> if it's not Linux or open source, it bad/wrong/etc.
It's ideological.
There is a trend in these objections in articles like this and across hacker news. They simply ignore what was unique about the iPhone and trivialize it completely and then pretend like it was obvious all along. Notice the repeated comparisons to stylus based devices as prior art for multi-touch. They don't care about the differences, as long as it takes some sort of touch imput, they can rationalize that Apple never invented anything.
I see this as an admission that they know the iPhone was revolutionary but they are making arguments from an ideological, rather than rational perspective.
If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years?
They say it was "marketing" and a "slick package" and the "Advantage" of charging "twice the price" --- as if charging more ever was the path to easy sales volume!
If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years?
While I find a lot of the anti-Apple commentary here at HN completely frustrating, the fact that Apple made a lot of money is not proof that they were innovative or revolutionary. Steve Jobs telling them they needed it played a really big part. Another company putting out the exact same product probably would not have enjoyed the same success.
This makes NO sense what so ever. Apple has had plenty of failures in the past e.g. Cube G4 so it is not the case that people will just blindly "buy and try" Apple products.
And the idea that ANYONE is going to spend nearly a thousand dollars and lock themselves into a year long contract just to "see if Apple would make a good phone" is plain and utter lunacy.
Don't you know how to argue without doing this type of argumentation that you so commonly uses in Apple versus Android threads? I am not a Apple or Android fan to argue how the US patent system sucks, or how Android sucks, or how Apple is evil, or how Apple is the only company that innovates, all opinions that I read here on Hacker News from people who generally know nothing about life, people just like me. I am really not into these type of discussion that you appear to be so eager to enter in HN.
It's easy to come and say that I am a lunatic, so what's your opinion? Why the iPhone succeeded among the early adopters? Were they all geeks that loved Apple? What about other places that are not the United States in which there's not a Apple store in every major city, do your analysis still stands?
>If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years?
Has everyone forgotten about iTunes? After I got my first iPod I wanted apple to make an iPhone (years before they did) just so it would work flawlessly with iTunes and I could stop carrying 2 devices.
It's ideological.
There is a trend in these objections in articles like this and across hacker news. They simply ignore what was unique about the iPhone and trivialize it completely and then pretend like it was obvious all along. Notice the repeated comparisons to stylus based devices as prior art for multi-touch. They don't care about the differences, as long as it takes some sort of touch imput, they can rationalize that Apple never invented anything.
I see this as an admission that they know the iPhone was revolutionary but they are making arguments from an ideological, rather than rational perspective.
If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years?
They say it was "marketing" and a "slick package" and the "Advantage" of charging "twice the price" --- as if charging more ever was the path to easy sales volume!