"The iPhone is heralded as the most revolutionary mobile phone in human history, but the cold and harsh truth is that for all the cheering and punditry, the iPhone's impact on the world is negligible."
Don't care for Android vs. iPhone arguments but lets at least admit that iPhone was a significant catalyst that moved forward the smartphone movement initially at the least. Androids would probably still exist if Apple never put out the iPhone but the iPhone has certainly been one of the biggest influences on Android's development not to mention the entire mobile industry. In that regard I see the author's statement as pretty narrow. Its like saying Unix had no impact on computing because Microsoft had the lion's share.
> Androids would probably still exist if Apple never put out the iPhone
While Android would definitely exist (it predates the iPhone's unveiling by years) it would be a very, very different beast. It might have moved towards its current state over time, but its first handsets would have been much more similar to the Blackberries of the time. In fact, this (recorded) origin still plagues the platform to this day, it's one of the sources of the structural issues leading to "insufficient" responsiveness.
Android was released September 20, 2008. The first iPhone, thus iOS, was released June 27, 2007. I fail to see how Android predates iOS by years.
*Edit for folks who are voting this down:
I am not making any kind of argument in favor of one platform or another. I am simply commenting on what was said in the parent comment.
The release dates are simple fact. Go to Wikipedia like I did and find it for yourself. Apple got to the market over a year before Google released its first product based on Android.
The first version of iOS was in development for a long time, as was the first version of Android, before the world ever really got to see them. Thus, saying that Android was in development years before iOS implies that iOS was some last minute project Apple threw together. It's simply not true in either case.
> Android was released September 20, 2008. The first iPhone, thus iOS, was released June 27, 2007. I fail to see how Android predates iOS by years.
Google bought Android (the company, whose sole purpose was to make the corresponding OS and sell itself) in 2005. Therefore Android existed long before the unveiling of iPhone in 2007.
> The release dates are simple fact.
Yes. I was not, however, talking about release date but about existence. This could have been clearer. The first public/commercial Android release followed iPhone by a year (and significant reworks, see... everything following the parenthesized section of my original comment).
> The first version of iOS was in development for a long time, as was the first version of Android, before the world ever really got to see them. Thus, saying that Android was in development years before iOS implies that iOS was some last minute project Apple threw together. It's simply not true in either case.
That is not even remotely close to what I stated. What I stated was that Android's existence predates iPhone's unveiling by years. At no point did I say (or even imply) anything about iOS's development period.
No one is making any kind of argument that Android is an iOS clone. At least I'm not.
Yes, both were in development for years before the world got to see anything. To the original point of my comment, though, Android didn't predate iOS by years as the parent comment says. That comment implies that iOS copied from Android, which I am refuting.
The word you've missed is "unveiling". He did not claim that Android came before iOS, but that it was under development for long before iOS was unveiled.
EDIT: The point that you're refuting was never made. He simply said that Android would still have existed, even if iOS hadn't. And to prove that point, he correctly stated that Android was under development for a long period of time before iOS was unveiled
Incorrect. That image is banded around just to serve a particular viewpoint. There was already a capacitive touchscreen android device in the prototype stages at the same time. Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
Correct... That isn't being disputed. The comment was:
"While Android would definitely exist (it predates the iPhone's unveiling by years) it would be a very, very different beast."
The "controversy" is around the claim of Android existing before iOS. That claim wasn't even made though if you read that comment correctly and notice the word "unveiling"
The Unix Windows analogy was the first thing I thought of when i read that quote. also, the author's definition of revolutionary seems to oscillate between impact on the world and the impact on the industry.
I don't think the Unix-Windows analogy is very apt, actually, as both have been revolutionary in different ways (by any measure). *nix has gone on to power much of the software on which the Internet runs. Windows powers much of the software user's directly interact with. By comparison, Apple/iOS and Android are competing more directly.
The author of the article is arguing that more revolutionary than being the first (or even the best) at something is subsequently making that innovation accessible to as many people as possible. This is something both Unix and Windows have achieved, Android is trying to achieve, but I'm not sure Apple is even interested in.
Perhaps a more apt analogy would be the invention of the automobile vs. the assembly line. True, the automobile was a genuine innovation, but the assembly line put the automobile within reach of everyone.
With this view in mind, it's okay that Apple wants to focus on pushing the envelope in what its car can do. Likewise, it's okay that Google wants to focus on making those or similar innovations accessible to as many as possible.
I think the iphone had two innovations that moved the industry forward: (1) a first-class finger-driven interface and (2) a desktop-class browser optimized for mobile viewing instead of a dedicated mobile browsing engine.
Android would probably have gotten the high-quality browser with or without the iphone, but the touch interface wasn't likely to happen in isolation. The notion that the way to improve the UI of mobile devices was to make it much less precise is preposterous, and it took apple to show people the way.
So yes apple did have an impact, but from the context of what the article considers meaningful, it is indeed not a very big one.
Don't care for Android vs. iPhone arguments but lets at least admit that iPhone was a significant catalyst that moved forward the smartphone movement initially at the least. Androids would probably still exist if Apple never put out the iPhone but the iPhone has certainly been one of the biggest influences on Android's development not to mention the entire mobile industry. In that regard I see the author's statement as pretty narrow. Its like saying Unix had no impact on computing because Microsoft had the lion's share.