For years we have been waiting for the single device that does it all. I recall back in 2005, when the Motorola Rokr was announced that maybe this was it. The Rokr was a collaboration between Motorola and Apple, and was set to take the best of both and combine them into one device. For the first time, the opportunity to have one less device to carry around was within reach. Granted, we still had our Palm Pilots to carry with the phone, but one less is
one less. I learned at a young age that pockets are valuable real estate in a man's life. I remember going shopping with my dad as a little boy, and the key factor when he would try on khakis was if the pockets were big enough. Geeks have long desired less gadgets to carry in our pockets, nevertheless it would be irresponsible to not ensure that the real estate is available. (More accurately: our significant others have desired that we carry less in our pockets.)
The Rokr was not exactly the device that we expected, however it showed that the possibility was there. I mention it first because it was Apple's first foray in the phone arena. Many other manufacturers had already been and continued to develop phones and devices under the concept of unification and multifunction. The Rokr was certainly not the first attempt at this. The smartphone has been with us since the 90's, the
first smartphone being credited to
IBM's Simon. The smartphone makers developed and maximized as many features as they could into a single device. The limitation was typically what integration the manufacturer was able to achieve with outside service providers, or what applications had been written for the OS. Since 2003, I was a faithful Sony Ericsson devotee. I was astounded with my t610 and even able to download and install
software. I was loyal to SE over the years and my last phone before an iPhone was the P1i. It was very functional, but the touch screen was annoyingly slow, and it had a pretty limited selection of applications.
iTunes, whether you use it or not, really changed the way we store our digital music and our music purchasing habits. I used Winamp in my pre-Apple days, however after seeing iTunes and then the iTunes Music Store, I could never go back. Did Winamp work? Absolutely. I could do a lot of things with it, some things that even iTunes could not. The fact remained that Apple's well executed development at an early-stage in the digital music era, surpassed everyone in the industry. iTunes' usability was astounding. Further, the same principles were implemented in the iPod and it revolutionized what we originally called
mp3 players. Recently, I have only heard them referred to as iPods (even if they aren't Apple's.)
The release of the iPhone mimicked this principle of design and execution. The functionality, usability, and design of the original iPhone were astounding. However, a few months later the
real game-changing announcement came into reality when Apple opened the App Store. When iTMS was launched, the question was which record labels would sell their content there? Apple astonished everyone with some industry deals and a strong representation by the major labels. When they announced the App Store, a similar buzz was stirring: what major companies and developers would be releasing Apps? Clearly the result has been much the same. The shear volume of apps alone is not only significant, but the industry representation in the App Store is astounding: ElectronicArts, Facebook, Twitter, Google, even Microsoft. What's even better is that while the heavy weights are in, there are still some amazing apps developed by small developers and they have been very successful.
The real shift in thinking came with the App Store. Apple allowed any developer, with a few straightforward steps and payment, to develop an app. Without going into details, there are still some confusing areas of the submission and review process, but the bulk of apps are approved. The mantra became
There is an App for that.. There really is. I am of the opinion that pundits and news media are missing the bigger picture, much the same as they did with iTunes and the iPod. This isn't about the phone.
This is about the platform.
What really boggles my mind is this: often times I am on my laptop and I want to check Twitter. My first instinct is to open
Tweetie Twitter for iPhone. I settle for an OS X application, but it feels different. The more I use my iPhone, the more iOS apps I try to launch on my MacBook Pro. The irony that I find in all of this is that for years we have been cramming feature after feature into our software, ending with what is commonly known as bloatware, or at least in terms of features and the variation of the
Pareto principle (80/20). Features that 80% of the users may or may not use. While I agree with the premise of
Joel Spolsky's post on this, and his post is more about the size of the software and the
lite versus full featured software. I think it is worth noting that the iOS platform has changed the game, the delineation is not the size anymore, or even the full feature set, it is the simplicity and usability. Developers are on a pretty even playing field, a field with a very low barrier to entry and a large market awaiting the next great app. So in the race to develop the single device that will do it all, it is interesting to see what has worked and what hasn't. The minimal approach of individual applications has prevailed, and in stark contrast with our traditional desktop environment, it is often preferred. Even when compared to other smartphone manufacturers who tried to develop their own feature driven phone OS (bloatware), this approach has prevailed. When I use iOS apps, they usually do
one thing, but they do that one thing very well. So well in fact that I want to use them even when I am not on my iPhone.
