Apple legend Ken Kocienda says there was nothing inevitable about the iPhone

[Redaktion]

Was a smartphone like the iPhone inevitable? Ken Kocienda, one of its designers doesn't believe so. Rather, Kocienda argues in a tweet over the weekend that it was "an act of creativity" and that, as such, "It wasn't inevitable".

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-legend-Ken-Kocienda-says-there-was-nothing-inevitable-about-the-iPhone.464768.0.html

[pilarius]

Windows Mobile was the root. Apple just used capacitive screen technology, optimized UI for that and marketed it. Microsoft screwed it as it usually does. This device type was not just inevitable - it was here much sooner - it only wasn't popular.

[VRE778]

LG was putting out of full touchscreen device at the same time... HTC announced the touch in June 2007 and even before Palm had touchscreen devices... I think it would have just slowly had become the norm...
IMO where Apple was really visionary is in the layout of the UI and it's responsiveness, which is today still very close to what it was at that time.

[buwefy]

as usual, thank you Apple for making our lives worse, while marketing yourself as awesome to the weak minda, and making an obscene amount of money in the process...

[_MT_]

LG was putting out of full touchscreen device at the same time... HTC announced the touch in June 2007 and even before Palm had touchscreen devices...

Palm had devices with touchscreens as early as 1996 AFAIK. First mobile phone with a touchscreen is even older. And for example Samsung made a Palm OS based phone with a touchscreen back in 2001 (and wasn't the only one).

The answer depends on what do you consider to be an iPhone. If we're talking about a mobile telephone made by Apple, then it certainly wasn't inevitable. Combination of a PDA and a mobile phone was inevitable. Well, I guess that depends on how far back in history we go. Was an internal combustion engine inevitable? Consider the differences of technological development in different regions. What would the world today look like if European societies died out a millennium ago? I'm not a historian but IIRC, a lot of our science was based on Arabic teachings. We were living in dark ages back then. And look what they managed with the knowledge since then. The concept of PDAs and tablets was pretty old. There were quite a few communicators. So, what makes an iPhone an iPhone aside from the branding?

I would have to go back and review the features to give a more complete list. For one, Apple focused on using fingers rather than stylus. Capacitive touchscreens were known, they just weren't used that much. I believe cost was a problem. And also achieving the responsiveness and reliability. Industry was very comfortable with the stylus. And some people like stylus, me included. To this day. It's finer than a finger so the UI can be smaller. Without Apple, it could take a very long time for them to abandon it. In part because most of the companies didn't have their own operating systems. They didn't have complete freedom in shaping the user experience.

Another thing was battery life. Background processes were a real problem for ordinary users. And again, because they had their own operating system, they could solve it. In a bit controversial, but effective way.

In general, one thing Apple does pretty well is designing for ordinary users. If you let engineers do the designing, what you end up with can work well for them, but not necessarily ordinary users. And vice versa, what works well for ordinary users can leave engineers frustrated. And again, I'm not sure this would change in a hurry. I think that without Apple, we would still be running on Windows Mobile. After all, a lot of the industry still works the same. Just uncle Google created something better than Windows Mobile to compete with the storm that was iPhone and to get in on the business.

I think this is a good example of difference between having a vision and having a checklist of what consumers supposedly want. I'm pretty sure they had to overcome some hard obstacles to implement the vision of Steve Jobs. Because he wouldn't settle. And it was necessary for their success. It captivated the users and it meant years of catching up for their competition. That's how you enter a new market. Most companies settle quite easily. Not settling costs money and is a risk. Often, it's the newcomer that takes the risk. Because it's their way into the market.

I'm sure there are other people who could come up with similar vision or even did before. But how long we would have to wait for someone like that to be in a position to actually implement it? Not to mention succeed. How long would it take for Microsoft to evolve Windows Mobile into something comparable without the influence of Apple? I think a decade at the very least. They had some interesting ideas at Microsoft over the years. It's the implementation where they usually fail. Who knows what would phones look like today without the influence of Apple.