At 28 Jun 2009 18:14:03 -0700 There's an app for that...on the $99 iPhone @
AT&T wrote:

> I agree with all the above points and consider them insightful in
> understanding why the iPhone is such a difficult target for other
> firms to take on. It actullay justifies my opinion of those who
> complain the iPhone is not like their idea of a smart phone as being
> complete idiots who miss the point.

Arguably, like most closed-minded people, you miss the point because you
only see one side- yours. the iPhonemeets your limited needs, so it's the
pinnacle of human achievement. I agree the iPhone is a nifty device and a
great mobile companion for many people. But it isnt a "mobile computer"
due to its intentional limitations.

The Apple concept of a mobile device, IMO, is actually a dangerous one. You
see the rainbows and unicorns side of "easy to use," and an app store full
of 60,000 apps, and like the sirens' song, that's pretty hard to resist.
I, however, see the dark side of a closed infrastructure driving me to the
iTunes and App stores, and "safe" pablum apps using only the official APIs,
so no real improvements can be made to the core functions of the device-
file viewers using the internal file viewer APIs, email using the email APIs,
etc. Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but
since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X and Y,
your app simply ain't gonna playback format Z, no way, no how.

I see not a smartphone, but an iPod on steroids, beholden to content
providers and mobile operators above its users- an Atari 2600 for the 21st
century- running a closed architecture, using factory-approved apps
delivered by factory-approved means and using only licensed accessories.


> The iPhone is not being bought as
> a smart phone, the smart phone ala windows mobile etc. is a failed
> concept in the market place.


Probably true. The real problem with the smartphone concept as defined by
Palm OS and Windows CE was the software was always ahead of what the
hardware could reliably deliver- they always "bit off more than they could
chew." Blackberry got it mostly right, realizing these crappy anemic
devices can barely handle anything more than text, and proceeded to build
amazing email-centric devices that made no apologies for crummy WAP browsers,

and lack of media supprt (or even .jpg picture support on some models!)

Apple looked at the marketplace and fixed everything that could be a
potential problem... ...for APPLE! They crippled developer access to
hardware to "increase stability,"- the lockout of unapproved apps
circumventing the app store commissions was just a lucky side benefit. The
ban on "duplicate functionality" that might otherwise allow alternate media
players that could use competing music stores simply "prevents user
confusion."

John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the
iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've
started a class-action lawsuit already.

I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the next
line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a
centralized app distribution system preventing apps to be sourced anywhere
else, no user-accessible file system, with files only available to the app
that created them, media files not transferable to other computers (because
only pirates do THAT!), and the next Mac OS preventing more than one third-
party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was
beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe?

I agree that Microsoft's concept of porting Windows '98 to to the 3.5"
screen wasn't anywhere near a resounding success, but the concept wasn't a
bad one. Sure the UI is a litle clumsy, but anyone who's used a Winows PC
gets the gist of navigating right away. They're not as hard to use as you
pretend. Where they screwd up, IMO, is where they didn't complete the
emulation: "X" icons that minimize apps rather than close them, for
example. It was almost like a bait and switch- first we show you "it's
just like Windows" then after you dive in we change all the rules!

Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple
has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in
developers to improve the product. (Or it just might be hubris that the
product is nearly perfect as is.)

Windows Mobile developers took an awkward UI running on underpowered
hardware and made it do amazing things its designers couldn't have possibly
envisioned. Hardware manufacturers used the standard I/O ports (CF and
SDIO) to create hardware to convert simple PDAs into dedicated controllers,
diagnostic tools, measuring instruments, etc. This was an exciting time in
portable computing akin to the day when custom hardware boards, both
commercal and amateur, were being developed for Trash-80s and Apple IIs.

Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children-
Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty,
they can't go to the app store. If they want more toys, they're told Santa
might bring them next firmware release day. The jailbreaker underground
is doing their best, but rather than nudge-nudge-wink-winking them, Apple
is fighting and threatening them, and forcing mainstream development to
stay away- Sling and Skype can't play both sides and build the AT&T-
approved WiFi-only apps for app store use and also sell 3G capable versions
for the jailbreak crowd. Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves
by associating with the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the
app store either.


Sure, Apple raised the bar for UI, no doubt, but at what price?

Other platforms, some that may not have even launched yet, that do not owe
any allegiances to the RIAA or MPAA, will catch up with the Apple UI but
also offer a more open and robust user experience one of these days.
Hopefully, for Apple, they'll have attained critical mass by then. Apple
still hasn't had to deal with problems other platforms have struggled with
already; major architecture/chipset changes, multiple form factors,
weighing backwards compatibility vs. improving the OS or hardware, heck,
they haven't even introduced more than one screen resolution yet! That'll
be an exciting time in the App Store approval department, when virtually
every one of 60,000 apps gets updated or additional versions for multiple
resolutions! Then the slogan might be "There's Two Apps for That!"