You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: Tech/UK: The iPhone Critics are Missing The Point

News

Tech/UK: The iPhone Critics are Missing The Point

Thursday, December 13th, 2007 at 4:55 PM - by

The Apple iPhone, like any device, can be improved. However, those who focus on the iPhone weaknesses are missing the point, according to Nick Merritt at Tech/UK on Thursday. It's the iPhone UI that will create problems for the competition.

"What really matters technology-wise, is Apple's interface. Apple at its best has always understood this: that in these days of ubiquitous information, processing power and networking, and the infinite ways those things can be brought together to the user, with all the attendant difficulties in doing so, it is always the interface that matters most," Mr. Merritt wrote.

We all think we understand that, but what's important is that those who are in a position to copy the iPhone don't because they're in the phone business, not the UI business. One of the telltale signs that Apple understands something the competition doesn't is the underlying philosophy of the iPhone integrated design, according to Mr. Merritt: "As Jobs himself put it, in a little-noticed comment, there are no 'verbs' in the iPhone interface: that sense, familiar from Windows or OS X of selecting a file then doing something to it."

"Instead, you press an icon or select an object, then stuff happens immediately," the author continued." It sounds basic, but it's actually cutting through a lot of the assumptions that have informed computer interface design since the GUI."

As a result, Apple has a solution that sells, although the competition may not know exactly why it sells. "The response of the handset makers has been pretty unadventurous," the author concluded. "...they've been aping the eye candy rather than rethinking their designs. And who can blame them, when they have so much money tied up in the status quo?"

So while Apple improves the Apple UI based on sound principles, they're likely to stay ahead of the competition -- just as the iPod has stayed ahead of the Zune. The author concluded with this sharp insight. "Apple can and will make better featured phones - but can the handset makers make better interfaces?"

14 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:13 pm

This article IS SO WRONG. The iPhone is absolutely useless, for everyone, until Apple implements a 100% complete Microsoft Exchange client. Until then, you might as well just use regular payphones. Or any other cellphone.

Quote this post ↓

mactoid said:

member since 01 Feb 2005 with 29 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:50 pm

Guest wrote:
This article IS SO WRONG. The iPhone is absolutely useless, for everyone, until Apple implements a 100% complete Microsoft Exchange client. Until then, you might as well just use regular payphones. Or any other cellphone.

That's assuming your give a hoot about Microsoft Exchange client. One of the best features of my phone is that I CAN'T get work email on it! I have the perfect excuse to leave work AT WORK!

So, your statement is now proven wrong. It's not useless for everyone, because it is the perfect phone for me!!!

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:27 pm

Just because you are so lazy, that you don't work when you are away from work, doesn't mean that you shouldn't be working when you are away from work. Therefore, your statement is proven wrong, hence, my original statement remains correct. For all time.

Suck on THAT!

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:36 pm

Guest wrote:
This article IS SO WRONG. The iPhone is absolutely useless, for everyone, until Apple implements a 100% complete Microsoft Exchange client. Until then, you might as well just use regular payphones. Or any other cellphone.

What an incredibly obtuse comment. And clearly flame-bait. Nevertheless I will bother to say that I have absolutely no need for MS Exchange support at work or anywhere else. Nor do any of my work colleagues. Shocking I know.

Case closed

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:12 pm

That other guest is off base, but .. seems like Tech/UK missed the whole operating system UI development that has taken and continues to take place. UIs can and are easily copied. IF, and it's a big IF, the UI of the iPhone is strong enough to overcome the iPhone's shortcomings and change the face of smartphones, well, it's been done before and it will be done again. What Apple failed to understand in the 80s & 90s, and continues to fail to understand to this day with the iPhone, is that people do not like being locked into an experience that cannot be molded to their specific needs. Not everyone checks stocks every month let alone every day. For those people the stocks button on the home screen is a waste of space. Just one simple example to illustrate the inflexibility that accompanies Apple products. For people who are happy to live inside the Apple ecosystem, the iPhone is great. But the vast majority of people prefer to customize the experience to their specific needs, and beyond that expand upon the functionality of the device through software. The iPhone may be a "software driven device", but only in name as there is not a single third party application that can be installed on the device yet. There are open platforms out there for mobile devices (Symbian, WM, Android), and if the buttons on the UI is truly that great it will of course be copied. Some will copy it just for the exercise of doing so (I had the iPhone button launcher on a WM device back in February, before the iPhone was even available). So, learn from history, or, be like Apple and just repeat it.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:13 pm

Guest wrote:
This article IS SO WRONG. The iPhone is absolutely useless, for everyone, until Apple implements a 100% complete Microsoft Exchange client. Until then, you might as well just use regular payphones. Or any other cellphone.

For the majority of people who don't give a flying f*ck about Microsoft Exchange support-which, incidently, is also the majority of the iPhone user base- the iPhone is damn near perfect.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:25 pm

Guest wrote:
That other guest is off base, but .. seems like Tech/UK missed the whole operating system UI development that has taken and continues to take place. UIs can and are easily copied. IF, and it's a big IF, the UI of the iPhone is strong enough to overcome the iPhone's shortcomings and change the face of smartphones, well, it's been done before and it will be done again. What Apple failed to understand in the 80s & 90s, and continues to fail to understand to this day with the iPhone, is that people do not like being locked into an experience that cannot be molded to their specific needs. Not everyone checks stocks every month let alone every day. For those people the stocks button on the home screen is a waste of space. Just one simple example to illustrate the inflexibility that accompanies Apple products. For people who are happy to live inside the Apple ecosystem, the iPhone is great. But the vast majority of people prefer to customize the experience to their specific needs, and beyond that expand upon the functionality of the device through software. The iPhone may be a "software driven device", but only in name as there is not a single third party application that can be installed on the device yet. There are open platforms out there for mobile devices (Symbian, WM, Android), and if the buttons on the UI is truly that great it will of course be copied. Some will copy it just for the exercise of doing so (I had the iPhone button launcher on a WM device back in February, before the iPhone was even available). So, learn from history, or, be like Apple and just repeat it.

The reality however is that the vast majority of cell phone users - not the ÑŒbergeeks or business/IT/enterprise users, but mere mortals - do NOT customize their phones outside of purchasing audio (now video in Europe and Asia) ringtones or download themes or wallpapers. I think you're grossly overstating the desire for customization in the general cell phone-using population.

I agree that most iPhone users probably don't even own stocks, therefore don't really need a stock widget, but to deny that the UI of the iPhone is what sets it apart from WM or Symbian devices is denying the obvious, and shows that you still don't get the point that the Tech/UK article is making.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:57 pm

Guest wrote:
The iPhone may be a "software driven device", but only in name as there is not a single third party application that can be installed on the device yet.

There ARE third-party apps available for the iPhone. There are both the web apps currently promoted by Apple as well as native apps - even if Apple does not support their installation and use of the latter. Additionally, Apple has publicly stated that an official iPhone SDK is coming in February which means they do understand the need for *some* users to add specialized applications.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:35 am

"Until then, you might as well just use regular payphones. Or any other cellphone."

so what will IT do once everyone has chosen their "any phone" to be iPhone?

who and what, exactly, is being left in the dust here... besides you. answer: MS IT.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3547 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:09 am

Please don't feed the trolls. He's now standing back saying, "Hah, hah." And if he's not, there's not a thing you can say to change his mind.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:11 am

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
That other guest is off base, but .. seems like Tech/UK missed the whole operating system UI development that has taken and continues to take place. UIs can and are easily copied. IF, and it's a big IF, the UI of the iPhone is strong enough to overcome the iPhone's shortcomings and change the face of smartphones, well, it's been done before and it will be done again. What Apple failed to understand in the 80s & 90s, and continues to fail to understand to this day with the iPhone, is that people do not like being locked into an experience that cannot be molded to their specific needs. Not everyone checks stocks every month let alone every day. For those people the stocks button on the home screen is a waste of space. Just one simple example to illustrate the inflexibility that accompanies Apple products. For people who are happy to live inside the Apple ecosystem, the iPhone is great. But the vast majority of people prefer to customize the experience to their specific needs, and beyond that expand upon the functionality of the device through software. The iPhone may be a "software driven device", but only in name as there is not a single third party application that can be installed on the device yet. There are open platforms out there for mobile devices (Symbian, WM, Android), and if the buttons on the UI is truly that great it will of course be copied. Some will copy it just for the exercise of doing so (I had the iPhone button launcher on a WM device back in February, before the iPhone was even available). So, learn from history, or, be like Apple and just repeat it.

The reality however is that the vast majority of cell phone users - not the ÑŒbergeeks or business/IT/enterprise users, but mere mortals - do NOT customize their phones outside of purchasing audio (now video in Europe and Asia) ringtones or download themes or wallpapers. I think you're grossly overstating the desire for customization in the general cell phone-using population.

I agree that most iPhone users probably don't even own stocks, therefore don't really need a stock widget, but to deny that the UI of the iPhone is what sets it apart from WM or Symbian devices is denying the obvious, and shows that you still don't get the point that the Tech/UK article is making.

I think you're missing the point. The vast majority of cell phone users have absolutely no use for an iPhone. The vast majority of SMARTPHONE users customize to no end. Installing applications that suit their needs. Smartphone users DO want to do more than the the device does in the default configuration. If they just want to make phone calls and listen to a few tunes, then the iPhone is a waste of money, you can do that with a $100 phone that you get for free with a contract.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:13 am

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
The iPhone may be a "software driven device", but only in name as there is not a single third party application that can be installed on the device yet.

There ARE third-party apps available for the iPhone. There are both the web apps currently promoted by Apple as well as native apps - even if Apple does not support their installation and use of the latter. Additionally, Apple has publicly stated that an official iPhone SDK is coming in February which means they do understand the need for *some* users to add specialized applications.

No, there are not, there are not any native apps that one can install without violating their contract, and the ease of use is not even close to any of the truly open platforms, devices that are truly software driven. Until the SDK, which as Apple has said is not open, but will be given only to selected developers, third party apps are just vaporware.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:02 am

You cannot say that just because there are no "official" 3rd party "native" apps yet that there are no apps available at all when there clearly are (Web-based & native via hack). That you don't consider Web-based apps "real" 3rd party apps is a matter of opinion and preference, not fact.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:57 am

Guest wrote:

No, there are not, there are not any native apps that one can install without violating their contract, and the ease of use is not even close to any of the truly open platforms, devices that are truly software driven. Until the SDK, which as Apple has said is not open, but will be given only to selected developers, third party apps are just vaporware.

You must be an attorney, as you're taking a firm position on a complicated matter of law. Could you be so kind as to give us the benefit of your expertise and show us the language in the "contract" where it says what you said it says?

I haven't used a BlackBerry, but have used a Treo. It was not very easy to use, though the newer models appear to be a bit better. The "add-on" apps for the Palm OS-based Treos are often pretty bad, perhaps in part because Palm doesn't vet them.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.