Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Feb 2012 17:53 UTC
Permalink for comment 508567
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
Blablabla.
This was not his point at all. The iPhone was not about being better by putting even more stuff into a phone (with this kind of thinking, there is never any ground braking device ever because there is always a device somewhere that "has feature X" which the new device does not support. In fact, I'm glad that superfluous dinosaur tech like SMS and MMS are about to die due to the smartphones success).
You totally miss the fact that:
1) user friendlyness is not about putting any possible hardware extension or protocol into a device (I know because I still use the Nokia N95 which was legendary for having "anything". But the N95 is horrible to use so most features are not used at all).
2) that all smartphone devices nowadays are heavily influenced by the iPhone. Calling Apple a "follower" obviously misses the point. While they are not always the inventor, they are definitively better at then others as innovators (=bringing invention to market success).
E. g. http://iphonefizz.wordpress.com/tag/tablets-and-smartphones-before-...
If Apple's success is only because of their die hard followers, then please explain me why Linux - having at least as many fundamentalistic followers - never materialized in masses on the desktop.