this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
153 points (81.0% liked)

Technology

59692 readers
3254 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Genuine question.

I know they were the scrappy startup doing different cool things. But, what are the most major innovative things that they introduced, improved or just implemented that either revolutionized, improved or spurred change?

I am aware of the possibility of both fanboys and haters just duking it out below. But there's always that one guy who has a fkn well-formatted paragraph of gold. I await that guy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Quaternions@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago (4 children)

The iPhone. It was revolutionary when it came out.

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It literally created the modern smartphone market. The Palm Pilots and Blackberries of the day couldn't compare: the iPhone had a FULL BROWSER. It was insane. The team developing Android saw the iPhone and had a real "holy shit" moment, they had to go back to the drawing board and completely start over in order to compete.

[–] gdog05@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Full browser might be an overstatement. It was still a web full of Flash at that time. And it caused a pretty major limitation on the browser. If there wasn't an app available, you were often SOL. I do think it sped up the demise of Flash on the web considerably.

[–] ISometimesAdmin@the.coolest.zone 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I do think it sped up the demise of Flash on the web considerably.

That's unironically an innovation right there

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why? It was a decent technology.

[–] ISometimesAdmin@the.coolest.zone 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, it absolutely wasn't, as can testify anyone who actually had to work with it: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/the-death-of-adobes-flash-is-lingering-not-sudden/

There are lots of good reasons to get rid of Flash. Browser makers say it's a top sore spot for security, performance and shorter battery life.

https://tedium.co/2021/01/01/adobe-flash-demise-history/

Usability means a few things in this context—simplicity, ease of use, convention, and accessibility. Flash was none of those things. It took the blank-canvas approach to creativity—which was great for the artists and illustrators that originally made up its target audience, but morphed into numerous other forms that it wasn’t necessarily designed for. It fell into overuse and quickly became abused by others.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

here have been plenty of nails since. Microsoft, Mozilla and Google started cutting off browser plug-in technology, telegraphing that Flash's approach to extending browser abilities was doomed even if the browsers themselves carved out an exception for Flash.

Well, I'm in favor of that approach and I'm not in favor of Microsoft, Google and even sadly Mozilla. Even if used not for Flash but for something else.

a win in favor of a more technical, more methodical internet, one where systems are built to work efficiently, rather than experimental playthings that kind of sit in their own space.

That quote alone emotionally moves me personally in the direction opposite of what the author apparently intended.

Then there is, of course, a quote attributed to "famed usability expert", who meant something completely irrelevant to the point the author is making, judging by that quote being from year 2000.

I'm not sure he'd consider HTML5 better, and judging by his article on Java applets linked and statements made there, the closest thing to his perfect Web would be today's Geminispace, with which I can even agree in many contexts and which would be the opposite kind of Web from what the author of the article apparently wants to say.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I like the idea of the generally static (maybe just a bit scriptable) hypertext pages with embedded applets executed with plugins. It makes sense if you need an accessible standard. It doesn't if you need a monopoly which formally isn't one.

[–] Exec@pawb.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not really. To have fresh dynamic content having to install a third party plugin is a bad take. Web development was stagnating due to IE's market dominance.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

To have fresh dynamic content having to install a third party plugin is a bad take.

It was the public opinion in the 00s, yes. And I think I even thought the same back then (being a kid, so my opinion doesn't matter much ; but I did have that "afraid to catch a virus" feeling which was amplified by a page containing something in Flash).

But I disagree now, looking at all that transpired. It was a good thing that HTML (as in hypertext markup language) and JS weren't responsible for such things. And it's fine to serve applications for various interpreters over HTTP as part of webpages.

I also think that Java applets were a good idea, not just Flash, for the same reason.

Also the browser developer and the Flash developer were not the same party. Which means that Flash was more or less egalitarian between browsers.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This. Being able to actually open all those sites that used Flash was a big advantage of Android back then.

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, Android had that advantage LATER, when they got their shit together. But when the iPhone initially released, it changed the game.

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Sure, a browser minus Flash, but it was still a real browser. Most of the web functioned without Flash. And none of the competition even had anything close. It was such a revolutionary product that the iPhone didn't even HAVE competition until Android got its shit together, which took a couple years.

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

In what aspect? There were mobile devices with installable applications. And Samsung already had a phone with that form factor.

[–] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 8 points 11 months ago

I had several Symbian/WinMob phones prior to getting my first iPhone, and I never, ever want to return to those days. Sure, they were fine for the time, but using iOS for the first time was a revelation.

[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

And who bought them before iPhone came out? There were tablets before the iPad. Nobody bought them either.

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

A lot of people. If you went with idea they sold previously business oriented devices to regular users, I'd give you that. But it's not like Apple invented that format or form. I advise everyone watch documentary on Springboard, which was really really ahead of its time. When everyone was messing around with dumb phones, Springboard was working on unified device with camera built-in, connectivity, etc. In fact they were too early with their product, ten years before first iPhone. More to the point, Jobs visited Springboard, said their product was shit, and went on to produce the exact same device with better polish, which was a dick move in my opinion, but that's business. But saying Apple invented smartphones or refined them. No. It's an iterative process like everything else.

[–] toofpic@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This is the phone I had as my own and sold to my customers. It came out a year before iPhone among many others. It was a mature product. It was quite shitty in terms of performance, but it had all connectivity and gps stuff, and many apps to work with it all.
Windows' shitty interface could be improved by cool touch-oriented interfaces (Spb Mobile Shell being one of them), there were 3rd party keyboard apps as well. https://m.gsmarena.com/htc_p3600-1694.php

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 11 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

documentary on Springboard

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Apple doesnt create products. Apple creates markets. Nobody bought modern phones before the iPhone. They existed, nobody bought them. Nobody bought tablets before the iPad. They existed, nobody bought them. Nobody bought mp3 players before the iPod. They existed, nobody bought them. Everyone bought them after, and not just from Apple.

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You seriously need to get out of that bubble. If product exists, that means there's a market demand for it. By your own statement world is filled with infinitely rich companies which throw R&D resources on new products and constantly flopping and not turning profit, which is really not the case. People certainly bought MP3 players and tablets before Apple made their own version. iPod was popular but unattainable to most of the countries with poor economy and it's not like people didn't listen to music until Apple came along to save us all.

[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

What bubble? The iPod was an enormous cultural phenomenom that brought mp3 players into the mainstream. Nobody's ever heard of the saehan mpman, even though it predated the iPod for years, because it was bought by a few thousand early adopters and made no impact at all.

This guy hates apple so much he's trying to convince me they're not financially successful lmao

[–] sir_reginald@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What your arguments probe is that Apple had a better marketing team and brand recognition (due to iMac) than the manufacturers who were there before.

Yeah, Apple was financially successful, but not due to innovation. Just good marketing.

[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

So you're strawmanning me, basically. I said they created a market. I said that because it's true. I never said a damn thing about how they created the market, in fact I went to great lengths to point out that all of these devices existed before apple created theirs. You're so desperate to rant about fanboys that you inserted opinions into my post that weren't there.

Here's the deal, bro. Fanboys and haters are equally annoying. I can't imagine how empty your life must be to have such strong opinions about a fucking phone.

[–] sir_reginald@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You're so desperate to rant about fanboys that you inserted opinions into my post that weren't there.

Firstly, I'm not desperate and I didn't mention fanboys anywhere, so you made up that. My comment wasn't even a rant.

And I didn't insert any opinion. You said Apple created the market, that before the MP3 nobody wanted a mp3.

Here's the deal, bro. Fanboys and haters are equally annoying. I can't imagine how empty your life must be to have such strong opinions about a fucking phone.

What are you talking about? It was my first response to you. And I didn't even show strong opinion, just said that Apple's financial success was due to marketing and brand recognition, not innovation. That's not an strong opinion, nor hating. It is not even talking bad about Apple.

Lastly, I kept myself on topic while you made personal attacks against me and my "empty" life. Who's the one with the strong opinion here, huh?

[–] JaymesRS 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe so, but the fact remains that nobody bought mp3 players before the iPod, and everyone bought one after.

[–] JaymesRS 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I’m aware. That’s a fairly well known criticism of from the iPod announcement from Slashdot that proved to be misguided proving your point. Others may have existed, but the polish and innovation Apple put into them had a huge impact and made them go from a niche product to one for the masses. I agree with you.

[–] toofpic@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nope, there was a lot of Windows Mobile smartphones before iPhones and Androud devices. WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS, phone, thousands of apps, "full browser" (I don't know what a commenter meant by that, but I could use internet normally)
When iPhone appeared, it was sooo limited. A couple of my regular customers (I was selling qtek/htc smartphones) bought them, but then came back to me: "uhhh, this thing doesn't allow attachments in emails", "uhhh, do you have normal maps app for that? can't drive with that"

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 6 points 11 months ago

These comments are from people who wouldn't care about PDAs before iPhone.

I have big clumsy sweaty fingers and struggle even with today's big smartphones.

I was a kid back then, but those PDAs would have normal keyboards and a stylus and an OS with a UI not feeling as if it were made for asylum patients.

But that's not important, why would one even defend against really functional systems something the main features of which were "look how I can zoom pictures with two fingers on that thing", "look how cute it looks, shiny" and "look, nice icons, you'll wanna lick 'em".

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Them building a smartphone around a capacitive touchscreen with a software keyboard was the primary innovation of the iPhone.

A full browser that rendered webpages is not an innovation, that's a result of increased processing power letting them port more browser code over. Pinch to zoom interfacing on a browser might be an innovation, but a web browser on a mobile phone was not innovative, just iterative.

[–] specseaweed@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

All the browsers were complete shit though. That was iterative but it felt huge.

Imma let y’all finish but the Palm Pre was the GOAT

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I miss webOS dearly. I still have my HP TouchPad. It could put apps in the background and pick up like nothing happened from a recents screen in 2009. IIRC iOS wouldn't follow suit until 4 years later.

There was also the fantastic cross-device sharing feature. If you had an HP phone as well as the touchpad, and paired them via Bluetooth, you could place phone calls from the tablet, as well as being able to pull up a web browser on the phone and tap the phone against the tablet and have it pull up the same page on the bigger screen exactly where you left off. I've never seen anything more recent even attempt something similar. The closest I've seen is KDE Connect which adds a button to the Android share menu that opens the URL on a connected tablet, desktop, or laptop. Still all but seamless, but not nearly as cool.

And Exhibition Mode. Downloadable, interactive screensavers for when the device is locked and on its charging pedestal. Apple didn't start trying to pretend they invented that until 2020.

Early versions of the TouchPad OS even played the Angry Birds slingshot sound when you swiped down to dismiss an app from your recents menu. I miss little touches like that.