I think the individual pieces of the first iPhone didn't seem innovative to many.
The camera was "meh" and didn't do video, the screen wasn't nearly as nice as the VGA screen on my e800, the OS didn't support 3rd party apps, where was 3G?, etc. etc.
The thing was that the gestalt of the iPhone was vastly superior to any of its predecessors.
They prioritized the right things -- anyone who had a Windows phone who had their phone crash during a call or forgot to quit the camera app and saw their battery die in a hour can attest to that.
>The camera was "meh" and didn't do video, the screen wasn't nearly as nice as the VGA screen on my e800, the OS didn't support 3rd party apps, where was 3G?, etc. etc.
With that you reminded me of the now classic response of Slashdot's Commander Taco when the first iPod was introduced:
You're forgetting the point we are debating here. No-one claims the iPod was innovative. It was simply an excellent product with a well-thought out blend of features that was marketed well.
So you're having a 'was the iPhone a great product' debate whereas this discussion is 'was the iPhone a radical innovation in design'.
Innovation is not only technical in the most narrow term ("first device with an SSD", "new display technology").
There's also innovation in product design (how you've desided to build your product), and also market innovation (how you selected your market and marketed your product to it).
The camera was "meh" and didn't do video, the screen wasn't nearly as nice as the VGA screen on my e800, the OS didn't support 3rd party apps, where was 3G?, etc. etc.
The thing was that the gestalt of the iPhone was vastly superior to any of its predecessors.
They prioritized the right things -- anyone who had a Windows phone who had their phone crash during a call or forgot to quit the camera app and saw their battery die in a hour can attest to that.