I'd argue there are several really important telephones:
Automatic Electric 34/40 - First one without a subset -
Western Electric 500 - First self compensating network -
Western Electric 1500/2500 - First with TouchTone -
Motorola StarTac - First Clamshell Phone -
Apple iPhone - First Modern Smartphone.
Out of all of these landmarks, the AE 34/40, WE 500/1500/2500 and the Motorola StarTac are the most important ones.
The AE 34/40 was the first what we'd identify as a modern phone in appearance, the WE 500/1500/2500, is so iconic that anyone could identify it as a telephone, it also was a huge leap forward in transmission quality, and the StarTac was the first of billions of clamshell phone, the thing most identifiable as a cell phone to anyone shown an abstract drawing.
I'd argue that the 500 is more iconic however than anything to come before or after it.
The iPhone wasn't the first to support apps (Windows Mobile / CE handsets had been around for a while, but they weren't nice to use as a "phone". Also plenty of feature phones, eg most of Sony Ericsson's pre-Android range- supported apps too).
If you meant "the first smart-phone form-factor", then there were Nokia and sony handsets long before the iPhone. But they weren't all that great from many of the accounts I heard (which always put me off buying one). Blackberry and Palm (remember them) also had some great offerings for their era too.
If you meant the "first with capacitive touch screen", then LG beat Apple to the market with an iPhone-like device by a few months.
However Apple's iPhone is still the handset we all remember as being the groundbreaker. I don't know if that's because Apple PR team have done a wonderful job rewriting history; or because Apple happened to build the most successful product of that era that it made other products before it seem forgettable. Maybe a bit of both. But in any case, I think if you want to credit the iPhone for it's importance in history then it's only fair to credit the numerous other handsets which preceded it and pioneered the various different technologies and paradigms that Apple then went on and merge together so effectively.
Well that's now more a question of personal bias / preference than something that can be defined as cold, hard fact.
What worked for you might not have been someone else's preferred method of using a smart phone. As well polished as the iPhone was, I found many of its design implimentations worked against the way I liked to use a smart phone. And I think the fact that Symbian (amongst others) outsold iOS for the first few years of the iPhone's life would suggest that I wasn't alone.
So I think even by that measure, it's still unfair to exclude other handsets of the same generation which were just as popular.
But then I guess history is written by the victors, not the other pioneers who've since fallen by the wayside.
Apple took the smart phone from something used by technologists and other tech oriented people, and turned it into a mass market appliance accessible to everyone - every smart phone that has come since is related to it in form and function.
If Apple held a majority market share, then I might agree, but as I said before, Symbian et al had a larger market share so they must have had some degree of mass market appeal as well.
edit: just to clarify. I do agree that the iPhone deserve a place in the history books because it did change the landscape significantly. But my point was that the iPhone wasn't the first phone of it's ilk (probably the best all rounder and definitely best at specific criteria, but those are point I'm enjoying discussing here). In light of that, if the iPhone deserves a place then equally the handsets that pioneered much of the technology and paradigms which Apple beautifully combined, those other handsets deserves a mention too (like how scientific papers based on original research still need to draw from the pool of existing research and thus even new theories owe credit other publications)
Symbian had a larger market as Nokia were throwing it on as many devices as they could, irregardless of whether it worked well so they saturated the market. Plus they were commonly called featurephones and not smartphones.
As someone who had been using smartphones long before the iPhone (Windows Mobile, Treos etc), I think the iPhone was the first iteration of what is commonly viewed by a large market as a smartphone. Rich user interaction via a large capacitive touchscreen.
That's not knocking the pre-iPhone smartphones, but conceptually they were very, very different devices with very different aims, the iPhone moved the definition of a smartphone.
The mob is fickle and they're usually wrong about the facts.
The first iPhone didn't even have apps like the smartphones that came before it. That's not modern. They didn't have the first touchscreen on a phone. Apple has very good marketing and that goes a long, long way when it comes to dealing with the mob.
All you seem to be saying is that the iPhone was not the first smartphone. That's not controversial, and that's not what was said. The question is, how do we define _modern_ smartphone.
>LG beat Apple to the market with an iPhone-like device by a few months
The OP said "first modern smart phone"; not first nor modern, but "first modern". So the question I raised was to determine a measure of "modern" which of which other smart phones did not exist.
I'm not trying to be controversial nor argumentative. But if someone states something as being the "first modern x" then we need to establish what "modern" means before we can agree on whether it was the first of it's ilk.
> Ok, I'm wasting my time.
You've only posted one comment. Surely it would make more sense to at least wait for my response before jumping in with derogatory remarks about a pointless argument?
And what is it with people being over sensitive on this subject. I've had personal attacks and been down voted several times for just daring to have a balanced conversation about Apple. What the hell has happened to HN that we can't even have friendly conversations any more?
Yeah, yeah, everyone stands on other people's shoulders. Everyone knows that. Apple built the phone everyone was waiting for. People had Palm Pilots, Blackberry's, Zaurus', etc. I also had a $600 Microsoft CE phone with a slide out keyboard. The first time that I tried to install Opera, the phone hung and I couldn't use the phone. I'm standing at my bus stop trying to call my ride and the freakin phone doesn't work, won't even reboot! Anyway, it would be really helpful if people like yourself understood what Apple does "right/better" so maybe others, like the open source community, could produce better products.
> Anyway, it would be really helpful if people like yourself understood what Apple does "right/better" so maybe others, like the open source community, could produce better products.
Slightly rude don't you think? Who are "people like [me]"? And why do you assume that we don't know what Apple does right?
Can we not discuss the contributions of businesses to technology without making cheap shots at one another?
Your comments indicate that you don't understand. You think Apple PR rewrote history? Seriously?
"I don't know if that's because Apple PR team have done a wonderful job rewriting history; or because Apple happened to build the most successful product of that era that it made other products before it seem forgettable."
I also said "or because Apple happened to build the most successful product of that era that it made other products before it seem forgettable" - it's called giving a balanced argument.
I already had - a few times in fact. Apple combined a lot of desirable technologies into a well polished and aesthetically pleasing product.
I've also repeatedly said they do deserve a place in the history books. I'm not trying to dismiss the quality of the iPhone, I'm only discussing whether it deserves to be defined as "the first modern smart phone" when there were lot's of other similar products before it. And if it does deserve that accolade, then do the other handsets deserve a footnote?
I don't understand why it's such a taboo to discuss the achievements of Apple and their competitors, but a lot of people seem to have reacted very negatively.
What value is there in deciding if Apple had the first modern smartphone? It's a highly subjective opinion, which will probably change several times over the next decade. Just a conversation that takes people in the weeds. Sorry, I don't want to have that nerd fight.
I'd argue that the LG Prada beat the iPhone in terms of the first capacitive phone with a touch-centric UI. However I can't comment on how good it's browser was; but even the Prada aside, you make a very good point about how other handsets had terrible web browsers. In fact "terrible" is possibly being too kind.
I miss clamshell phones. I miss the satisfaction of ending a call by folding the phone shut. Where's the dramatism in ending an angry call with a gentle tap on a virtual button on a touchscreen?
IMO the Nokia-style "candy bar" phone is the iconic mobile phone design globally. I don't think I've ever seen a "generic cell phone" drawing that would be a clamshell design; usually it's something that looks vaguely like a late '90s Nokia with the antenna stub.
More specifically, I'd say that the Nokia 3210 [1] was one of the most iconic and recognisable mobile phones. It was the one that came with Snake and created the fad for comparing high-scores amongst friends.
I'm not ashamed to say that I'd be using a 3310 now but you can't get reliable batteries any more. That leaves only later Nokia dumbphones which are the same in spirit but inferior in usability.
>"the WE 500/1500/2500, is so iconic that anyone could identify it as a telephone" //
Went to museum this year, 8 year old: "what's that?" <pointing at rotary-dial telephone>. Even our home phone is a wireless candy-bar shape. I was surprised, definite 'OMG how old am I?'-moment.
As a complete novice to the topic, the AE34 seems to lead the form of the WE500, why do you feel the later is the more iconic? What tech gave it the "huge leap forward"?
"first modern smartphone" is a reasonable description, but I would say that Blackberry was the first modern smartphone and iPhone was the first mainstream smartphone.
Automatic Electric 34/40 - First one without a subset - Western Electric 500 - First self compensating network - Western Electric 1500/2500 - First with TouchTone - Motorola StarTac - First Clamshell Phone - Apple iPhone - First Modern Smartphone.
Out of all of these landmarks, the AE 34/40, WE 500/1500/2500 and the Motorola StarTac are the most important ones.
The AE 34/40 was the first what we'd identify as a modern phone in appearance, the WE 500/1500/2500, is so iconic that anyone could identify it as a telephone, it also was a huge leap forward in transmission quality, and the StarTac was the first of billions of clamshell phone, the thing most identifiable as a cell phone to anyone shown an abstract drawing.
I'd argue that the 500 is more iconic however than anything to come before or after it.