sure, your awful HP Tablet had all that, and a call function, well before. But it sucked. It felt like using a computer while squinting, and not like a magic calculator that can turn into a notepad and then into a phone and then into an iPod. The iPhone was a success because it worked so well. And it worked so well because the technology was there - in part because they invented it and in part because they had the taste to not bring out a shit product but wait a bit instead.

nitin7 22d ago
Imagine having to go to Start - Programs - Phone, in order to make a call.
- qlte 22d ago
  Sure, I can imagine it. But I had a Windows Mobile phone and definitely didn't need to do this, there was a Phone button on the start screen.
shuwix 22d ago
Reading with understanding is absent in your skillset. I exactly wrote that Microsoft devices were quite bad as they came too soon. And Apple came at the right moment, when low power chips were powerful enough, touchscreens were precise enough without a pen. And device had acceptable consumption, batteries had decent capacity, lifespan.
- mattkevan 22d ago
  It’s easy to forget what a difference multitouch capacitive touchscreens made to mobile devices. As far as I’m aware, the iPhone was the first device to use it at scale. Apple also spent years designing a new interaction paradigm for it, taking multitouch from cool tech demo (Fingerworks) to the mainstream. Microsoft had Windows Mobile and WinCE for years before iOS, but typically they got the UI wrong and tried to jam a desktop interface on a mobile OS (a few years later they overcompensated and jammed a tablet interface on a desktop OS). By the time the iPhone was out it was too late to rework Mobile into a multitouch OS. Famously, the BlackBerry guys thought it was impossible to put a full desktop os on a phone, and that Apple must have faked the initial demo. Again, by the time they could respond by ditching their existing software and buying QNX it was too late for them too. Android only survived because it was a new OS and the team immediately ditched their Blackberry clone UI and built an iOS clone instead. Even then it took until at least v5 before it was as smooth as iOS, and the tablet story is still poor.
  - Danox 22d ago

0x457 22d ago

Years after the first iPhone release, Microsoft had a dogshit mobile OS, and every single device using it was dogshit. Before Android, the industry's answer to iOS and iPhone was a resistive touch screen and stylus because, other than the launcher, absolutely nothing was adapted to fingers. That was if you were lucky; some didn't include a stylus, reducing usefulness for making calls. It was like running regular Windows applications scaled down to a smartphone screen.

nodamage 22d ago

> technology wasn’t there Until Apple developed it. Those early iPhones employed a lot of tricks to squeeze usability, battery life, and performance out of underpowered devices. Prior smartphone attempts mostly applied PC-centric concepts to the device, it’s no surprise they ended up failing.

throwaway894345 22d ago
Also, capacitative/multitouch touchscreens were ridiculously expensive until Apple made orders at a scale large enough to bring the technology costs down.
Danox 22d ago
Microsoft never had a chance because Apple is the last vertical computer company (OS plus hardware) a survivor from the 1980s when there were many vertical American computer companies. Even Apple would have been dead if Steve Jobs had not come back with the Next operating system. You can see the failure of Microsoft in their performance in mobile when the playing field was level Microsoft and Intel have trouble competing, you can also see it in the Surface computer efforts Microsoft has no clue. It’s too bad SGI, Sun, Digital, Amiga, Acorn didn’t make it because you can see many elements within Apple OS from that bygone era in the hardware and software.
- shuwix 22d ago
  If you're mentioning SGI, Sun, Amiga ... would be good to mention Xerox ... company which brought us lots of remarkable technology, and never seen it's potential and let others to capitalize on it.
bee_rider 22d ago
BlackBerry didn’t seem to port too many PC-centric concepts. Felt like a step too far in the opposite direction actually, too PDA-ish.
shuwix 22d ago
Apple developed capable multitouch technology. Germans made it happen and manufacure at scale through Chinese venture. It was again the right time, when technology was there and Apple's skill was the ability to spot the moment when otherwise overly expensive touch screens can be cheapened by scale of production to acceptable level, had the marketing machine to sell an expensive device in millions at times, when most people were used to cheap cell phones for calls & sms.