Comment by libertine

Let's start with your statement:

> 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.