Genuine question.

I know they were the scrappy startup doing different cool things. But, what are the most major innovative things that they introduced, improved or just implemented that either revolutionized, improved or spurred change?

I am aware of the possibility of both fanboys and haters just duking it out below. But there’s always that one guy who has a fkn well-formatted paragraph of gold. I await that guy.

    • PeachMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It literally created the modern smartphone market. The Palm Pilots and Blackberries of the day couldn’t compare: the iPhone had a FULL BROWSER. It was insane. The team developing Android saw the iPhone and had a real “holy shit” moment, they had to go back to the drawing board and completely start over in order to compete.

      • gdog05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Full browser might be an overstatement. It was still a web full of Flash at that time. And it caused a pretty major limitation on the browser. If there wasn’t an app available, you were often SOL. I do think it sped up the demise of Flash on the web considerably.

            • ISometimesAdmin@the.coolest.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, it absolutely wasn’t, as can testify anyone who actually had to work with it: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/the-death-of-adobes-flash-is-lingering-not-sudden/

              There are lots of good reasons to get rid of Flash. Browser makers say it’s a top sore spot for security, performance and shorter battery life.

              https://tedium.co/2021/01/01/adobe-flash-demise-history/

              Usability means a few things in this context—simplicity, ease of use, convention, and accessibility. Flash was none of those things. It took the blank-canvas approach to creativity—which was great for the artists and illustrators that originally made up its target audience, but morphed into numerous other forms that it wasn’t necessarily designed for. It fell into overuse and quickly became abused by others.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                here have been plenty of nails since. Microsoft, Mozilla and Google started cutting off browser plug-in technology, telegraphing that Flash’s approach to extending browser abilities was doomed even if the browsers themselves carved out an exception for Flash.

                Well, I’m in favor of that approach and I’m not in favor of Microsoft, Google and even sadly Mozilla. Even if used not for Flash but for something else.

                a win in favor of a more technical, more methodical internet, one where systems are built to work efficiently, rather than experimental playthings that kind of sit in their own space.

                That quote alone emotionally moves me personally in the direction opposite of what the author apparently intended.

                Then there is, of course, a quote attributed to “famed usability expert”, who meant something completely irrelevant to the point the author is making, judging by that quote being from year 2000.

                I’m not sure he’d consider HTML5 better, and judging by his article on Java applets linked and statements made there, the closest thing to his perfect Web would be today’s Geminispace, with which I can even agree in many contexts and which would be the opposite kind of Web from what the author of the article apparently wants to say.

                Anyway, I just wanted to say that I like the idea of the generally static (maybe just a bit scriptable) hypertext pages with embedded applets executed with plugins. It makes sense if you need an accessible standard. It doesn’t if you need a monopoly which formally isn’t one.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In what aspect? There were mobile devices with installable applications. And Samsung already had a phone with that form factor.

      • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And who bought them before iPhone came out? There were tablets before the iPad. Nobody bought them either.

        • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A lot of people. If you went with idea they sold previously business oriented devices to regular users, I’d give you that. But it’s not like Apple invented that format or form. I advise everyone watch documentary on Springboard, which was really really ahead of its time. When everyone was messing around with dumb phones, Springboard was working on unified device with camera built-in, connectivity, etc. In fact they were too early with their product, ten years before first iPhone. More to the point, Jobs visited Springboard, said their product was shit, and went on to produce the exact same device with better polish, which was a dick move in my opinion, but that’s business. But saying Apple invented smartphones or refined them. No. It’s an iterative process like everything else.

          • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Apple doesnt create products. Apple creates markets. Nobody bought modern phones before the iPhone. They existed, nobody bought them. Nobody bought tablets before the iPad. They existed, nobody bought them. Nobody bought mp3 players before the iPod. They existed, nobody bought them. Everyone bought them after, and not just from Apple.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Lmao. Apple anti-cpmpetively corners markets by preventing their products from working with anyone who actually innovates anything new.

          • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe so, but the fact remains that nobody bought mp3 players before the iPod, and everyone bought one after.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Them building a smartphone around a capacitive touchscreen with a software keyboard was the primary innovation of the iPhone.

      A full browser that rendered webpages is not an innovation, that’s a result of increased processing power letting them port more browser code over. Pinch to zoom interfacing on a browser might be an innovation, but a web browser on a mobile phone was not innovative, just iterative.