>>It was a bit of both. The original iPhone wasn't a hardware revolution, but it was an OS revolution.
I disagree. Only a very small minority cares about operating systems and revolutionizing them.
What the iPhone revolutionized was user experience. For the first time, someone invented a device that was easy to understand, fun to use, and seemingly limitless in capability. When Steve went on stage and showed it off, the minds of everyone in the audience went into overdrive to start imagining all the possible things they could do with it. Both the hardware and the OS were designed to maximize those aspects of the device.
This is what sets the iPhone apart from its competitors, who to this day focus on hardware features and software gimmicks. In my opinion neither Android nor Windows Phone have managed to capture and learn to communicate in the higher level thinking that constitutes UX. They are still great operating systems. They just work in a very different context.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing. I'm not saying that the average iPhone user has remarked "Core Graphics is great! It makes my phone so responsive and fast!". I'd be very surprised if any lay iOS user has ever said that ;)
But the idea is the level of interactivity and the UX around iPhone would have been impossible without the platform Apple first built for OSX.
Many other manufacturers at the time had UX ambitions like Apple, but were held back by their own platforms. This infamous video comparing the concept renders of the Nokia N97 vs. what shipped really demonstrates this:
It's not that Apple didn't innovate on the UX, they sure as hell did, but rather that they bought themselves a huge lead on the competition by having, for all practical purposes, the only platform around that could even do something like that.
When Steve went on stage and showed it off, the minds of everyone in the audience went into overdrive to start imagining all the possible things they could do with it.
Interesting that it wasn't the first time an Apple CEO went on stage and showed off a pocket tablet, and the minds of everyone in the audience went into overdrive to start imagining all the possible things they could do with it.
What the Newton, in 1993, revolutionized was user experience. For the first time, someone invented a device that was easy to understand, fun to use, and seemingly limitless in capability. Except it wasn't limitless. The public mind was thrilled with the concept, embraced the wonderous new platform, and got...egg freckles? http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/db9... The OS, hardware, UI, UX, all were revolutionary - and some revolutions fail. Steve killed it promptly upon his return, and I imagine nonetheless studied it a great deal, taking some 13 years between unveilings to get it right, making sure the engaged public didn't overwhelm the second attempt.
I disagree. Only a very small minority cares about operating systems and revolutionizing them.
What the iPhone revolutionized was user experience. For the first time, someone invented a device that was easy to understand, fun to use, and seemingly limitless in capability. When Steve went on stage and showed it off, the minds of everyone in the audience went into overdrive to start imagining all the possible things they could do with it. Both the hardware and the OS were designed to maximize those aspects of the device.
This is what sets the iPhone apart from its competitors, who to this day focus on hardware features and software gimmicks. In my opinion neither Android nor Windows Phone have managed to capture and learn to communicate in the higher level thinking that constitutes UX. They are still great operating systems. They just work in a very different context.