So you are saying that every feature phone Nokia, or Motorola sold in 2007 were a smartphone as they all had an OS? Good lad, it is important at AI to change the rules as you go along...
Link a source as your retort.
I picked a single source that indicates how a smartphone originally was defined; it certainly might not be definitive, but it also certainly assures that your definition isn't definitive either.
The first iPhone had email, messaging, calendar, web browsing, maps, etc. Those were features built into the OS.
That, to me, sounds like a smartphone OS.
Like I said in the other posts, there was no support for user installable apps.
Also, you guys have to get all your stories sorted, the other guys are saying Smartphones around in 2007 weren't really smartphones, but they supported everything in your list, and more
I picked a single source that indicates how a smartphone originally was defined; it certainly might not be definitive, but it also certainly assures that your definition isn't definitive either.
I replied saying your definition contradicted itself, I even said the first link in your definition, is that no enough info for you?
Oh dear,
I was working, being self employed and all, and it took longer to finish my reply, so I was temporally out of sync. That I chose not to further respond after that was considered and appropriate.
To wit; a smartphone definition that I or anyone else for that matter, puts up on the web is certainly viable, but it doesn't mean that it is true. The real issue is whether the industry considered the iPhone 1 a smartphone. Me, I don't really care what the definition is; it doesn't change history.
To wit; a smartphone definition that I or anyone else for that matter, puts up on the web is certainly viable, but it doesn't mean that it is true. The real issue is whether the industry considered the iPhone 1 a smartphone. Me, I don't really care what the definition is; it doesn't change history.
Oh dear indeed. I think you have dug yourself a little hole and don't know how to get out of it.
The iPhone 1 was a smartphone, but only after iPhone OS 2.0 was released, remember you could update your iPhone when the new version of the OS came out...
User-installable apps is not the only requirement to be considered a "smartphone" OS.
That flip-phone didn't have GPS or maps and didn't have native email. Yes... it had some sort of web browser (WAP) and crappy little apps... but I wouldn't consider it a "smartphone" at all. It didn't have WIFI. You couldn't export contacts or integrate into Exchange or any other system. The list of things it didn't have is longer compared to actual smartphones.
User-installable apps is not the only requirement to be considered a "smartphone" OS.
That flip-phone didn't have GPS or maps and didn't have native email. Yes... it had some sort of web browser (WAP) and crappy little apps... but I wouldn't consider it a "smartphone" at all. It didn't have WIFI. You couldn't export contacts or integrate into Exchange or any other system. The list of things it didn't have is longer compared to actual smartphones.
Yes, the OS does matter, I can't tell even what the model is from that crap image.
I have never said it was the only requirement, but it was one of the requirements that iPhone OS 1.x was missing.
In 2007 there were Sybmian based phones that had native email, GPS, Maps, web browser (plus WAP if you were sad enough to use that), WiFi, user installable native apps (actually S60 had that from the start), they were smartphones
Those early smartphones were phones with a few computer features bolted on. The iPhone was a computer (as witnessed by it's full desktop browser) with a phone bolted on. i.e. basically a little comptuer with a radio plugged in to one USB port and a microphone on another, with OS X (um, sorry, iPhoneOS - same thing) drivers for them both. That is the turning point. It will be the same difference between the Apple Watch and a TAG Heuer watch I bet.
Yes, the OS does matter, I can't tell even what the model is from that crap image.
I have never said it was the only requirement, but it was one of the requirements that iPhone OS 1.x was missing.
In 2007 there were Sybmian based phones that had native email, GPS, Maps, web browser (plus WAP if you were sad enough to use that), WiFi, user installable native apps (actually S60 had that from the start), they were smartphones
The OS on that flip-phone was some crappy flip-phone OS. I don't think it even had a name... it's whatever Verizon flip-phones had on them. It was basically firmware anyway... I honestly think we're giving it too much credit by calling it an "operating system"
Anyway... here's my point:
Let's say a smartphone can be defined by 6 things.
But if a particular phone only has 5 of those things... is it not a smartphone at all? Because that's what you're suggesting.
Yes... the first iPhone didn't have user-installable apps. But look at what else it DID have. As other people have said... it was a little pocket computer that happened to make phone calls.
The original iPhone and a flip-phone are as different as can be.
The OS on that flip-phone was some crappy flip-phone OS. I don't think it even had a name... it's whatever Verizon flip-phones had on them. It was basically firmware anyway... I honestly think we're giving it too much credit by calling it an "operating system"
Anyway... here's my point:
Let's say a smartphone can be defined by 6 things.
But if a particular phone only has 5 of those things... is it not a smartphone at all? Because that's what you're suggesting.
Yes... the first iPhone didn't have user-installable apps. But look at what else it DID have. As other people have said... it was a little pocket computer that happened to make phone calls.
The original iPhone and a flip-phone are as different as can be.
The only person comparing a smartphone to a flip phone is you.
The only thing the iPhone had at release that was unique was multi touch.
I had the flip-phone shown below. It had user-installable apps. Are you telling me it was running a smartphone OS because of that?
That is a Samsung SCH-A930.
It supports BREW apps, so non native, also it only supported WAP browsing, so no, I wouldn't call it a smartphone
But it supports something the iPhone didn't get to the 3GS, video recording. Talk me through that one, apart from expecting people to purchase a new phone, why didn't Apple just supply a video capture app? Even Nokia did that with the 7650 to give it video capture support.
It supports BREW apps, so non native, also it only supported WAP browsing, so no, I wouldn't call it a smartphone
But it supports something the iPhone didn't get to the 3GS, video recording. Talk me through that one, apart from expecting people to purchase a new phone, why didn't Apple just supply a video capture app? Even Nokia did that with the 7650 to give it video capture support.
No... I do not think that flip-phone was a smartphone. But I DO think the original iPhone was a smartphone.
The inclusion of... or lack of... certain features isn't what makes the difference between a smartphone and a non-smartphone.
You need to look at the entire package and what it offers.
Yes... the original iPhone didn't have native app support or video recording... but it did have many other things. It had WIFI, GPS, visual voicemail, IMAP email, a desktop-class web browser, and so on.
No... I do not think that flip-phone was a smartphone. But I DO think the original iPhone was a smartphone.
The inclusion of... or lack of... certain features isn't what makes the difference between a smartphone and a non-smartphone.
You need to look at the entire package and what it offers.
Yes... the original iPhone didn't have native app support or video recording... but it did have many other things. It had WIFI, GPS, visual voicemail, IMAP email, a desktop-class web browser, and so on.
So how many features does it have to be missing before they can't be a smartphone anymore? 1, 2, 10. By your logic a toaster can be a smartphone, after all it is only missing a few features.
And again, what from your list of different that what other smartphones were offering at the same time, nothing apart from multi touch, in fact the iPhone was missing a number of features (Apps, Video, 3G) that the others had
So how many features does it have to be missing before they can't be a smartphone anymore? 1, 2, 10. By your logic a toaster can be a smartphone, after all it is only missing a few features.
And again, what from your list of different that what other smartphones were offering at the same time, nothing apart from multi touch, in fact the iPhone was missing a number of features (Apps, Video, 3G) that the others had
Alright man... you lost it with the toaster quote.
Comments
So you are saying that every feature phone Nokia, or Motorola sold in 2007 were a smartphone as they all had an OS? Good lad, it is important at AI to change the rules as you go along...
Link a source as your retort.
I picked a single source that indicates how a smartphone originally was defined; it certainly might not be definitive, but it also certainly assures that your definition isn't definitive either.
I don't think even foggyhill agrees with himself. He seems to think that Nokia sold 60 million phones in 2007 rather than 60 million smart phones.
The God damn 60M phones were not smart phone by any modern definition of the term.
Many did have touch screen. They just weren't capacitive, nor multi touch.
Like I said in the other posts, there was no support for user installable apps.
Also, you guys have to get all your stories sorted, the other guys are saying Smartphones around in 2007 weren't really smartphones, but they supported everything in your list, and more
What are you going on about, I quote you saying
I replied saying your definition contradicted itself, I even said the first link in your definition, is that no enough info for you?
What are you going on about, I quote you saying
I replied saying your definition contradicted itself, I even said the first link in your definition, is that no enough info for you?
Oh dear,
I was working, being self employed and all, and it took longer to finish my reply, so I was temporally out of sync. That I chose not to further respond after that was considered and appropriate.
To wit; a smartphone definition that I or anyone else for that matter, puts up on the web is certainly viable, but it doesn't mean that it is true. The real issue is whether the industry considered the iPhone 1 a smartphone. Me, I don't really care what the definition is; it doesn't change history.
I had the flip-phone shown below. It had user-installable apps. Are you telling me it was running a smartphone OS because of that?
What OS was it running? Also, java or native apps?
Oh dear indeed. I think you have dug yourself a little hole and don't know how to get out of it.
The iPhone 1 was a smartphone, but only after iPhone OS 2.0 was released, remember you could update your iPhone when the new version of the OS came out...
Does it matter?
User-installable apps is not the only requirement to be considered a "smartphone" OS.
That flip-phone didn't have GPS or maps and didn't have native email. Yes... it had some sort of web browser (WAP) and crappy little apps... but I wouldn't consider it a "smartphone" at all. It didn't have WIFI. You couldn't export contacts or integrate into Exchange or any other system. The list of things it didn't have is longer compared to actual smartphones.
Yes, the OS does matter, I can't tell even what the model is from that crap image.
I have never said it was the only requirement, but it was one of the requirements that iPhone OS 1.x was missing.
In 2007 there were Sybmian based phones that had native email, GPS, Maps, web browser (plus WAP if you were sad enough to use that), WiFi, user installable native apps (actually S60 had that from the start), they were smartphones
Those early smartphones were phones with a few computer features bolted on. The iPhone was a computer (as witnessed by it's full desktop browser) with a phone bolted on. i.e. basically a little comptuer with a radio plugged in to one USB port and a microphone on another, with OS X (um, sorry, iPhoneOS - same thing) drivers for them both. That is the turning point. It will be the same difference between the Apple Watch and a TAG Heuer watch I bet.
The OS on that flip-phone was some crappy flip-phone OS. I don't think it even had a name... it's whatever Verizon flip-phones had on them. It was basically firmware anyway... I honestly think we're giving it too much credit by calling it an "operating system"
Anyway... here's my point:
Let's say a smartphone can be defined by 6 things.
But if a particular phone only has 5 of those things... is it not a smartphone at all? Because that's what you're suggesting.
Yes... the first iPhone didn't have user-installable apps. But look at what else it DID have. As other people have said... it was a little pocket computer that happened to make phone calls.
The original iPhone and a flip-phone are as different as can be.
The only person comparing a smartphone to a flip phone is you.
The only thing the iPhone had at release that was unique was multi touch.
You said the original iPhone was not a smartphone because it didn't run user-installed apps.
I said there is much more that defines a smartphone than user-installed apps.
One feature... or the lack of one feature... it not the difference between a smartphone and a non-smartphone.
So according to your theory your flip phone was a smartphone?
That is a Samsung SCH-A930.
It supports BREW apps, so non native, also it only supported WAP browsing, so no, I wouldn't call it a smartphone
But it supports something the iPhone didn't get to the 3GS, video recording. Talk me through that one, apart from expecting people to purchase a new phone, why didn't Apple just supply a video capture app? Even Nokia did that with the 7650 to give it video capture support.
No... I do not think that flip-phone was a smartphone. But I DO think the original iPhone was a smartphone.
The inclusion of... or lack of... certain features isn't what makes the difference between a smartphone and a non-smartphone.
You need to look at the entire package and what it offers.
Yes... the original iPhone didn't have native app support or video recording... but it did have many other things. It had WIFI, GPS, visual voicemail, IMAP email, a desktop-class web browser, and so on.
So how many features does it have to be missing before they can't be a smartphone anymore? 1, 2, 10. By your logic a toaster can be a smartphone, after all it is only missing a few features.
And again, what from your list of different that what other smartphones were offering at the same time, nothing apart from multi touch, in fact the iPhone was missing a number of features (Apps, Video, 3G) that the others had
Alright man... you lost it with the toaster quote.