886
You can do it (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

No full Internet access, extremely limited selection of applications solely provided by the vendor, keypad input. Cameras and audio playback were already standard on cell phones by then. Definitely wouldn't call that a smartphone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    My Motorola Razr Maxx V6 from 2006 was better and smarter than the original iphone in just about every way except screen size. It ran Java applications that I downloaded and could do things like copy and paste text from one text message to another (something that the iPhone couldn't do when it was released). I could surf the web (what there was of it that would display on any phone) and even talk on the phone or listen to mp3s at the same time I surfed. I even had a secondary camera for selfies and video calling (not that I had anyone to call who also had video calling).
    The original iphone was revolutionary, but it wasn't really because of its features, it was actually a pretty mediocre phone for the time, but it broke the strangle hold that mobile networks had on your phone and its features. Plus it also provided a single platform for 3rd parties to supply software allowing everyone to stop chasing not just each and every phone but each and every variation of each phone at each mobile provider.
    Ffs, at the time the iPhone was introduced to Motorola had 11 different and unique operating systems that they were supporting and putting on their different phones worldwide.
    The things that made the first "smart phone" revolutionary weren't really in what it could do, it was more about who controlled what it could do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    No full Internet access, extremely limited selection of applications solely provided by the vendor

    That's not true. Full internet access, also for installed apps and unusual protocols, and any app supporting the right Java features could be installed (I had some OSS ones and even ones out of the competing Nokia store - I think they had a nice calculator app...)

    Actually, these points would apply much more to the IPhone 1, as you could only install apps from their store and it had crippled connectivity (vividly remember a friend who had it constantly complaining about the speed because of missing UMTS, among other things).

    You are right insofar, as I would not tread it as a smartphone by todays standards.
    But neither would l tread the IPhone 1 as one.
    And yet both were in 2007.
    Standards change... 🤷‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Like its contemporaries, that phone only had limited support for websites, handling only those that presented XHTML-MP.

    The iPhone pretty clearly revolutionized the whole market, with the App Store opening the following year.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No, it also supportedl standard html. And not just in theory, I routinely visited such pages with the phone. Limiting factor was rather the screen size here, sometimes leading to strangely rendered pages. But there already existed smartphones with bigger screens, eg. the Nokia communicators, which didn't have that specific issue.

    Yes, the IPhone revolutionized the market, especially because it turned the old distribution models upside-down (which the established manufacturers were in no position to do).

    But purely from a technical standpoint it was nothing completely special. Some things were better, some things worse than for other phones.

    The symbian phones were typically much better from the classical technical standpoint.
    Windows CE devices had superior versatility.
    Blackberry was optimized for business integration.
    But all high-end devices were "smartphones" at that stage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The capacitive touchscreen alone was definitely something special.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The capacitive touchscreen alone was definitely something special.

    For sure. Although l think the actual remarkable point is how it had been utilized.

    There are reasons these were not in wide use yet. I remember discussing using a capacitive touchscreen for a project in 2004 already. We settled for a resistive one, as the effort to adept the existing SW to a capacitive one would have been too great.
    Apple didn't have this technical debt and could design its stuff from the ground up to fit the new input method. And it did that exceptionally well, which is part of the reason for its success.

    But the means of input isn't what made a smartphone smart.
    So, coming back to the original premise, I could even still have a 25 year old smartphone package, if I e.g. had owned a Siemens SX45 back then (I had a SL45i, which also was almost, but in reality not quite, a smartphone)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent