> You're grossly over simplifying if you call things like that a list of features.
What I'm saying is lists of features don't matter. It didn't even have 3G on launch, but because it made so much more sense to use is why it was successful.
> I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that.
You couldn't. The average person didn't know how to use those features on windows mobile.
> inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod
What was different about the iPod in 2008 vs 2001? The wheel was touch instead of clicky? The basic interface never really changed, it's just that it started to be more widely viewed as innovative.
> The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think)
I'll give you webos had a far better interface, but it was evolutionary post-iPhone. And it WAS initially successful. But did you ever use one? It was slow as shit and the hardware was jank, which is why sales lagged.
And then Apple poached some of the Palm guys to work on iOS.
> The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess.
Look at the phones pre-2008 (including Android). Look at the phones post-2008. It's delusional to think that was "marketing prowess," it was the average person looking at how the iPhone functioned and it made way more sense to them than the god-awful interfaces everyone had to deal with. Most phones didn't even have threaded SMS until iOS. No one else had a desktop-class web browser. Apple completely changed the expectations for mobile UX.
What I'm saying is lists of features don't matter. It didn't even have 3G on launch, but because it made so much more sense to use is why it was successful.
> I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that.
You couldn't. The average person didn't know how to use those features on windows mobile.
> inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod
What was different about the iPod in 2008 vs 2001? The wheel was touch instead of clicky? The basic interface never really changed, it's just that it started to be more widely viewed as innovative.
> The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think)
I'll give you webos had a far better interface, but it was evolutionary post-iPhone. And it WAS initially successful. But did you ever use one? It was slow as shit and the hardware was jank, which is why sales lagged.
And then Apple poached some of the Palm guys to work on iOS.
> The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess.
Look at the phones pre-2008 (including Android). Look at the phones post-2008. It's delusional to think that was "marketing prowess," it was the average person looking at how the iPhone functioned and it made way more sense to them than the god-awful interfaces everyone had to deal with. Most phones didn't even have threaded SMS until iOS. No one else had a desktop-class web browser. Apple completely changed the expectations for mobile UX.